PMPT Reality Check

[watson]

Hi ho everyone. I just read the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town (PMPT) 'THE' book about the Ramsey case by Larwrence Schiller, Harper-Collins 1998 (Lawrence Schiller writes books about sensational true life cases, and is a tv producer). I'm probably the only person on Ramsey case boards that had never read this 9 year old book before. I usually try to stay away from authors books about unsolved cases because inevitably they are authors opinions of other authors opinions of something that was leaked and spun in the press way back when etc., and I don't want it coloring my opinion and look at the real evidence.
Here's the reality check.......Lawrence Schiller put together a big book full of info and detail on what happened in the Ramsey case in 1997 and early 1998, BUT check out the authors own warning page (the 6th pre page in the book) where Schiller states all in the book is only from his memory after reading about the case in the media, un-named reports he reviewed, the memories of others, and stuff he copied from media articles, rearranged and put in his own words. Schiller warns that even when he does quote someone or something in his book (which he doesn't usually)....those passages 'are edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which passages are based were removed and sentances rearranged to present the material.....' in line with his book and what he wanted to say (PMPT pre p.6), So the guy warns everyone that his book is not 'the truth', or the actual evidence, or intended to be, there is no guarantee of accuracy, and even any 'quotes' have been patially made up. There is no bibliography of sources and the book itself provides no proof or any way to back up anything Schiller put in there.
Still IMO it's still a good primer and starting point for a load of case detail (which may or may not be true) that we can consider and look up, and think about in the real world to see if it's true or usefull or not.
Just be careful not to get fooled if you read it, or have.
PS thanks to NP for finally making look at Schillers work.

[Louisadelmar]

This book attempts to take the story of the murder investigation if JonBenet Ramsey out of the context of the newspaper reports and sound bites that have formed the nation’s opinion of the case and place it into a more complete context.

The book is based on the memories of those interviewed, my own observations, reports, transcripts, and other documents I obtained during my research.

The passages that appear in the first person have been edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which the passages are based were removed and sentences rearranged to present the material in continuity. It was not done to make accounts more meaningful or to improve on what interview subjects said but to avoid duplication and confusing references and to make the transition from speech to print more fluent.

Lawrence Schiller
September, 1999

[Zoey]

Hi ho everyone. I just read the book Perfect Murder Perfect Town (PMPT) 'THE' book about the Ramsey case by Larwrence Schiller, Harper-Collins 1998 (Lawrence Schiller writes books about sensational true life cases, and is a tv producer). I'm probably the only person on Ramsey case boards that had never read this 9 year old book before. I usually try to stay away from authors books about unsolved cases because inevitably they are authors opinions of other authors opinions of something that was leaked and spun in the press way back when etc., and I don't want it coloring my opinion and look at the real evidence.
Here's the reality check.......Lawrence Schiller put together a big book full of info and detail on what happened in the Ramsey case in 1997 and early 1998, BUT check out the authors own warning page (the 6th pre page in the book) where Schiller states all in the book is only from his memory after reading about the case in the media, un-named reports he reviewed, the memories of others, and stuff he copied from media articles, rearranged and put in his own words. Schiller warns that even when he does quote someone or something in his book (which he doesn't usually)....those passages 'are edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which passages are based were removed and sentances rearranged to present the material.....' in line with his book and what he wanted to say (PMPT pre p.6), So the guy warns everyone that his book is not 'the truth', or the actual evidence, or intended to be, there is no guarantee of accuracy, and even any 'quotes' have been patially made up. There is no bibliography of sources and the book itself provides no proof or any way to back up anything Schiller put in there.
Still IMO it's still a good primer and starting point for a load of case detail (which may or may not be true) that we can consider and look up, and think about in the real world to see if it's true or usefull or not.
Just be careful not to get fooled if you read it, or have.
PS thanks to NP for finally making look at Schillers work.

I have never read PMPT. Have only read Death of Innocence.

[Louisadelmar]

I think everyone should read PMPT, DOI and ST's book.

[shill]

I think only the depositions, subpoenas, police and autopsy reports should have been read.
Are there police reports available?

[watson]

This book attempts to take the story of the murder investigation if JonBenet Ramsey out of the context of the newspaper reports and sound bites that have formed the nation’s opinion of the case and place it into a more complete context.

The book is based on the memories of those interviewed, my own observations, reports, transcripts, and other documents I obtained during my research.

The passages that appear in the first person have been edited. Words, phrases, and even segments of the interviews on which the passages are based were removed and sentences rearranged to present the material in continuity. It was not done to make accounts more meaningful or to improve on what interview subjects said but to avoid duplication and confusing references and to make the transition from speech to print more fluent.

Lawrence Schiller
September, 1999

*********************************************
Thanks for copying the whole quote from the preface to Schillers book. I didn't copy the whole thing because I type too slow, and frankly so I could arrange Mr. Schillers statement with more 'continuity' to what I was typing. But complete preface, or no, what Schiller is saying is clear....he does change and rearrange the statements of others (so actually their not quotes but what he terms 1st party statements (edited)), and his book by his own list is 1st based on 'memories', 2nd, on Schillers 'personal observations', 3rd on un-named 'reports, transcripts and other documents'....he says he obtained.

[LindaA]

Funny you sould post this today. I read PMPT when it first came out and no longer have it, but just picked up a new copy of it yesterday. I was reading the short piece at the very beginning written by gardener Brian Scott and was puzzled to read that he said on page 5 of my paperback edition, " In early December of '96, I was raking the blanket of leaves..." Then on page 6 he refers to picking up the newspaper on the morning after her murder as being "six weeks later." Unless months are longer in Colorado than anywhere else, that doesn't add up. If makes me wonder what else is inaccurate in PMPT and I was going to start a thread about it myself.

[Louisadelmar]

Funny you sould post this today. I read PMPT when it first came out and no longer have it, but just picked up a new copy of it yesterday. I was reading the short piece at the very beginning written by gardener Brian Scott and was puzzled to read that he said on page 5 of my paperback edition, " In early December of '96, I was raking the blanket of leaves..." Then on page 6 he refers to picking up the newspaper on the morning after her murder as being "six weeks later." Unless months are longer in Colorado than anywhere else, that doesn't add up. If makes me wonder what else is inaccurate in PMPT and I was going to start a thread about it myself.

I'm not sure whether that was a typo and he was raking in November or if it was just a faulty memory and it seemed like 6 weeks later.

But you can be sure if a Ramsey had said it it would be declared proof of a lie.

[LindaA]

You are absolutely right about that, Louisa.

