Why_Nut

And did she have fun? Was the joy of performance shining on her face? I see little of that on JonBenet's face in this clip, and more of a "get the job done" aspect. I think we can see, from the elaborate choreography of this segment, that at least it proves JonBenet did not just come home from Sunday morning church, throw on that outfit, and off to the pageant she and Patsy went, as Patsy would have us believe.

 

Thanks for the tips on playing the videos, Why_Nut. That worked. It just kept playing a little and then stopping the first time, but after that, it played smoothly.

You know, what I see when I see JonBenet in the pageant is a child who really can't sing well trying to remember what comes next exactly. She's trying very hard to get it right, isn't she? I have been involved in the performing arts, and it's a lot of pressure. Maybe she was one of those kids who didn't get stressed about it. I don't know, as I never knew her. I doubt we'll ever know.

What I do know is that this kind of costuming, endless photos shoots and costume changes, rehearsals, lessons, makeup, hair, traveling, performing--it's not just a few Sunday afternoons. That was one of Patsy's BIG LIES early on. Obviously, she was denying the truth. Why would she do that? Did she think people had no idea what this kind of committment takes? Or was she feeling guilty and denying the truth to herself?

What I was thinking after viewing the mall performance so few days before her murder: why on earth was she singing and dancing in a mall in that garrish costume? Was this part of a pageant? I can't imagine any reason a parent would take a child JonBenet's age and put her out in the center of a mall, singing off key, if it wasn't part of a competition.

In fact, I wonder why Patsy made her sing at all. Maybe it was part of the requirement for the pageants? I have no idea. She was so young, I'm not doing a criticism or review of her. She was cute, no doubt. But it's the mall thing that has me wondering....

Anybody remember the exact event at the mall?

 

Why_Nut I found it dark, and the audio kept cutting out. I have had this flat monitor for a few months now, and I'm still trying to adjust the brightness, but my video sounds normally work quite well.

 

And that's exactly what I was saying.

It's obvious JonBenet is programmed like a little automaton ... sing like this, walk like this, look like this, move like this ... on cue. Did the poor child EVER have an unrehearsed and completely natural moment in her short life?

When I see these clips, I feel so sorry for her and the enormous pressure she was under to be what Patsy wanted her to be, which was "perfect."

 

Sorry WN. I see no more than a look of sheer concentration on her face. We know she could be willful - ala refusal to wear the matching outfit on Christmas Day. I think if she didn't want to perform, she would have refused/had a tantrum.

One thing about children (and adults) performing is that concentration makes them look miserable. I've been involved in amateur theatre production for years and the one thing that is ALWAYS getting hammered into the performers is the word "SMILE - for heavens sake - you look as though you're at a funeral". It takes practice to smile AND concentrate.

On many occasions I have seen our producer get the cast to sit in the audience's seats (at a rehearsal) whilst he impersonated them performing with their long faces/eyebrows drawn down looking as though they were at a funeral (often singing some jolly song!). The cast always roll about laughing at this but it is rarely too much of an exaggeration. During a rehearsal, we can shout "SMILE!" at them and they will - but you can't do that at an actual performance. Members of the rpoduction team will be wither at the back of the theatre or in the wings muttering "Look at the faces".

 

I disagree about this. She learned little routines and I don't see that her song routines are any different from any other performance whether it be a dance routine or a gymnastic display or playingg a musical instrument. Choreography is an essential part of any production.

A child who gets up and moves naturally may demonstrate some natural grace or innovation, but it takes a different skill to learn a routine and perform it accurately. That is a discipline and you know me - I think discipline is a good thing!

Take martial arts - anyone can put on a gi and stamp about - knees bent making karate chop movements, kicking and yelping. However it takes much training to perform a kata (simulated fight) and to do it gracefully and accurately shifting the body's weight properly and to kiai (shout) at the correct moments in order to focus one's energy correctly.

Of course, routine is an essential part of my life so maybe that influences my opinion here.

