JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[kidshop]

It seems like they edited it in to make it dramatic. I'm not willing to make any judgment about his character based on a sound bite edited in at a dramatic point in a dr. Phil show.

Of course not.
Maybe that was the best line of John's they had to use.

 

[kidshop]

Maybe it had to do with this discussion? Meaning the murder was to punish him, not about JonBenet. http://www.drphil.com/videos/why-john-ramsey-believes-his-daughters-murder-was-about-him/

They had already talked about that. This specifically said what was done to him by the injust system (police/media) not the killer of JohBenet trying to frame him.

 

[msjprincess]

They had already talked about that. This specifically said what was done to him by the injust system (police/media) not the killer of JohBenet trying to frame him.

Yes but things are edited and not necessarily shown in the order they were shot. It's hard for me to form an opinion when taken out of context.

 

[asta]

It followed a clip of Patsy talking about angels people leave at JonBenets grave. She thought it was beautiful. Cut to John saying the real story is not a murdered child etc. then dr Phil asks if he will speak again about this. John says no, never. There is no point.

It WAS random, just stuck in there and came across as obscenely callous and narcissistic. It that how it was or did someone at dr Phil edit it that way? That would be odd since this was a pro Ramsey show. But John said it just like that in no other context. "The real story here is what was done to us by an injust system." This is what John said about the unsolved case of his dead daughter.

Did no one else see this!?

I saw the show and the part you quoted but it did not stand out as something bad for him to say. That might have been because of context but I can't be sure why I did not react as you did. It might be that preconceived ideas of his guilt or innocence affects how one reacts to his statements.

 

[RitaE]

It followed a clip of Patsy talking about angels people leave at JonBenets grave. She thought it was beautiful. Cut to John saying the real story is not a murdered child etc. then dr Phil asks if he will speak again about this. John says no, never. There is no point.

It WAS random, just stuck in there and came across as obscenely callous and narcissistic. It that how it was or did someone at dr Phil edit it that way? That would be odd since this was a pro Ramsey show. But John said it just like that in no other context. "The real story here is what was done to us by an injust system." This is what John said about the unsolved case of his dead daughter.

Did no one else see this!?

I saw it.

I've seen similar statements in the past on how the family feels like they were victimized once by the murder of their daughter and then again by the Police Investigators and Media Firestorm they endured for years. I saw it as just another iteration of that line of thought. It really didn't unsettle me but I see your point.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I saw the show and the part you quoted but it did not stand out as something bad for him to say. That might have been because of context but I can't be sure why I did not react as you did. It might be that preconceived ideas of his guilt or innocence affects how one reacts to his statements.

I haven't watched the last show so I haven't heard him say it. It would make sense that how someone reacts depends on what they think of him and the family.
I noticed at first what he says is described as it being about what was done to him by and unjust system but later clarified and the actually quote was about "us" presumably meaning the Ramsey family.
If he had said him and was talking about how he was treated and what he specifically he went through, then yeah, it sounds off and really self centered. It seems as though he was talking about his family, not specifically himself. That makes more sense and doesn't sound as self cemtered when you think about all they've been put through and that Jonbenet's murder was never solved.

 

[elphaba91]

None at all? I don't wash absolutely everything, but quite a bit I do, especially underwear.

I don't; it's just not something I've ever really thought about. Not that the fact that I wore brand new, unwashed underwear yesterday matters to this discussion, but it does go to show that something that is odd for one person is totally normal for another so we absolutely cannot convict someone based on whether they wash their clothes before wearing, put on yesterday's outfit the next day or eat pineapple!

 

[asta]

I haven't watched the last show so I haven't heard him say it. It would make sense that how someone reacts depends on what they think of him and the family.
I noticed at first what he says is described as it being about what was done to him by and unjust system but later clarified and the actually quote was about "us" presumably meaning the Ramsey family.
If he had said him and was talking about how he was treated and what he specifically he went through, then yeah, it sounds off and really self centered. It seems as though he was talking about his family, not specifically himself. That makes more sense and doesn't sound as self cemtered when you think about all they've been put through and that Jonbenet's murder was never solved.

I don't know if his remarks were said at this exact time but while they were filming John and Patsy at the gravesite they showed that someone had written in red on Jonbenet's marble grave marker something like 'Daddy did it'. His comments might have been in reaction to that kind harassment.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Germs aren't really what makes me do it, it's more about the chemical treatments applied to fabrics these days.

which is fine for YOU---but I really do not think I am all that weird or all that negligent for not prewashing new clothing (or sheets or towels, etc) before use for myself or my kids. Even with one kid who breaks out in a rash if scented lotion is put on them and another who breaks out in a rash from sprayable sunscreens, no one has broken out from wearing new, unwashed clothes. I doubt the chemicals in them are so very terrible---probably sort of like not putting a child's name on thier backpacks beucase a a stranger might approach them by name and the child might go with them--theoritically a risk, but not really something that happens often enough to be statistically relevant in reality.