[watson]

Funny you sould post this today. I read PMPT when it first came out and no longer have it, but just picked up a new copy of it yesterday. I was reading the short piece at the very beginning written by gardener Brian Scott and was puzzled to read that he said on page 5 of my paperback edition, " In early December of '96, I was raking the blanket of leaves..." Then on page 6 he refers to picking up the newspaper on the morning after her murder as being "six weeks later." Unless months are longer in Colorado than anywhere else, that doesn't add up. If makes me wonder what else is inaccurate in PMPT and I was going to start a thread about it myself.
************************************************** *
Like I said above I just for the first time ever read PMPT in the last few days, I did find several internal errors (in the book itself from page to other pages) and just in the relating of complex info or events (such as medical), but the book as the author suggests at the begining is in essence a compendium, or weave and summary of 'all' the stuff the author could glean from the media and the other sources on the case avaiable back in 1997, (the information, and misinformation, the spin, the rumor, the inside story) and then weave into some kind of coherent order. He doesn't guarantee correctness. There's bound to be errors, duplications, and contradictions.

[Louisadelmar]

I think PMPT is admirably neutral as to guilt. Its biggest value is it gives a skeleton on which to hang all the other info.

[KingCoyote]

I vote with Shill.

Police Interview Transcripts, Depositions, Autopsy Report, Search Warrants and Court Documents from the various civil cases are the best source. I also put DOI in the category of primary source since it is written by parties to this matter.

I read PMPT first because I heard it was neutral and did not point a finger. I read ST (Steve Thomas) next and found it to be naturally leaning to the Police viewpoint. I read DOI and found it to be naturally leaning to the Ramsey viewpoint.

I rarely use ST and not because I think ST is personally lacking credibility but because of the following: Police officers when they are seeking a warrant which is to be based upon probable cause may rely on information from whom they believe to be a reliable source. Reliable sources to one police officer are usually other police officers. That may be all well and good for preparing an affidavit for a search warrant but it doesn't fly when you are publicly presenting your point of view that someone has committed murder in a book. ST or his publisher or editors should have thought of this. Although there was a settlement in ST's case where ST suffered no liability, he did have to suffer through a lawsuit which probably could have been avoided with a lot of fact checking.

I will use PMPT frequently but try to back it up with a more primary source. I might say that in most of my Database entries I found PMPT the most consistent of the three books.

KingCoyote

[Athena]

King.... Your last sentence basically says what I wanted to. I believe any book written on this case will contain errors however as you say it was the most consistent of any I have read. It is also neutral and basically leaves it up to the reader to interpret the data. Many of his facts are taken directly from the police reports and others close to the investigation and he presents details in a non-biased way. Much of the information he does have in the book can be corroborated with the interviews which is what makes me believe it is the best source available.

Steve Thomas' book hypes too much about his unproven theory and many of the "facts" that he presents in his book were contradicted by his own depo and by the interviews which makes me believe it is less than a reliable source although I do also believe he does present some factual information. Whatever I find from other sources that can corroborate what he says I believe --alot of it I discard.

I have also very rarely relied on the Ramsey's book even though I tend to lean towards IDI because it too in certain aspects is obviously slanted.

PMPT is probably the best source but I have said many times posting on these boards -- with everything that is read there should be an attempt to verify. JMO

[Coloradokares]

I vote with Shill.

Police Interview Transcripts, Depositions, Autopsy Report, Search Warrants and Court Documents from the various civil cases are the best source. I also put DOI in the category of primary source since it is written by parties to this matter.

I read PMPT first because I heard it was neutral and did not point a finger. I read ST (Steve Thomas) next and found it to be naturally leaning to the Police viewpoint. I read DOI and found it to be naturally leaning to the Ramsey viewpoint.

I rarely use ST and not because I think ST is personally lacking credibility but because of the following: Police officers when they are seeking a warrant which is to be based upon probable cause may rely on information from whom they believe to be a reliable source. Reliable sources to one police officer are usually other police officers. That may be all well and good for preparing an affidavit for a search warrant but it doesn't fly when you are publicly presenting your point of view that someone has committed murder in a book. ST or his publisher or editors should have thought of this. Although there was a settlement in ST's case where ST suffered no liability, he did have to suffer through a lawsuit which probably could have been avoided with a lot of fact checking.

I will use PMPT frequently but try to back it up with a more primary source. I might say that in most of my Database entries I found PMPT the most consistent of the three books.

KingCoyote

The authors of DOI would if I don't miss my quess, as suspects to this day in this murder, would have as much reason as anyone to have selective recall and memory in their own favor and would cast themselves in as good a light as possible as well. So I have difficulty in seeing your rational.

[KingCoyote]

ColoradoKares:

If I understand your query as to my rationale for making DOI a primary source while I make ST and PMPT secondary sources let me explain it this way. DOI contains statements directly from the Ramseys. Those statements are not hearsay. Almost all statements within PMPT are hearsay as they are statements Schiller heard and then repeated. Those statements are not directly from the person making the statement.

The same holds true for much of what Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

So if I rank the quality of the books, DOI statements are direct; PMPT statements are hearsay pure and simple and ST statements can go all the way to rank hearsay.

Did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters some more? :confused:

KingCoyote

[shill]

Hearsay is not admissible in court. It would be a tough challenge to bring much of what has been said into court as evidence against the Ramseys, where the Ramsey’s testimony would all be admissible.

[nuisanceposter]

ColoradoKares:

If I understand your query as to my rationale for making DOI a primary source while I make ST and PMPT secondary sources let me explain it this way. DOI contains statements directly from the Ramseys. Those statements are not hearsay. Almost all statements within PMPT are hearsay as they are statements Schiller heard and then repeated. Those statements are not directly from the person making the statement.

The same holds true for much of what Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

So if I rank the quality of the books, DOI statements are direct; PMPT statements are hearsay pure and simple and ST statements can go all the way to rank hearsay.

Did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters some more? :confused:

KingCoyote

I see your point, but there are many places in ST where he's telling the reader about interviews he conducted himself, such as the times he sat and talked with Nedra Paugh, for example, and interviewed suspects. ST telling us what he heard the Ramseys say would be admissible in court - I recently participated in a custody hearing in which I was a witness, and all statements I had personally heard from the parents were admissible. ST also lists information that would only be known by police, such as what investigation yielded what result. I don't think you should discount that as less important. PMPT I can see, because Schiller wasn't part of the investigation but just wrote about it - however, anything he heard the Rs or police say in person would be admissible in court....unless family court is completely different.