 

I remember reading in the books, Jay, it was Patsy Ramsey who taught her the provocative moves.

http://www.davidicke.net/emagazine/vol11/news/innocent.html\\

The beauty pageant frenzy in the last year of JonBenet's life seems to have been part of her preparation for entry into the group. As the California informant said, the children were required to act adult and provocative at these gatherings. Several other beauty pageant mothers who knew JonBenet have commented on the inappropriateness of her routines. Her pageant coach claims that these moves did not come from her. Apparently, Patsy herself taught her daughter how to do her very adult bumps and grinds.

 

JonBenét being provocative

A few terrific posts relating to the topic on hand "JonBenét being provocative"

From FFJ posts:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=5655

 

I'm not referring to her movements Elle - I am referring to the expression on her face. She has a long face at times whilst she is singing but this is absolutely normal for a young/amateur performer and is a sign of concentration or even just awe at performing in front of an audience.

Sometimes they just look utterly miserable and you could be forgiven for thinking they really aren't enjoying themselves - but that is quite simply not the case. Our forthcoming production has a cast of 81 pupils! They were all desperate to be in the show and they will have an absolutem ball doing this - but I'll bet you that more than a few will be on that stage looking as though they lost a pound and found a sixpence!

regarding the "provocative" movements - I cannot really comment about those as I haven't really seen the pageant videos - certainly haven't seen anything I'd describe as "provocative" (no more than I was ever taught to do at my own dancing classes as a child). However, I have read that a coach whose name I forget (I am thinking it was a name which could be male) criticised the movements and denied that she had taught them to Jonbenet. She suggested that Patsy must have retaught Jonbenet. Patsy OTOH claimed to have paid a girl called Kristen to coach Jonbenet too.

I am also thinking that if the media went to the woman coach and asked her if she had taught Jonbenet provocative movements she would have denied it anyway.

 

The expressions on her face Jay. "are seductive." Everything about JonBenét's performance is seductive.


I have seen many children performing over the years at school concerts and at other types. I have never seen any perform like JonBenét Ramsey. When I was a youngster, I also attended tap dancing school, and our concerts were so far removed from all this hoopla. Times have changed,of course, I do realize this, but I think Patsy Ramsey got carried away with herself when it came to promoting JonBenét.

Little has posted above about JonBenét's dancing instructor Kit Andre who was in pageants herself when she was younger.
jmo

You will need to see a video, Jay. You might change your mind (?).

 

I don't think it is unusual for kids to perform in malls, like on that clip. I know it is done here.

I am not dreaming that I read over the weekend that JonBenet wore blue contacts. And I am still wondering if that is true. (It was a new post on an old thread that Brefie pulled up.) Imho, bleaching a six-year-old's hair is extreme, but if she was made to wear contacts, that's abuse as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for the information from PTPM, Elle.

 

JC, I should have spaced the following information above, a bit better than I did.
Will do that now, JC. Thanks

Little - November 27, 2004, 5:14 pm Sat Nov 27 17:14:48 CST 2004

I came across a "few second" clips of JonBenét at: http://maketoast.com/videos/videos.html

 

Clearly, we are all seeing different expressions. Why_Nut thinks she is wearing an expression of resignation (Let's get the job done), I see that as concentration and you see it as seductive.

Actually, I'm not sure that I would recognise a seductive expression on a six year old. Provocative movements can be taught - winks and smiles can be taught but I don't think they would be reflecting the child's feelings - and therefore they wouldn't be real. Usually, our facial expressions reflect our inner feelings and sometimes we cannot disguise our feelings because our facial expressions give them away.

I don't think personally smiling and winking is seductive - I think it's cute/cheeky. A child blowing kisses isn't seductive. Pouting is seductive. Quivering lips are seductive. Half closing eyes is seductive. Licking the lips can be seductive. Does JonBenet do any of these? I've never seen anything like that - but then I've only really seen the Rocking around the Christmas tree video.

 

Re the Lou Smit clip. Do we not get to see him actually going through the window? IMO, that would be the most informative part of the experiment. He goes into the well and then it skips to him landing on the floor. Since the RST harp on and on about the disturbance on the window sill - wouldn't it be great to see how Lou actually got himself through that window?

