JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[Wendy31]

Regarding Patsy's clothes, I watched the A & E investigation show last night.

They showed clips of the separate police interviews w/ both John & Patsy.

The police DID ask Pasty about the clothes she was wearing. She told them she had put on clean underwear, but that, yes, she had put back on the clothes from the night before. And, as she's talking, the man interviewing interrupts her & says something like, "Wait a minute... isn't that odd?" And that's when Patsy tells him, "I put on clean underwear."

The police also asked John what Patsy was wearing & what JonBenet was wearing.

The police interview "expert" they had on said that the Patsy wearing the same clothes was the one thing she "missed" in the careful staging & that it would be very unusual for a woman of her social standing & someone very concerned w/ her looks to wear the same outfit twice in a row.

I don't know who I think killed JonBenet. I've always been fascinated by the case, & I honestly go back & forth w/ thinking family vs. an intruder.

For one thing, the pineapple bothers me. Not that Patsy's & Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, but that Patsy & John claimed she was asleep when they got home & they have no idea how the pineapple got there. But an intruder taking time to feed her pineapple doesn't really fit any of the various intruder scenarios either.

However, back to the clothes, it would not be that unusual for me to wear the same clothes two days in a row - provided no one who saw me the first time would be seeing me the second time. And this would especially be true for special or "holiday" wear. I could see wearing a red Christmas sweater to a party & then wearing the same outfit for a different occasion - in this case, flying on a plane to see family for the holidays. And I'm also thinking that, if they were leaving that morning, everything would have already been packed in suitcases - not that ALL her clothes would have been packed, of course - but I could see planning out my outfits as I packed & thinking, "I'll just wear on the plane what I wore to the party... that'll be the easiest thing."

EDITED TO ADD - According to the A & E show, police documentation shows that JonBenet HAD wet the bed that night.

They used the bed-wetting as a possible motive in the "Patsy did it" scenario.

To be fair, after the various "Patsy or Burke did it" scenarios, they also showed all the various intruder evidence & looked at different scenarios there as well.

 

[LisaR]

My assumption is the police asked her for the clothes that she was wearing the night of the party. The thought being that she wore the clothes to the party, came home, killed her daughter, got all kinds of blood on those clothes and now they wanted to test them. Unfortunately for them, she was wearing the clothes which were clearly not stained with blood. How does one cause an 8" gash on their child's head and not manage to get even a single drop of blood on their clothing? That tells me one of two things. Patsy planned in advance to kill JBR. She changed clothes, killed her, and then hid or destroyed that clothing and put her clothes on from the night before. Or, she didn't do it!

 

[cabanafrau]

There are ways it can fit.

JBR gets up because she wet the bed, goes downstairs with her brother to get a snack. PR finds them eating, AND JBR is wet or in different clothes. PR goes off, kills her. Then the parents send the brother back to his room. They stage the crime scene.

Or, JBR and brother goes downstairs for the snack, brother kills her. Parents find out, send brother to bed and stage the crime scene.

Either explain the prints on the bowl. And the snack. And the clothes.

Is there enough objective evidence to support either of those two possible scenarios? If not, either possibility is about as valid as anything written by students in a creative writing class given an outline and some prompts from which to write an assignment.

 

[Hikergirl]

I thought part 2 was very interesting, as it focused on the suspects. There was a summary of Bill McReynolds whom I had read a lot about, but also Michael Helgoth who I really hadn't heard much about. Also they identified a drifter that attended JonBenet's candlelight vigil, had pictures of her plastered all over his walls and was found with a stun gun in his backpack. What struck me as really odd is that he cut out her pictures and put them on Monopoly money. Tonight's episode features Karr, who is beyond creepy. Not sure I want to watch that part. (but I know I will!)

Wow, I had no idea about that. Didn't Smit believe the marks on her were from a stun gun? I know there are other theories about those marks but he was hired because at the time he was one of the best investigators. It seems that someone who was obsessed with Jonbenet AND had a stungun would be on the radar. I don't remember ever hearing of him at the time, only heard how the parents had done it (in the media).