I can't see DOI as a primary source before the others, because even if the testimony is coming straight from the Ramseys, that doesn't make it fact. There are parts in DOI that are distinctly different from PMPT and ST, such as the Rs saying FBI weren't on the case and were being kept at bay by police - and as I have pointed out from excerpts of PMPT and ST, that was not true - police called FBI in on the case and police not only did not keep them at bay, but Sgt Mason drove Agent Ron Walker over to the R house himself.

IMO, like CK said, the Ramseys have more reason to put out false information than anyone else. Their very freedom and innocence is at stake. Just because you're hearing something directly from them doesn't mean it's accurate and more valid. You need all three books at the same time (and even some online sources, such as articles from back in the day) to differentiate between what is and is not fact.

That's your goal, here, right, KC? Get to the meat and dish up the facts?

[LindaA]

In academic research the term "primary source" refers to documents produced by the subject of the research and not by an "outsider". The only reason it is considered preferable to other sources is that it is kind of a first generation source not colored by some outsider's interpretation of the facts. That's not to say primary sources cannot be biased. Everything has a certain bias, but the bias is that of the person being studied and therefeore pertinant to the research. Therefore, DOI is a primary source because it was written by suspects/witnesses/victims -- depending on your POV -- in the Ramsey case.

[nuisanceposter]

And what's the proper title of Steve Thomas's book? It's JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. And there's what pov it was written from - inside the investigation, from a man who was as directly involved in the investigation as the parents of the murdered child. He was the main detective on the case, and according to Lawrence Schiller himself, ST may know more about what happened in this case and the investigation than anyone else. That cannot be discounted. Some of his book is recalling what he'd heard from other officers, etc, but much of it is his firsthand recounting of what his personal investigation uncovered.

[KingCoyote]

Shill:

You are correct, but (and here I go again wading into the uncharted waters of law) I understand there are a whole bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule that allows a lot of second hand type statements into evidence.

NuisancePoster:

You are correct that calling something a primary source does not make it factual. I am simply classifying sources, not judging the quality of the source. See above post by LindaA. She states it better than I do.

P.S. I love meat but my doctor says I should lower my cholesterol so I guess I will have to settle for "figurative" meat instead of "literal" meat.

Thanks for your comments.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

If any part of it is a re-telling of what he heard from others, it is a second generation source and not a primary one. After all, ST was a not there the night of the murder, or even when the body was discovered,was he?

[nuisanceposter]

And is any part of DOI a retelling of what they've heard from others? Why, yes...it is. As for not being there that day, that's why police record information in official police reports - the officers who respond and initially glean information may not be the detectives that investigate the case, but the info they learned can be used by detectives as a valid source in the case.

[LindaA]

Np, give it up. We have defined a primary source for you. If you don't like it, fine. Quit with the sarcasm!!

[nuisanceposter]

???

I wasn't even trying to be sarcastic that time...

[LindaA]

Sometimes you don't even have to try. If a person has ever been sarcastic, people tend to see it everywhere. Peace. :rose:

[andU]

Actually, to quote a very old television cop, "Just the facts, M'am ... just the facts." If only there were some way to glean out the opinions and 'just the facts'. I prefer to form my own opinion from the 'official' reports (and I wish we had access to all of those).

[elvislives]

I too just read PMPT. I've never read DOI or the ST book, but if I had to rank them in terms of credibility I'd put PMPT first, followed by ST, then DOI last. And I agree with all here that the info in these novels cannot be relied upon as fact. I did see an interview with Schiller a few months ago where they were challenging many of the "facts" in his book. And his response was something to the effect of, "while all the facts may not be accurate, the SPIRIT of the book is accurrate'. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I do agree with Shill that the autopsy, police reports, etc are the only documents that can be used as evidence.

[thewhitewitch1]

I too just read PMPT. I've never read DOI or the ST book, but if I had to rank them in terms of credibility I'd put PMPT first, followed by ST, then DOI last. And I agree with all here that the info in these novels cannot be relied upon as fact. I did see an interview with Schiller a few months ago where they were challenging many of the "facts" in his book. And his response was something to the effect of, "while all the facts may not be accurate, the SPIRIT of the book is accurrate'. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I do agree with Shill that the autopsy, police reports, etc are the only documents that can be used as evidence.

Why would you rank DOI last in terms of credibility? You are reading first hand from the people closest to the crime. If I were you, I'd be scrutinizing that book very closely and comparing it with the interviews and depositions. If anyone says the Ramseys are so intellegent, then you need to wonder why they wouldn't have the intellegence to make their book support what was said by themselves in LE interviews etc and what were known facts about the murder. Lies and contradictions is what you get in DOI. How can you so easily dismiss that??

[elvislives]

Why would you rank DOI last in terms of credibility? You are reading first hand from the people closest to the crime. If I were you, I'd be scrutinizing that book very closely and comparing it with the interviews and depositions. If anyone says the Ramseys are so intellegent, then you need to wonder why they wouldn't have the intellegence to make their book support what was said by themselves in LE interviews etc and what were known facts about the murder. Lies and contradictions is what you get in DOI. How can you so easily dismiss that??

DOI was written by two people who were/are the prime suspects in a murder and would probably say anything to deflect attention from themselves or shape public opinion. I havent read the book because I think--since the Ramsey's wrote it--it would be completely biased in their favor. E.g. I don't consider the R's impressions of the police investigation as FACT...I consider it their perception. And I do not believe that their perception is necessarily the reality.

[elvislives]

Why would you rank DOI last in terms of credibility? You are reading first hand from the people closest to the crime. If I were you, I'd be scrutinizing that book very closely and comparing it with the interviews and depositions. If anyone says the Ramseys are so intellegent, then you need to wonder why they wouldn't have the intellegence to make their book support what was said by themselves in LE interviews etc and what were known facts about the murder. Lies and contradictions is what you get in DOI. How can you so easily dismiss that??

Oh I think I get what you are saying now (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Are you saying that I should read the book so I can see all their lies and inconsistencies? Not interested and here's why...their book is simply a novel...they are not under oath and cannot be cross-examined on the content, they are simply telling a story. I am presuming that the book is full of spin and that's why I am not interested in reading it.

[KingCoyote]

Elvislives:

If my limited undertanding of the rules of court procedure is anywhere near close, and that is debatable, I think there is something called "prior inconsistent statements", which would allow an attorney on cross examination to use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the credibility of the witness if the witness contradicts the prior statement. (I hope I got close on that one. Legalese confuses me even more than this case does.)

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

Actually, I have wondered ever since DOI came out why, if they are guilty, the Rs would draw attention to themselves in that way. They took a h*ll of a chance having it published.

And I would by no means call it a novel. A novel is a work of fiction; the term that comes closest to describing the Ramsey bookis "memior" -- a person's own reflection on his life or a part of it. There may well be spin in it, but it meant to be read and believed.