I feel cheated LOL

EDITED TO SAY: I didn't realise there was a second clip showing Smit going through the window. He did have to wriggle though and his bottom would have disturbed the window sill and I reackon his bottom would have been pretty dirty too. Look at all the places he had to put his hands - and I cannot believe that someone would not leave a zillion fibres from squeezing through there. Smit is pretty lean built. Santa was not - he was portly. I do not think there is any way Santa could have manoevred in through that window. Eve-2 is getting herself worked into a frenzy about Santa LOL

I'll tell you what - I would PAY to see a video of John the Stripper going through that window!

 

I think a lot of the "seductive" energy we see in JB's pageant performances has a lot to do with her costumes and makeup.

I have no problem with kids learning to dance and sing. But at that young age, most that I know of do so in group classes, like dance classes and choirs. Private voice and dance lessons at six is waaaaaaaaay over the top, to me. It puts too much pressure on the child, IMO.

I understand that Patsy decided JB was going to be ready when she went to the pageants. I understand that the children in these have parents who spend a small fortune and do things to their children I'd never even consider doing to a child. When I saw a small child being SPRAYED WITH TANNING MAKEUP on a show about these pageants, I couldn't believe it! It took an hour to do that child's hair for the pageant. Teasing. Mascara. Eyeliner. An occastional amateur theater or dance performance is one thing, OK. But I don't think JonBenet was part of a "group" in her training and performances. All I've ever seen are pictures of her out there alone.

I don't know about the blue contacts. I do know it was said Patsy put them on JB, but I haven't ever seen a source for that which I remember. I can't imagine a doctor making such a thing for a child for no other purpose than a beauty pageant. I'm not sure they even use them on children who need glasses. If they do, I think it's a damn shame and an abomination.

But then, I think the same about breast implants for vanity only. I can't imagine sticking plastics in my body to please any man. I understand the attraction of large breasts, but if that's what a relationship is based on, to the point of risking one's health, then who needs it? That's all about appearance and is the epitome of shallow. The risk during surgery, the follow-up surgeries to "fix" problems, and then the replacement years later--life has enough curves to throw a human body through its life cycle, why buy trouble? Just my opinion, but there it is.

Patsy has implants, doesn't she?

Look, I'm no saint, and I don't expect anyone to think or feel as I do. But a child was murdered here. She was part of a world all about appearance and performing for others. She was six years old. She spent more time in front of a camera than most of us do in a lifetime. She had her hair bleached. She wore hair extensions. She had costume fittings. She had private dance lessons and performance coaching. She was in about about 9 pageants in 2 years, I believe. She performed as Marilyn Monroe at her school for the children there. She wore more makeup than a streetwalker in those events. She performed at the mall three days before someone bashed her head in, molested her, and strangled the life out of her.

And the autopsy proves someone was molesting her before that night, no matter how hard the RST denies it. How obtuse do you have to be to refuse to even consider that a child who ended up molested and murdered under her parents' noses, who had healing vaginal injuries to her vagina and a broken and largely missing hymen, COULD have been molested before that night? It's absurd and pure spin to dismiss those prior vaginal injuries as "innocent."

I recently read somewhere, on the forums, I think, JonBenet might have gone to a therapist/psychiatrist. I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, then that's your "HISTORY" right there.

I was watching Why_Nut's video of the Geraldo show from last December, re-visiting the case. There was that fool, St. Augustine, saying there were a SLEW of children who were attacked and sexually assaulted in Boulder around that time.

Oh, yeah he did!

Can you imagine telling such a lie on national TV? And did the reporter interviewing him even comment on it? Ask him about it? Nope. But it's the first WE'VE heard of it. If he calls JonBenet and the teen who was allegedly attacked in her bed 9 months later "a slew," then the man can't add one and one.

But that's the RST for you. Lie, exaggerate, mislead, spread all the disinformation they can.

I looked at Why_Nut's video of Smit climbing in that window well. All other arguments aside, Smit had to drag his butt over into the well. He literally couldn't get into it without shoving his backside against the edge of the window well wall while climbing in. Did the forensic evidence collectors look for fiber samples on the edge of that wall? I hope so.

And the camera angle used by Tracey's spin team was deliberately positioned to make Smit look like a giant. While he was talking to someone (Katie?) before climbing in, the camera was shooting him from the ground, looking up at him. How "staged" is that? Disgusting!

