Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Sabrina, Dec 14, 2006.
I can scan the pages if that won't be against policy.
From this page which I received from Little, I can see a very dark bruise on the left side of Patsy's chest, just below her necklace. When enlarged it really does look like a bruise, not just shadow.
I was just thinking as I look at this photo. How many mothers would have a photo taken with their young daughter made up like this? I don't know how old JonBenÃ©t was when this photo was taken (?).
And why would they do this Ella? It's weird!
I think the bruise is just her cleavage. It's purplish, true, but it's in the right place for being cleavage shadowing.
Not that I would know, or anything...I have no shadows there at all!!
And not that I don't think John Ramsey is capable of battering...But I also think Patsy, make-up mistress that she was, would never have a photo taken with a visible bruise.
Frankly, I think both parents are culpable.
It was the fair thing to do.
Elle, I'm guessing this pic was taken when she was five years old. And it looks like they're wearing matching lipstick. How lovely.
Yep, me too. Unlike the experts, I believe John had more guilt than did Patsy. Or, he should have had more guilt, IF he could feel guilt, which he cannot.
No, I don't think so. I naturally thought of this first. It is not a shadow or anything relating to the cleavage. As stated before, when enlarged it looks more like the way a bruise naturally discolours.
Cleavage is directly under the middle of the neck, but further down, of course This mark is further over to the left side of where the cleavage is.
Why_Nut's opinion would be valued here. He's the pro.
I think it just proves how much JonBenÃ©t had to wear makeup to suit Patsy, Little. I have never seen a mother-daughter photo like this anywhere (?).
Not a natural photo, Tea, is it? It's Theatrical.
Those are the "Lolita" pictures of JonBenet. There are more like that. Bizarre, unnatural, provocative. No wonder Lou Smit said that the poor innocent child was a "pedophile's dream."
Look at these comments from Adrian Lyne, re: the Lolita-JonBenet connection:
Lolita Debuts On Video -- Without A Fuss
14 October 1999 (StudioBriefing)
Lolita (1997) is debuting uneventfully on home video this week -- without any of the uproar that accompanied its (brief) theatrical release last year -- after nearly two years of rejection by North American distributors. In an interview with today's (Thursday) Los Angeles Times, director Adrian Lyne commented, "I wasn't really prepared for the sort of paranoia that surrounded the subject matter of the film. I think the climate in America was different three years ago. Everybody now talks about violence, but at that time, because of the JonBenet Ramsey case, there was an obsession with pedophilia. So there was a certain amount of paranoia." Lyne has always maintained that the film does not countenance pedophilia, insisting that he wanted it to reflect the Vladimir Nabokov novel. He told the Times: "The novel manages to be many things. It manages to be horrific in what this man does to the kid, and it manages to be funny and tragic and, in the end, a love story."
Patsy put her baby out there for all the sickos to see and obsess over.
I'm not Why Nut, but I think the shadow is from the blouse frilly collar peak to the right of the shadow. When a photog shoots pictures, the subject is lit from both sides, and if you notice the dark spot matches the peak and shape of the frill.
Well, that's my 2 cents.
I think it might be dark make-up put there for the picture.
An important point of debate for many years now is finally cleared up by Dr. Lee in this article.
Dr. Lee states that he advised Hunter NOT to try for an indictment BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT:
I think this is clear at last: THE GRAND JURY NEVER VOTED FOR OR AGAINST AN INDICTMENT.
The RST has lied for years now, saying the grand jury voted NO INDICTMENT, stating that this is proof there was no evidence to indict the Ramseys. Not true, according to Dr. Lee. Dr. Lee believed "...none of the evidence tied a specific person to the crime." Dr. Lee states that "...there was enough evidence to establish the level of proof needed to indict Patsy Ramsey of, at least, obstruction of justice," but NO LUCK fell their way to give them a solid case of who did what that night.
That LUCK was clearly undercut by the Ramsey lawyers getting all the evidence handed to them by Hunter's office BEFORE they would let LE question them. THAT'S THE TACTIC THAT LOST THIS CASE FOR THE BDA. You don't GIVE the prime suspects EVIDENCE before you even FORMALLY INTERVIEW THEM. The Ramsey lawyers were careful to time and construct every interview the Ramseys gave LE, demanding specific terms and setting limits to questions. That way, the Ramseys knew what to expect and what to say in response to the evidence.
You see, when questioning a suspect, you trip him/her up if they are telling lies because they don't know THE EVIDENCE. Once they KNOW what you have, they can construct their story accordingly to explain it. When you have TWO suspects, you hand them the evidence and give them all the time they want, and you have TWO PEOPLE COORDINATING THEIR STORIES.
That's the Ramsey case in a nutshell. LE had their hands tied behind their backs by Hunter the minute he refused to get elementary warrants for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes, when he allowed Pam to scourge the house of select evidence, and when he handed evidence over the Ramsey lawyers with the excuse they'd cooperate willingly if Hunter and LE played nice.
THAT'S NOT HOW YOU BUILD A CASE! THAT'S NOT HOW YOU INVESTIGATE A CASE!
Hunter sold this case to the devil, and Dr. Lee only THOUGHT he was advising Hunter. Hunter knew he wasn't going to indict the Ramseys from day one. If not for Thomas resigning and writing that letter to the governor, the governor then calling a special panel of lawyers to look into Hunter's handling of the case and then instructing Hunter to call a grand jury TWO YEARS TOO LATE, there wouldn't have even BEEN a grand jury called. Hunter resisted that as long as he could. That's why Hunter HATES Thomas. Michael Kane, brought in as a grand jury specialist, stated that the grand jury should have been brought in as an investigative tool much earlier in the case.
So there you have it: the Boulder DA deliberately undermined the case of a child murder because the parents were wealthy and influential and had lawyers only that kind of money can buy. Hunter is the single person who allowed a child murderer to go free. Without Hunter's corruption and incompetence, Lou Smit would not have been spinning the case evidence BY HIMSELF, GIVEN THE RIGHTS TO THAT EVIDENCE NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS, to do so year after year after year.
And now we see that THE GRAND JURY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST AN INDICTMENT.
Just wanted to clear THAT up at long last. Not that the RST will QUIT telling that lie, but at least we now have it straight from the horse's advisor's mouth, anyhow: NO VOTE BY THE GRAND JURY.
I wonder what Cookie's thoughts on this would be (?). I think a professional photographer would have airbrushed this, KK. When enlarged, you see her freckles too.
I'm, hoping Why_Nut will come across this and tell me more.
Now that you mention it, I believe using dark makeup to create deeper-looking cleavage is a common make-up trick used by celebs and beauty pageant contestants. LIKE DUCT TAPE. Good catch.
You're right, Lurker. Not your every day mother-and-daughter casual photo shoots when it came to Patsy.
I think it looks awful whatever it is - sorry! Almost looks as if she was man handled (?).
Separate names with a comma.