And. more to the point---if the point of prewashing clothing is to get chemicals out---is it all that unusual that a mother who regularly exposes her 6 year old to chemicals in hair dyes, teeth bleaching, etc would not be concerned about some tiny amount of chemical residue that might be left on packaged items from a store? I just can't see how the clothes not being prewashed is any more odd than the mom putting back on her outfit from the night before.

 

[nugov2]

which is fine for YOU---but I really do not think I am all that weird or all that negligent for not prewashing new clothing (otr sheets or towels, etc) before use for myself or my kids. Even with one kid who breaks out in a rash if scented lotion is put on them and nother who breaks out in a rash from sprayable sunscreens, no one has broken out from wearing new, unwashed clothes. I doubt the chemicals in them are so very terrible---probably sort of like not putting a child's name on thier backpacks beucase a a stranger might approach htem by name and the child might go with them--theoritically a risk, but not really something that happens often enough to be statistically relevant in reality.

And. more to the point---if the point of prewashing clothing is to get chemicals out---is it all that unusual that a mother who regularly exposes her 6 year old to chemicals in hair dyes, teeth bleaching, etc would not be concerned about some tiny amount of chemical residu that might be left on packaged oitems from a store? I just can't see how the clothes not being prewashed is any more odd than the mom putting back on her outfit from the ngiht before.

I was the one who said it was odd, but I was referencing that investigators wouldn't addresses if hers were washed or not. Not that people who don't are odd. There is probably a decent amount of people who do wash them, that it is worth noting in an investigation if you are testing unwashed underwear and using those tests to discredit something. I do wash all underwear while not washing all clothes before worn (except jeans). I never really though about why...I guess just because my mom always washed mine first so I just continued to follow her lead.

I think the same needs to be said for the bedwetting. Anyone who uses that as a motive for Patsy killing JBR should know if she did in fact wet the bed that night...something I have not read being confirmed. Both arguments are irrelevant if her underwear were prewashed and her bed was dry.

 

[RitaE]

If I recall correctly her bed was dry, but there were some inconsistencies in statements and in the state of her bathroom that indicated the bed might had been recently changed. And when I say inconsistencies I mean inconsistencies in statements that were made months and months apart. Inconsistencies aren't entirely unexpected.

I skimmed through the book Foreign Faction which was written by one of the investigators and the guy was on the CBS show. He pretty much lays out the same theory but instead of "Burke got mad because she nabbed his pineapple and smacked her" he presents a theory of early sexual behavior in young grade schoolers as motive and spends many many pages showing that statistically it is rare but does exist and lamenting that the Ramseys and DA's office wouldn't let him get his hands on Burke's psychiatric records which to him was a huge RED FLAG but I suspect to most parents in the world is a huge "Well, Duh!!"

I'm still not convinced but I guess it is possible. Let's face it, no matter which way that case goes it is going to end up somewhere where the statistical odds are very small. I just have to wonder what kind of havoc CBS might have just put on Burke Ramsey's life by naming him in that manner if he DIDN'T have anything to do with it. Not that he wasn't already in the crossfire from the event, but he was 9 years old when it happened. It seems fairly irresponsible to name somebody as guilty like that with such little evidence.

 

[nugov2]

If I recall correctly her bed was dry, but there were some inconsistencies in statements and in the state of her bathroom that indicated the bed might had been recently changed. And when I say inconsistencies I mean inconsistencies in statements that were made months and months apart. Inconsistencies aren't entirely unexpected.

I skimmed through the book Foreign Faction which was written by one of the investigators and the guy was on the CBS show. He pretty much lays out the same theory but instead of "Burke got mad because she nabbed his pineapple and smacked her" he presents a theory of early sexual behavior in young grade schoolers as motive and spends many many pages showing that statistically it is rare but does exist and lamenting that the Ramseys and DA's office wouldn't let him get his hands on Burke's psychiatric records which to him was a huge RED FLAG but I suspect to most parents in the world is a huge "Well, Duh!!"

I'm still not convinced but I guess it is possible. Let's face it, no matter which way that case goes it is going to end up somewhere where the statistical odds are very small. I just have to wonder what kind of havoc CBS might have just put on Burke Ramsey's life by naming him in that manner if he DIDN'T have anything to do with it. Not that he wasn't already in the crossfire from the event, but he was 9 years old when it happened. It seems fairly irresponsible to name somebody as guilty like that with such little evidence.

I agree it was negligent for cbs to name him. I read they are suing cbs and I think they should. I'm not big on lawsuits, but what they did was unfair.

They should have never went on dr phil, but I don't know their financial situation any longer maybe they saw it as a way to tell their story while getting a check. I'd imagine the legal defense they've had in addition to all the medical expenses for Patsy were financially draining. I think it added a lot of fuel to the fire. Of course maybe they had no idea how many show would be coming out on her murder.

 

[stitch'sgirl]

Germs aren't really what makes me do it, it's more about the chemical treatments applied to fabrics these days.