 

[kidshop]

based on my knowledge of How Criminals Behave from my extensive crime show viewing, it is likely the killer knew JonBenet, and cared about her, hence the covering her up with the blanket. I think the blanket was from her room. That is also a trait for women murderers to cover their victims. Before watching the current shows I was not aware of how brutal her death was since the going theory was that she was unconscious first.

 

[LisaR]

Okay, first of all, who granted permission for the tape with the child psychologist to even be aired publicly? Did it say? Because wouldn't that be a HUGE legal issue?

Second, how ridiculous about the picture of his family. He drew a picture of his mom, dad, and himself because that was his family that remained. That does not indicate murdering his sister to me. As an adult, I'd probably add my deceased child in the pic. As a 9 year old, I may have drawn the grave, or an angel, or left her out altogether because my mind worked differently as a child. He couldn't win if he tried. Had he drawn anything else, they would twist it to show he's a sociopath that was deeply troubled and jealous and murdered his sister. I believe had he included her in the picture, he still would have had that twisted somehow.

Dh and I enjoyed making a game of it at least, by pretending Dr. Phil also asked stuff such as this:

Dr. Phil: Burke, I heard you had an older sister that died in a car wreck years before JB. Did YOU cut her brakes or mess with her car somehow?

Dr. Phil: Did your mom hate her stepdaughter enough to arrange a car wreck?

Dr. Phil: Was your dad associated with anyone who had a mechanical knowledge of cars?

Seriously, Dr. Phil...leave that boy alone! You aren't going to get to be a hero and get your coerced confession today.

No kidding!

As for the drawing, Burke even forgot to draw himself!! He thought about it and then drew dad. Then he thought some more and added mom. And then he's like, "Hmmm....who else? Oh wait! I forgot to draw me." It looked to me like he wasn't thinking of his family in terms of "all of us." He was thinking about it in terms of his parents. Since he almost forgot to draw himself, I can certainly see why he didn't draw JBR.

It's also interesting to me that at that point he wouldn't have been coached much, if at all, since it was only 13 days later. It sounds like he spent very little time with his parents in those 13 days because they were dealing with so many other things. At 9, it certainly would have been very easy for him without his parents or other adults looking out for him to give some kind of clue that something was amiss. "Yeah, I stayed in my bed because my mom was yelling again. She always yells at us." A simple little clue like that that would be totally innocent to a 9 y/o but enlightening to everyone else. But nope, totally alone and at only 9, he had nothing because there was nothing to show.

 

[cabanafrau]

Wow, I had no idea about that. Didn't Smit believe the marks on her were from a stun gun? I know there are other theories about those marks but he was hired because at the time he was one of the best investigators. It seems that someone who was obsessed with Jonbenet AND had a stungun would be on the radar. I don't remember ever hearing of him at the time, only heard how the parents had done it (in the media).

Just from a fast google search I did earlier in this thread because of a discussion I was in with another poster about the stun gun speculation, this case came up first in the search I did about stun guns, along with expert opinions on both sides as to whether the marks came from a stun gun or not. As far as I can tell it's not been definitively established what the marks are from.

As far as the drifter, those things definitely seem worth checking him out, but it's equally likely he became "obsessed" after the fact due to the media frenzy.

 

[gemini2727]

It was tongue in cheek. For the people who want to put forward the mom killing her and staging the rest the pineapple is a detail best disregarded.

Of course for those who insist the pineapple must be a sinister part of the plot there's also the hurdle of there not really being a definitive scientific answer as to the digestive rate of pineapple, so it's best to insist the pineapple was eaten during the night and was fed to her by her killer and pretend there is no disagreement amongst doctors in the field regarding the digestive rates.

Wow, this case is so easy to solve if you just pick a theory and ignore all the other stuff that is problematic or questions your theory.

Missed the sarcasm, my mistake.