[Athena]

Elvislives:

If my limited undertanding of the rules of court procedure is anywhere near close, and that is debatable, I think there is something called "prior inconsistent statements", which would allow an attorney on cross examination to use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the credibility of the witness if the witness contradicts the prior statement. (I hope I got close on that one. Legalese confuses me even more than this case does.)

KingCoyote

This is true King. That is exactly what Wood did with the statements ST made in his book during his deposition. The fact that he made the statements opened them up to examination either direct or cross. Same would hold true for any statements made in the Ramsey book. Seems to me that PMPT would be considered hearsay since Schiller was not a first-party to the investigation and basically repeated statements made to him or what he had read in the police reports.

[thewhitewitch1]

Oh I think I get what you are saying now (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Are you saying that I should read the book so I can see all their lies and inconsistencies? Not interested and here's why...their book is simply a novel...they are not under oath and cannot be cross-examined on the content, they are simply telling a story. I am presuming that the book is full of spin and that's why I am not interested in reading it.


It doesn't matter if they were under oath or not. Their version of what happened in their book does not always coincide with statements they made to LE. It is not a work of fiction so I don't understand how you can dismiss it like that. The way I see it, their story, in their own words is every bit as important as the official interviews and depos.

[cami]

I think everyone should read PMPT, DOI and ST's book.

I just can't get into it...I've picked it up and put it down so many times that I doubt I will ever finish it. I just hate Schiller's writing style...I get so confused, I spend most of my time flipping back to the front of the book trying to understand who he is talking about.

As for DOI, I saw it as the Ramsey's window dressing at the time I read it. I am going to read it again...and read it with new eyes this time.

[aussiesheila]

ColoradoKares:

If I understand your query as to my rationale for making DOI a primary source while I make ST and PMPT secondary sources let me explain it this way. DOI contains statements directly from the Ramseys. Those statements are not hearsay. Almost all statements within PMPT are hearsay as they are statements Schiller heard and then repeated. Those statements are not directly from the person making the statement.

The same holds true for much of what Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.

So if I rank the quality of the books, DOI statements are direct; PMPT statements are hearsay pure and simple and ST statements can go all the way to rank hearsay.

Did that make sense or did I just muddy the waters some more? :confused:

KingCoyoteKingCoyote! What ???!!! OK so DOI is not hearsay, but really!!! If either of the Ramseys are guilty in any way even a direct statement from them is hardly likely to be objective, is it??

No-one knows for sure yet that neither of the Ramseys were completely innocent.

I think DOI was largely Patsy’s work (I think John was out trying to earn a buck while it was being written). I also think Patsy was involved in the coverup and therefore had a lot to hide, so I think anything written in DOI has a significant spin of Patsy’s in it.

PS I haven’t read DOI and I am in agreement with shill wrt where serious sleuths should be researching and with Louisadelmar wrt using PMPT as a resource that provides the framework for the events.

[KingCoyote]

aussiesheila:

Let me see if I can muddy the waters more:

I think PMPT is the most neutral and objective of all books written. I use is for a lot of my research, at least to start with. But the fact still remains it is a secondary source, not a primary source because it is purely hearsay and I therefore must compare Schiller's statements to direct statements of parties actually involved.

I use DOI and ST as well but I realize that even though they are first hand statements and not hearsay, (for the most part because even JR and ST relied on others' statements), the non hearsay statements of ST and JR/PR are still subject to scrutiny because of the lack of objectivity.

Hearsay and objectivity are two differrent topics and not necessarily mutually exclusive. I weigh all statements as to source and objectivity. I think my statements about direct/hearsay, primary/secondary and objective/subjective simply created another bog with semantics and collateral issues.

Sorry if I caused or continue to cause confusion.

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

Np, give it up. We have defined a primary source for you. If you don't like it, fine. Quit with the sarcasm!!
But is your academic definition of 'primary source' really helpful here?
Two murder suspects have written a book in which they present themselves as innocent. That's all. That's your primary source here. What comes out straight of the suspects' mouth has no factual validity in terms of being the truth, and therefore is not a 'preferable' source in a murder investigation.

For example, if O. J. Simpson (being a 'primary source') wrote a book in which he claims his innocence, would you consider his book as a preferable source compared to e. g. Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage"?

[nuisanceposter]

But is your academic definition of 'primary source' really helpful here?
Two murder suspects have written a book in which they present themselves as innocent. That's all. That's your primary source here. What comes out straight of the suspects' mouth has no factual validity in terms of being the truth, and therefore is not a 'preferable' source in a murder investigation.

For example, if O. J. Simpson (being a 'primary source') wrote a book in which he claims his innocence, would you consider his book as a preferable source compared to e. g. Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage"?

That's exactly what I was trying to point out, rashomon, but backed off when I saw it was becoming a personal issue I didn't want to be involved in.

It doesn't matter if the statements are coming firsthand from someone if you aren't even sure if the people making the statements are telling the truth, and have, in fact, been exposed as not telling the truth when their version of events is compared to the other main books, ST and PMPT.

The example I gave earlier defines this idea - both ST and PMPT say FBI was on the case the morning of 12/26 because BPD called them and had them get involved, and even drove an agent over to the house, but JR says BPD didn't want FBI involved and held them at bay. The version in DOI, while coming straight from JR, is designed to help the Rs promote the image they want people to see, whether it is accurate or not.

I'm very reluctant to name a book whose very accuracy is at question as a primary source just because it was written by the people involved in the case, especially when they have every reason to portray an inaccurate relation of events, and have been exposed as doing so.

[Sprocket]

Steve Thomas says: his statements are, in many instances based upon what someone else told him, not what he heard directly from the source which is simple hearsay, but in even some instances the statements are heard by another officer from the direct source, repeated to Thomas and then repeated by Thomas. It is a form of double hearsay.


Here's something that ST heard and observed directly. It's Patsy's own words and behavior.

ST book, hardback, pgs 55-56:

Patsy was unsteady as I had her lift the sleves of her loose denim blouse so I could check for bruises or scratches on the fronts and backs of her hands and arms. Then I checked her face and neck and found nothing unusual. We were standing in a row at the counter, with Patsy in the middle where she shifted slightly and wispered to Gosage, "Will this help find who killed my baby?"
He carefully replied, equally softly, "I hope so."
Patsy looked at her inked fingers and spoke again. "I didn't kill my baby." The lawyer apparently did not hear her, but my head snapped around as if on a swivel. colorado Revised Statute Procedure 41l1 spelled out that we couldn't as ingestigative questions during this evidence collection, but we could certainly listen if anything was said voluntarily, and the mother of the murder victim had blurted out something totally unexpected. I directed my comment to Gosage "What di she just say?"
[b]Patsy Ramsely repested to me this lime, "I didn't kill my baby."
The lawyer launched way from the wall, placed his hands on her shoulder,s brought his face to within inches of her ear, and wispered emphatically. She didn't say another word during the entire session, but what she had already said hung like thunder. I didn't kill my baby." No one suggested that she had.