Just putting it out there-I saw a doctor on on the national news recommend always prewashing clothes due to lice and other gross stuff. Think of where a lot of those packaged clothes come from factories in foreign countries, probably not the cleanest. *Public Service announcement over* (But I still don'the prewash socks!)

 

[msjprincess]

I don't pre-wash anything either. Fifty plus years and I still haven't gotten cooties.

 

[sunshinehighway]

If I recall correctly her bed was dry, but there were some inconsistencies in statements and in the state of her bathroom that indicated the bed might had been recently changed. And when I say inconsistencies I mean inconsistencies in statements that were made months and months apart. Inconsistencies aren't entirely unexpected.

I skimmed through the book Foreign Faction which was written by one of the investigators and the guy was on the CBS show. He pretty much lays out the same theory but instead of "Burke got mad because she nabbed his pineapple and smacked her" he presents a theory of early sexual behavior in young grade schoolers as motive and spends many many pages showing that statistically it is rare but does exist and lamenting that the Ramseys and DA's office wouldn't let him get his hands on Burke's psychiatric records which to him was a huge RED FLAG but I suspect to most parents in the world is a huge "Well, Duh!!"

I'm still not convinced but I guess it is possible. Let's face it, no matter which way that case goes it is going to end up somewhere where the statistical odds are very small. I just have to wonder what kind of havoc CBS might have just put on Burke Ramsey's life by naming him in that manner if he DIDN'T have anything to do with it. Not that he wasn't already in the crossfire from the event, but he was 9 years old when it happened. It seems fairly irresponsible to name somebody as guilty like that with such little evidence.

I agree it was negligent for cbs to name him. I read they are suing cbs and I think they should. I'm not big on lawsuits, but what they did was unfair.

They should have never went on dr phil, but I don't know their financial situation any longer maybe they saw it as a way to tell their story while getting a check. I'd imagine the legal defense they've had in addition to all the medical expenses for Patsy were financially draining. I think it added a lot of fuel to the fire. Of course maybe they had no idea how many show would be coming out on her murder.

CBS should be sued by him. There were already enough rumors and whispers, a national tv show coming up with more "evidence" of his guilt is outrageous.
Maybe they went on Dr. Phil because they knew what the cbs show would say. Dr. Phil was very friendly towards them so at least they got their story out m of course there will always be people who believe all those lies and rumors. It must be incredibly difficult to see those false on unproven things repeated for 20 years like they are facts.

For the record, I don't prewash thing either. It's not something I've really ever of heard of people doing so I wouldn't have even thought about it in regards to the dna.

 

[mom2rtk]

Just putting it out there-I saw a doctor on on the national news recommend always prewashing clothes due to lice and other gross stuff. Think of where a lot of those packaged clothes come from factories in foreign countries, probably not the cleanest. *Public Service announcement over* (But I still don'the prewash socks!)

Not that I would want to wear something with dead lice on it , but no louse is going to survive a trip from overseas. They only survive 2-3 days when off a person.

 

[goofy !]

Interesting: On the local news tonight, it was said that the Ramseys and the police have a good idea who the killer is. Which backs up the story our drunk investigator neighbor has told us several times. But they can't bring charges because of the complete mess of a crime scene.

Ramsey's lawyers have stated they are filing suit against CBS.

 

[stitch'sgirl]

Interesting: On the local news tonight, it was said that the Ramseys and the police have a good idea who the killer is. Which backs up the story our drunk investigator neighbor has told us several times. But they can't bring charges because of the complete mess of a crime scene.

Ramsey's lawyers have stated they are filing suit against CBS.

How soon till your investigator neighbor retires? Maybe he will clue you in then!!

 

[msjprincess]

CBS should be sued by him. There were already enough rumors and whispers, a national tv show coming up with more "evidence" of his guilt is outrageous.
Maybe they went on Dr. Phil because they knew what the cbs show would say. Dr. Phil was very friendly towards them so at least they got their story out m of course there will always be people who believe all those lies and rumors. It must be incredibly difficult to see those false on unproven things repeated for 20 years like they are facts.

For the record, I don't prewash thing either. It's not something I've really ever of heard of people doing so I wouldn't have even thought about it in regards to the dna.

I agree. And there are actually people out there that think this was a real investigation and this means he's going to be charged. Now he has to worry about all the wackos out there.

I've seen similar shows with cases like Jack the Ripper. But that's completely different. All of the suspects are dead. There is no chance of further ruining the life of an innocent person.

 

[goofy !]

How soon till your investigator neighbor retires? Maybe he will clue you in then!!

Unfortunately he moved a few years ago halfway across the country so no more parties with him there. Believe me, at our annual Christmas parties we plied him with lots and lots of alcohol to see if we could get that last piece out. Even as drunk as he was he remained the consummate professional and never spilled more than that.

Count me in as another that purchases and immediately wears clothes. No pre-washing here.