Not sure if the rest of your post is referring to my comment, haven't had a chance to read the rest of the thread yet. I personally have no definitive theory on this case, how could I?

 

[cabanafrau]

Missed the sarcasm, my mistake.

Not sure if the rest of your post is referring to my comment, haven't had a chance to read the rest of the thread yet. I personally have no definitive theory on this case, how could I?

Nope, not directed at you. Just a general comment on the value of all these "investigative" shows in a case this complex and how they shape the view of the evidence they present to "prove" their narrative.

 

[gemini2727]

Nope, not directed at you. Just a general comment on the value of all these "investigative" shows in a case this complex and how they shape the view of the evidence they present to "prove" their narrative.

Ok, thanks, and ITA with you on that.

 

[Wendy31]

Nope, not directed at you. Just a general comment on the value of all these "investigative" shows in a case this complex and how they shape the view of the evidence they present to "prove" their narrative.

Right. Regardless of what narrative the show is trying to prove, we're not getting all the details & evidence.

As I said above, I have to admit the pineapple bothers me. But I also want to know if pineapple was served at the party, &, if that's been told, I've never read it or heard it.

 

[Tasha228]

No kidding!

As for the drawing, Burke even forgot to draw himself!! He thought about it and then drew dad. Then he thought some more and added mom. And then he's like, "Hmmm....who else? Oh wait! I forgot to draw me." It looked to me like he wasn't thinking of his family in terms of "all of us." He was thinking about it in terms of his parents. Since he almost forgot to draw himself, I can certainly see why he didn't draw JBR.

It's also interesting to me that at that point he wouldn't have been coached much, if at all, since it was only 13 days later. It sounds like he spent very little time with his parents in those 13 days because they were dealing with so many other things. At 9, it certainly would have been very easy for him without his parents or other adults looking out for him to give some kind of clue that something was amiss. "Yeah, I stayed in my bed because my mom was yelling again. She always yells at us." A simple little clue like that that would be totally innocent to a 9 y/o but enlightening to everyone else. But nope, totally alone and at only 9, he had nothing because there was nothing to show.

Exactly! He just seemed like a normal kid to me! It didn't come off as sinister or anything of the sort. I could have seen my 8 yo ds doing the same thing thinking about who to draw and forgetting himself to last. Seemed pretty consistent for his age IMO...especially after the trauma his family had just endured. Plus, his answers didn't seem forced or fake to me.

 

[AppleDumpling]

Don't know if it's ever been mentioned, but did the Ramsey home have an alarm system? It seems unusual that a house that large in an affluent neighborhood would not.

 

[stitch'sgirl]

Wow, I had no idea about that. Didn't Smit believe the marks on her were from a stun gun? I know there are other theories about those marks but he was hired because at the time he was one of the best investigators. It seems that someone who was obsessed with Jonbenet AND had a stungun would be on the radar. I don't remember ever hearing of him at the time, only heard how the parents had done it (in the media).

Michael Helgoth also had a stun gun. It was found next to him when he was found dead. He had also told someone that he and a colleague was coming into money, "about $50,000-$60,000 each" around Christmas time. When that acquaintance asked about it after Christmas, Helgoth told him it had fallen through.

I forgot which special talked about when Lou Smit was assigned to the case, he thought it would be a quick, easy assignment as he thought the parents were guilty. Once he started working the case, he realized that didn't make sense and found evidence to support the intruder theory. The BPD wanted him off the case when he started to present his findings. They had no interest in any suspects besides the Ramseys. They wanted all of his findings permanently eliminated and he had to work with another DA to keep his records. He felt he had to leave the case officially, but continued working on it on his own.

 

[msjprincess]

Don't know if it's ever been mentioned, but did the Ramsey home have an alarm system? It seems unusual that a house that large in an affluent neighborhood would not.