To me, that entire event screams "consiousness of guilt" by Patsy.

The problem with your conclusion of ST's book being "mostly" what other sources heard and observed and not being first hand, direct experience of ST himself is:

The statements from other officers as to what they observed/noted during the course of the investigation that Steve Thomas includes in his book would be part of the official police record. And ST worked that case for a long time, and had complete access to the entire case file. Just because Steve Thomas writes about them, (and may not have experienced every event he writes about himself) does not negate their validity.

Another event that ST experienced himself was the presentation of the case to the FBI CASKU investigators. Their analysis of the case that ST writes about says it all for me. They've investigated over 1700 child murders. They have seen the worst of the worst, from stranger abduction to parents who kill intentionally to tragic accidents in the home. They are the nation's experts in crime scene analysis, and it's why many of our nation's police departments call on them for help/guidance in directing their investigations.

To dismiss the FBI CASKU's analysis of the case calls into question an individual's ability to proper evaluate expert opinions.

I'd like to see what specific parts of the book that, because you feel they are "double heresay" can not be considered a facutal source of information, and therefore can not hold much wieght, or be considered when attempting to review the case.

[LindaA]

But is your academic definition of 'primary source' really helpful here?
Two murder suspects have written a book in which they present themselves as innocent. That's all. That's your primary source here. What comes out straight of the suspects' mouth has no factual validity in terms of being the truth, and therefore is not a 'preferable' source in a murder investigation.

For example, if O. J. Simpson (being a 'primary source') wrote a book in which he claims his innocence, would you consider his book as a preferable source compared to e. g. Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage"?

Yes, my academic definition of primary source is applicable because it is how KingCoyote is defining it. (Note his replies to your posts.) We all have to be on the same page or our discussion means nothing. It's not personal, it's a fact. "Primary" does not mean "preferable" or "most objective". Rather, it has to do with how close the source is to the event. That's what it means in terms of research and that is what KC meant when he applied that term to DOI.

[nuisanceposter]

Please read Sprocket's post just prior to this one LindaA has made. ST was every bit an involved in this investigation as the Rs were, and his book should be considered as valid a source because of his proximity in this investigation and his access to official police reports and records which would stand on their own in court as valid sources. Most of his book is told from his point of view, and he describes in great detail what his investigation consisted of, including interviews he conducted firsthand with the people involved in this case.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment of Sprocket's and look forward to hearing a reply from King Coyote, who has demonstrated remarkable patience and some measure of objectivity in his replies and undertaking of compiling info:

I'd like to see what specific parts of the book that, because you feel they are "double heresay" can not be considered a facutal source of information, and therefore can not hold much wieght, or be considered when attempting to review the case.

[LindaA]

My reply here has nothing to do with any prejudice I may or may not have against ST. I propose that ST's book is a primary source as far as the investigation is concerned, because he participated in it. He cannot be considered a primary source as to what happened because he was not there during the hours of 12/26/06. The Ramsey's were, so their document is a primary source as to what happened immediately before and after the crime and thereafter.
Again, it has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources-- just to their origin.

Personally, I believe the only really reliable sources are the depositions that were taken under oath.

[KingCoyote]

Let me see if I can maintain some modicum of patience, nuetrality and objectivity without getting too sarcastic and offending everyone imaginable.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeez...we seem to be bogging down into the collateral issues of my methodologies of categorizing primary versus secondary sources; factual vs. non factual (terms I avoid using by the way); hearsay vs. "double" hearsay; objective versus subjective; etc., etc., ad nauseum. Please feel free to set up your own criteria for categorizing sources and I will, believe me, I will, try my dead level best to remember your specific parameters when I reply to your messages. That's the best I can do; I can only try.

Please, Please, Please remember that we are trying to sort out all of the information, known or deduced, to help solve the JBR case. (OR are we now? Ask yourself why you are really here?) We are not here to lapse into the minutae of semantics. I so often think of the Danielle Van Dam case where some Internet Poster came up with the time/date/location etc., of a haircut and that was used in the prosecution's presentation of the case. (I hope my info about the Van Dam case is correct.) You don't know how badly I would want to help solve this case. I have a 9 year old step grandson and a six year old step granddaughter who have eerie resemblances to JBR and BR. If this had happened to her I would be offering my services as an Organizational Manager with Database Analysis experience (18 years of application by the way and 12 more years of theoretical analysis) to anyone and everyone that listened. I wouldn't sleep until I found something that could help the case.

I know this approach is used by many, many police departments/officers, not to mention Lou Smit, and was desired by Steve Thomas. Please refer to P 168 of ST (paperback) where he refers to Lou Smit's "particularly successful system of indexing, organizing and cross referencing the case file." Steve Thomas then goes on to say "I had urged the police department to either lease the Overwatch or the ZY Index computer programs to do exactly that, but our request had been denied as being cost prohibitive." Just since the first of the year I have met with a Database Management expert and this morning met with computer analysts and programmers to expand on what I have started. I don't know how far I will take it because I do have one full time job, one part time job and manage rental units for my family. But I am serious about everything I do.

I chose this forum, believe it or not, because it seemed to have the least amount of "flaming" with somewhat of a balance between IDI and RDI and some quite knowlegable people and was small enough within which to maneuver.

Geeeeeeez....again...I just wish I got this much of a rise out of people with my other threads, especially the latest: The Pam Griffin Factor.

I am going to shut up now and go take a long walk in the cold air. I sincerely apologize if anyone takes offense or exception to what I say now or previously. I never meant to cause any of that.

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

I think DOI is useful for the (unverified) information the Ramseys gave as to what happened in the first minutes before friends and police arrived as well as their perception of what the investigation was like. Unless some new, definitive evidence pops up to tell us who killed this girl we'll probably never know who was telling a more truthful truth. But that doesn't mean DOI and ST's books are useless.

I found it fascinating to read Diane Down's book Best Kept Secrets. Both for her point of view and the view of herself she chose to present to the public. Same with Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. I would read Lindy Chamberlain's book Through My Eyes too if it weren't so outrageously priced.

[LindaA]

Sorry, KC, if you think my posts on this thread are not helpful. I was just trying to clarify what you meant by the term "primary source." It seems the more I try to explain it the angrier people get. I'll just shut up for now.