But that's the RST for you. Anything to promote the "intruder" theory.

Here's the link to WN's website with those videos if you want to see them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CLZ3rgF-mI&search=jonbenet

 

On yonder forum it is claimed that no pornography was ever found at the Ramsey home. I have heard it said from several reliable sources that although there were leaks, a LOT of the police files were not leaked and that there is evidence we do not know about.

I'd like to know if it is true that no pornography was found. Not from the RST - I'd like to hear it from a neutral source. The RST say that none was found because if it had been - ST would have leaked it. I would question that because:-

a) Patsy was ST's prime suspect and it's quite unlikely any porn would be Patsy's

b) regular porn doesn't really mean much - it would be a different matter if it had been child porn.

jameson once claimed that John's home pc wasn't connected to the Internet and we found out from the warrant that this was a complete lie.

 

Yeah, well, they love to use "negative" evidence on yonder forum as proof that it was an intruder.

But not knowing about something doesn't mean it's not there.

I personally think like you, Jayelles, that it's a moot point anyway.

It is just another example of how the swampsters use very bad argument "tactics" to prove their OPINIONS.

How about that NANCY 2? Yet another RST red herring promoted at the swamp, another wild goose chase from another mental case, all to prove it COULD have been an intruder!

Finally some of the swampsters began asking the obvious questions arising from the smoke screen of Nancy 2's crapola: there are so many holes in her story, no one with a lick of sense would buy it.

And yet another BOOK that didn't get written!

Puhleeze. I haven't looked today, but I can't wait to see how Nancy 2 'splains that she was "helping" the family look for the kidnappers 4 years after they were identified and one convicted, while the other committed suicide.

How she even sold this story to the Globe back in 2002, I'll never know. I hope they gave her a dime for it. It's not worth that.

 

Lou Smit's "Shoe Scuff" on Basement Wall

In Why Nut's clips, we have Lou Smit declaring that the mark on the wall, below the window where he decided the intruded entered the house, is a shoe scuff. This is incorrect and based on absolutely nothing.

The wall in question is a concrete foundation wall that has soil on its outside face and the basement air on the other face. It appears to me from the photos and videos that the wall is a poured concrete wall rather than a block wall that has been parged (plastered). The vintage of the house makes this the likely structure as well. The wall has been painted, probably more than once over the years.

Concrete, my dear FFJ-ers, is made from sand, gravel, water, and Portland cement. A chemical reaction occurs (actually, several reactions) when the water combines with the cement when the concrete is mixed. Within a few hours, the reaction causes the concrete to harden, and then over time it gains its structural strength. (Cement is not concrete, it's just a powder in the mix. There's no such thing as a "cement driveway" , because it would blow away in the wind. Engineer geek humor here!)

What many people, including Ace Det. Smit, don't understand is that concrete continues to be a reactive material during its entire existence. It is also porous, and older concrete can be like a stiff sponge. If you put salt on concrete bridges to melt snow and ice, the chlorides in the salt enter the concrete pores and causes the reinforcing steel inside to rust. Concrete in seawater, such as a pier, deteriorates because the sulfates in the seawater break down the cement paste.

Concrete placed next to soil is subject to infiltration by the groundwater in the soil, and whatever contaminants are in the soil (de-icing salt thrown on the patio above, natural sulfates in Western soils) dissolve in the groundwater and get into the concrete with the water. It's like it "wicks" through to the drier side. On its way, it can break down the cement into other things, including salts and gypsum.

This results in stains or marks such as are visible in the video of the "detective" going through the window. There's not just one where Lou sees a scuffmark, there are other stains at the corners of the window sills. If you paint a wall, possibly to cover up the stains, it doesn't stop the process. In fact, it can cause the moisture to sit right at the surface of the concrete and cause further problems, but that's for the next class.

I've seen thousands of marks like this one, and it didn't come from a shoe.

 

Was the scuff mark analysed? I would have thought they'd be able to come up with some test to say whether it could have come from a Hi-Tec boot.

 

I don't know if LE "analyzed" the "scuff mark," but it would have been very easy to do and taken, oh, five minutes.