I have no idea how accurate this is, but supposedly the alarm wasn't on http://www.re-newsit.com/p/the-bonita-papers-are-unedited-notes-of.html

When asked about the security alarm system, John told French that
it had not been engaged for several years. While the remodeling
of the residence was still in process, JonBenet, then only a
toddler, had dragged a small bench over to the key pad to the system and began hitting the keys. The interior alarm was so deafening that they couldn't even hear to telephone the security company to notify them that it was a false alarm.

Almost immediately police cars and sirens were heard coming down
the street. Since the Ramseys had not used the system since they
had moved into the new house, they didn't know the code to shut
it off. Because of this mishap and a couple of subsequent false
alarms, they had decided not to activate the system.

 

[runwad]

As far as all these theories with the pineapple, I don't really see a 6 year old getting out of bed in the middle of the night in a big house like that and going downstairs to get herself a snack. Not sure what I think but I would think she'd be afraid to get up and roam around in the middle of the night, you know how kids are with being afraid of the dark and monsters and all that.

I didn't really follow this case 20 years ago because the stage I was in in my own life and being busy with having kids, but now that I'm reading this thread I don't know what to believe?? It's very perplexing.

Hopefully at some point in the future it will all be solved as the little boy who was abducted in MN 30 years ago.

 

[pryncess527]

For one thing, the pineapple bothers me. Not that Patsy's & Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, but that Patsy & John claimed she was asleep when they got home & they have no idea how the pineapple got there. But an intruder taking time to feed her pineapple doesn't really fit any of the various intruder scenarios either.
.

Digestive science is not that precise. Even though the pineapple in her stomach was mostly un-digested, many experts have said she could have eaten it as early as 4pm. The Whites are not sure if pineapple was served at the party or not. It's entirely possible she had a snack before leaving, or ate pineapple at the party.

And I think an intruder feeding her pineapple does fit with the scenario where a person known to the family was trying to kidnap her and something went wrong.

 

[cabanafrau]

Right. Regardless of what narrative the show is trying to prove, we're not getting all the details & evidence.

As I said above, I have to admit the pineapple bothers me. But I also want to know if pineapple was served at the party, &, if that's been told, I've never read it or heard it.

I can easily see where someone answering that question about pineapple at the party might think about it an answer honestly, no -- and yet be incorrect. I've had cocktails served before with garnishes, including pineapple. I could see a party hostess being questioned and thinking back on her menu and saying, no, no pineapple. What if it was a large party she had catered, and had someone onhand to bartend? She might not recall or even have noticed a pineapple garnish for the bar -- but I can see a child noticing, and partaking. I can see the police questioning the hostess, getting the no and putting that question away.

As I've said above, there is significant disagreement amongst the medical field about digestive rates. That broadens when the pineapple may have been consumed.

What I'd like to hear questioned is the fingerprint analysis on the bowl and/or spoon and if there were any partial unidentified prints or indications the items had been handled leaving smudges behind that didn't allow the possibility of examination.

The cross examination and challenges to evidence in a trial are very important.

 

[moon]

I've never understood this point at all. Seriously, she gets out of bed first thing in the morning....before she's had coffee even...and she's supposed to pick out new clothes to wear? I'd throw on the same thing I had on the night before, and THEN put on whatever I was planning to travel in (as they were) so that those things would be "fresh" as I left on my trip. That is the most innocuous fact EVER in my book, and a pretty weak link for pinning a suspicion of murder on anyone. You put on the same clothes? Tsk Tsk. Surely that means you murdered your kid.

So who do you think wrote the note in the Ramsey house and why couldn't they match the handwriting to someone in the home, if indeed, it was?

I think it's strange. I stay in my sleepwear until it's time to change...I thought most people did that? Taking off your PJs to put on what you were wearing the night before, just to change again? I don't know, seems odd to me

 

[pryncess527]

I think it's strange. I stay in my sleepwear until it's time to change...I thought most people did that? Taking off your PJs to put on what you were wearing the night before, just to change again? I don't know, seems odd to me

You have assumed everyone wears sleepwear. Many people sleep in the nude.