[nuisanceposter]

KC, thanks for taking the time to explain to us. I do agree that there is a certain balance of differing sides plus the FS here, and I must say that lately we have been doing a better job at not getting personal with each other. There have been times in the past when the CTV JBR board has been a place both scary and somewhat dangerous to hang out at. I think we can all agree that this case calls up some serious emotion in people and sometimes we can't help letting that bleed out into our posts.

I also think we're all pleased and impressed that you have come up with a manner in which to categorize the information we know, and we all would like to work towards seeing that come to fruition. Thanks.

[KingCoyote]

Thanks NP....maybe I should use my own discipline better and sit on a reply like that overnight and then see how it sounds the next morning.

KC

[bullmoose]

As for myself, whenever I read something such as quoted by Sprocket that is in Steve Thomas' book I have to think" Is this a true account, something that actually happened, or just dramatic license?" by him to bolster his point of view in his book? Surely, if such a dramatic moment actually happened, it would been observed by the other cops present, and easily verified as having happened. It reminds me of the statement that John Ramsey went outside to check the mail, of course we know the Ramseys didn't have an outside mailbox, so the statement simply was not true. As anyone knows that reads my posts, I am skeptical of much that I read in Thomas' book. I think that each book on this case has a spin to it, DOI, PMPT,Who killed Jonbenet Ramsey?, Cases that haunt Us; etc., and Thomas' own epic is no exception. I do not find his to be anything but a public presentation of the case he thought he had; because of his frustration at not being vindicated by Patsy and John Ramsey's arrest and conviction; he chose to vent his spleen with his book to try to convict them in the court of public opinion. And make some well-deserved money for his effort.:rolleyes:

[rashomon]

Yes, my academic definition of primary source is applicable because it is how KingCoyote is defining it. (Note his replies to your posts.) We all have to be on the same page or our discussion means nothing. It's not personal, it's a fact. "Primary" does not mean "preferable" or "most objective". Rather, it has to do with how close the source is to the event. That's what it means in terms of research and that is what KC meant when he applied that term to DOI.
'Preferable' were your own words, not mine. I was merely quoting you:

[Linda]In academic research the term "primary source" refers to documents produced by the subject of the research and not by an "outsider". The only reason it is considered preferable to other sources is that it is kind of a first generation source not colored by some outsider's interpretation of the facts. That's not to say primary sources cannot be biased. Everything has a certain bias, but the bias is that of the person being studied and therefeore pertinant to the research. Therefore, DOI is a primary source because it was written by suspects/witnesses/victims -- depending on your POV -- in the Ramsey case.

I'm not implying that this is your opinion, but imo to deduct from this that the Ramsey book is in any way preferable to PMPT or ST's book is a logical non-sequitur.
Sure, DOI is "not colored by some outsider's interpretation", but it is colored by the suspects' personal interest to present themselves as innocent.
And if one wants to study "the bias of the person(s) being studied" (= the Ramseys), then surely this books is worth reading and being dissected.

[rashomon]

Let me see if I can maintain some modicum of patience, nuetrality and objectivity without getting too sarcastic and offending everyone imaginable.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeez...we seem to be bogging down into the collateral issues of my methodologies of categorizing primary versus secondary sources; factual vs. non factual (terms I avoid using by the way); hearsay vs. "double" hearsay; objective versus subjective; etc., etc., ad nauseum. Please feel free to set up your own criteria for categorizing sources and I will, believe me, I will, try my dead level best to remember your specific parameters when I reply to your messages. That's the best I can do; I can only try.

Please, Please, Please remember that we are trying to sort out all of the information, known or deduced, to help solve the JBR case. (OR are we now? Ask yourself why you are really here?) We are not here to lapse into the minutae of semantics. I so often think of the Danielle Van Dam case where some Internet Poster came up with the time/date/location etc., of a haircut and that was used in the prosecution's presentation of the case. (I hope my info about the Van Dam case is correct.) You don't know how badly I would want to help solve this case. I have a 9 year old step grandson and a six year old step granddaughter who have eerie resemblances to JBR and BR. If this had happened to her I would be offering my services as an Organizational Manager with Database Analysis experience (18 years of application by the way and 12 more years of theoretical analysis) to anyone and everyone that listened. I wouldn't sleep until I found something that could help the case.

I know this approach is used by many, many police departments/officers, not to mention Lou Smit, and was desired by Steve Thomas. Please refer to P 168 of ST (paperback) where he refers to Lou Smit's "particularly successful system of indexing, organizing and cross referencing the case file." Steve Thomas then goes on to say "I had urged the police department to either lease the Overwatch or the ZY Index computer programs to do exactly that, but our request had been denied as being cost prohibitive." Just since the first of the year I have met with a Database Management expert and this morning met with computer analysts and programmers to expand on what I have started. I don't know how far I will take it because I do have one full time job, one part time job and manage rental units for my family. But I am serious about everything I do.

I chose this forum, believe it or not, because it seemed to have the least amount of "flaming" with somewhat of a balance between IDI and RDI and some quite knowlegable people and was small enough within which to maneuver.

Geeeeeeez....again...I just wish I got this much of a rise out of people with my other threads, especially the latest: The Pam Griffin Factor.

I am going to shut up now and go take a long walk in the cold air. I sincerely apologize if anyone takes offense or exception to what I say now or previously. I never meant to cause any of that.

KingCoyote

Let's not forget the true 'primary sources' in this case - the evidence: the obviously faked ransom note, the fibers connecting both Ramseys to the staging of the scene, the staged garrote scene, and much more ...

[KingCoyote]

Thank you Rashomon

KC

[bullmoose]

I'm beginning to think that I'm reading a brand new story out of the old classic 1001 Tales of the Arabian Nights--Rashoman's Flying Carpet of Imaginary Fibers. Whatever you consider evidence in this case, that is as you put it "the fibers tying both parents to the staging of the scene" please rest assured that IMO the fibers you speak of are real only in the imaginations of RDI's, of which you are one, and are not actually physically real. The obviously faked ransom note- a fake by who or whom? the staged garotte scene, what are you talking about? Are you speaking of 'evidence' or simply of opinions on evidence?

[LindaA]

This was what I actually said "The only reason it is considered preferable to other sources is that it is kind of a first generation source not colored by some outsider's interpretation of the facts."

Let me say this for the last time-- it has nothing to do with whether you believe the Ramseys or Steve Thomas or anybody else. A primary source is a primary source and is preferable only because of its closeness to the situation/person/event/whatever being studied. It has nothing to do with whether one source is more or less biased than another, whether one author is more truthful than another. If you can't accept that definition of it then so be it.

[KingCoyote]

Linda A is absolutely correct.

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

This was what I actually said "The only reason it is considered preferable to other sources is that it is kind of a first generation source not colored by some outsider's interpretation of the facts."

Let me say this for the last time-- it has nothing to do with whether you believe the Ramseys or Steve Thomas or anybody else. A primary source is a primary source and is preferable only because of its closeness to the situation/person/event/whatever being studied. It has nothing to do with whether one source is more or less biased than another, whether one author is more truthful than another. If you can't accept that definition of it then so be it.
Hmm, but isn't it strange then that these 'preferable primary sources' John and Patsy Ramsey weren't even called to testify before the Grand Jury?
What's the value of a GJ where the jurors don't even get to see and hear the main suspects? That GJ was never meant to indict imo.

[rashomon]

I'm beginning to think that I'm reading a brand new story out of the old classic 1001 Tales of the Arabian Nights--Rashoman's Flying Carpet of Imaginary Fibers. Whatever you consider evidence in this case, that is as you put it "the fibers tying both parents to the staging of the scene" please rest assured that IMO the fibers you speak of are real only in the imaginations of RDI's, of which you are one, and are not actually physically real.
Nice try Bullmoose to wrap your message into a little fairy tale picture, but I'm afraid what you wrote doesn't 'fly' with me :) and also with the other RDIs who have researched this case. .

For the true 'magic carpet' in this case has been woven by the Ramsey Spin Team, and those who are sitting on that carpet are IDIs like you who want to fly far away from the damaging fiber (and also other!) evidence in this case. Therefore I'd advise you to land your carpet right in from of the Colorado CBI lab and talk with the lab techs there. Or do you think these guys were unable to do correct fiber testing?
The fibers in this case are not imaginary, Bullmoose, much as you'd like them to be. They are very real and very implicating:
Fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket were found in incriminating locations at the crime scene. This is nothing Steve Thomas made up. Lawyer Levin who confronted the Ramseys with this evidence actually had contacted the lab himself. Thanks Nuisanceposter for finding the source for that - you're a true bonanza of JBR case info!
The obviously faked ransom note- a fake by who or whom? the staged garotte scene, what are you talking about? Are you speaking of 'evidence' or simply of opinions on evidence?
I think you know very well what I'm talking about, for this has been discussed here countless times.

[LindaA]

Hmm, but isn't it strange then that these 'preferable primary sources' John and Patsy Ramsey weren't even called to testify before the Grand Jury?
What's the value of a GJ where the jurors don't even get to see and hear the main suspects? That GJ was never meant to indict imo.

None of this has anything to do with the definition of the term "primary source."

[rashomon]

None of this has anything to do with the definition of the term "primary source."
But it is a reflection based on your definiton of primary source.
For what interests me is your actual motive for bringing up the primary source topic at all. Let's stick with your definition:

This was what I actually said "The only reason it is considered preferable to other sources is that it is kind of a first generation source not colored by some outsider's interpretation of the facts."

Let me say this for the last time-- it has nothing to do with whether you believe the Ramseys or Steve Thomas or anybody else. A primary source is a primary source and is preferable only because of its closeness to the situation/person/event/whatever being studied.

I don't dispute the validity of your definition, but I have the impression that you used it to suggest that the Ramseys' book is preferable to other books on the case.

You may not have thought of it, but your definition is actually of great service to the discussion from the RDI point of view:
JB was killed in her own home, and both Ramseys were present in the home when she was killed. (This btw is a strictly logical description which IDIs will have to agree to).
So the Ramseys were classic 'primary sources'. And it is an unforgivable blunder on the part of the police that they let these primary sources just go away and did not take them to the police station right away, collect their clothes and interview them separately.

Therefore thanks for your definition of primary source - it is very useful indeed!

[LindaA]

I brought up the definition of the term because people were misunderstganding what KC was saying when he referred to DOI as one. I have bent overboard to try and make the point that I am NOT judging the books in any way. And this is NOT MY definition of the term "primary source,"
but rather the term of researchers and academicians the world over.

I don't care which side this comes down in favor of -- RDI or IDI. It is a fact that the term means what it means. I am not trying to defend DOI or condemn any other book on the subject. What I am stating as fact is correct and is not arguable.

All you have written about the Ramseys and the murder is really beside the point.

[shill]

If you want to know what Patsy, John, Burke, and JB did when they got home that night you have to ask Patsy, John, and Burke. No one else was a witness to what they did that night.(Except for possibly an intruder if he had been watching them)
You can choose to believe them or not, but they are the ONLY source of that information.

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: The grand jury had the power to call the Ramseys to testify; the fact that the Ramseys were never called was not because the grand jury wasn't allowed to hear their testimony; no, it was because, for reasons known only to the grand jury, it chose not to call the Ramseys or hear their testimony, or question the Ramseys themselves. The grand jury had the power to call whoever it chose, it did not; it had the power to indict or to not indict, it did not; it had the power to vote on indictment or not, I don't know if it did or didn't. As to all you are so sure of as proven, rest assured it is still just the opinion of the poster you use for your source material, and is not accepted by me or other IDI posters. This IMHO:tongue:

[rashomon]

If you want to know what Patsy, John, Burke, and JB did when they got home that night you have to ask Patsy, John, and Burke. No one else was a witness to what they did that night.(Except for possibly an intruder if he had been watching them)
You can choose to believe them or not, but they are the ONLY source of that information.
And you naively assume that they would tell the truth, don't you? LOL!

[Louisadelmar]

And you naively assume that they would tell the truth, don't you? LOL!

Naivete has nothing to do with it. If one believes the Ramseys are innocent then one believes they are telling the truth.

Is it naive to believe Lindy Chamberlain was telling the truth? Richard Jewell?

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: Almost by definition any poster here that takes the IDI viewpoint is going to believe that the Ramseys were telling the truth about what happened on the night of12/25--12/26, after all they were there. Not to believe any or all of them makes you an RDI advocate, which you obviously are, but so what. That's what we are here at this board for, to post and compare our differing views. :)

[Tober]

Almost by definition any poster here that takes the IDI viewpoint is going to believe that the Ramseys were telling the truth about what happened on the night of12/25--12/26, after all they were there.

The problem, though, is that they aren't telling the truth. The pineapple in JonBenet's upper intestine proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that JonBenet was awake and out of her bed at a time when John and Patsy claim she was asleep and in bed.

[bullmoose]

Only in your opinion, not mine. What happened to Jonbenet occurred after John and Patsy were asleep, IMHO. Conjecture all you want and call it proof; it is still just your conjecture, without a shadow of a doubt. It is underwhelming to me.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by rashomon
And you naively assume that they would tell the truth, don't you? LOL!

Louisadelmar

Naivete has nothing to do with it. If one believes the Ramseys are innocent then one believes they are telling the truth.
Is it naive to believe Lindy Chamberlain was telling the truth? Richard Jewell
I only know about the Lindy Chamberlain case, and yes indeed, I would have thought it to be naive to simply 'believe' she was telling the truth, without exonerating evidence corroborating her version of events.
But in case you have missed it: exonerating evidence even remotely similar to the Chamberlain case is is missing in the JBR case.

[Louisadelmar]

I only know about the Lindy Chamberlain case, and yes indeed, I would have thought it to be naive to simply 'believe' she was telling the truth, without exonerating evidence corroborating her version of events.
But in case you have missed it: exonerating evidence even remotely similar to the Chamberlain case is is missing in the JBR case.

Guilty until proven innocent?

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

I firmly believe that with the police/LE you are guilty until proven innocent. Fortunately it isn't that way in the court system...or its not supposed to be.

KC

[shill]

The problem, though, is that they aren't telling the truth. The pineapple in JonBenet's upper intestine proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that JonBenet was awake and out of her bed at a time when John and Patsy claim she was asleep and in bed.

Your claim is that you know JB's time of death. I have never seen a link to the exact time of her death.
If they're not telling the truth, you should easily be able to provide a link to JB's exact time of death to back your claim that the Ramseys are lying.

It's time you put your money where your mouth is Tober. I'm tired of your baseless claims.

[thewhitewitch1]

Your claim is that you know JB's time of death. I have never seen a link to the exact time of her death.
If they're not telling the truth, you should easily be able to provide a link to JB's exact time of death to back your claim that the Ramseys are lying.

It's time you put your money where your mouth is Tober. I'm tired of your baseless claims.


Wasn't it estimated that JB probably ate the pineapple about 2 hours before she died? A neighbor reported seeing dim lights on in the kitchen at about midnight. What time did Melody Stanton say she heard the scream? Or didn't she know? If JB was up at midnight snacking on pineapple, then whoever killed her couldn't have done so until at least 2 a.m. in order for the pineapple to be in her intestines for at least 2 hours. If she wasn't asleep when the family came home, as claimed, she could have eaten it at 10:00 p.m. and been killed at midnight. Not that it means anything but coincidental that that would be the time Patsy usually woke her up to go to the bathroom.
I still don't think she got up by herself to go. Maybe Patsy did wake her up that night and JB was hungry, though it makes no sense that Patsy would roust herself out of bed only two hours after she got in it. If she wanted to make sure JB wouldn't wet the bed, she would have woken her up to go when they got home, or so you'd think. IMO
Then you have the Ramseys saying how totally "out" JB was; so much so that she didn't even wake up from being carried from the car or having her clothes changed. If she was that sound asleep, doesn't it seem unlikely that she would have woken herself up to use the bathroom?
At any rate, the light seen in the kitchen around midnight indicates someone was up and doing something, doesn't it? Like I said, I am not sure what time Melody Stanton heard the scream but I think she said it was around 2 a.m. (she didn't look at the clock) so what was this intruder doing with JB for 2 hours if the kitchen light means someone was up at midnight? I find it hard to believe that an intruder would play around with his prey in her own home for 2 hours. Or was Stanton way off and the scream occured closer to midnight or shortly after?

[Louisadelmar]

PMPT pb, pg 76:

"Melody Stanton, up the street at 738, told the police on January 3 that she was certain she had heard a child's scream at about 2:00 AM on the night of the murder. Her bedroom window, which looks toward the Ramsey house from across the street, had been partly open. When questioned by the police, Stanton said that there had been only one scream but it was horrifying. If it came from the child, she assumed it had awakened her parents."


ST’s book p. 79 says between midnight and 2AM

[KingCoyote]

TheWhitewitch1:

You may have already read this but Section 3 of my initial post in the Thread The Pam Griffin Factor goes into a discussion of the probability of Patsy and JBR confronting each other on the night of 12/25 in a possible JBR bedwetting or Patsy checking on JBR at midnight situation. If you can wade through those scenarios and combine your thoughts and comments about lighting in the kitchen at midnight and a scream heard by Melanie Stanton between midnight and 2 AM (See Steve Thomas Paperback Page 79) I would be very interested in your comments. Your current post #72 is starting to weave into my first post in The Pam Griffin Factor.

To summarize my thoughts from my post, there would be a good reason for PR to roust herself out of bed. PR knew JBR was likely to wet the bed if she did not "potty" before bedtime and obviously JBR did not "potty" if she was carried upstairs by JR. PR also knew that they would be pressed for time the next morning to catch a plane to Charlevoix and would not have time to do sheets and maybe a bath for JBR so maybe PR just woke up, realized the potential morning scenario and just went to take care of it as an "ounce of prevention." My citations to comments by PR and other parties are in the post in The Pam Griffin Factor. Your comments and thoughts about the lighting and time factors seem to be quite compatible with mine about the bedwetting/check on JBR probabilities.

Thanks,

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

Except whether or not JonBenet wet the bed wasn't a big deal to Patsy. They didn't have to catch a plane any more than my husband has to catch his car to work in the morning. Patsy didn't have to deal with washing sheets etc since LHP was coming and I don't know any experienced mothers of bedwetters who worry about bathing them just because they wet the bed.

In 1997 Patsy said:
ST: Was it common for her to uh, get up during the night at all, either to uh, use the bathroom or to go downstairs or uh, was she a, a fairly good sleeper that would sleep the night through.
PR: She, she was a fairly good sleeper. She um, very rarely, you know, would wake up at night. If she did she would, you know, sometimes she would have wet the bed and she would get up and get in that other bed or she, sometimes would come up to our bed, but it was not very often.

Which matches how it was handled in our house.

It's just not a big deal.

[Sprocket]

Your claim is that you know JB's time of death. I have never seen a link to the exact time of her death.
If they're not telling the truth, you should easily be able to provide a link to JB's exact time of death to back your claim that the Ramseys are lying.

It's time you put your money where your mouth is Tober. I'm tired of your baseless claims.

The Ramsey's have steadfastly held to their statements that JB was asleep when they arrived home. They put her straight to bed. The fact that she had undigested or partially digested pineapple in her stomach/intestines clearly shows this can not be the case. Because if you believe the Ramsey's are telling the truth, then you have to conclude that the intruder fed her the undigested pineapple in her own home, before assulting her and killing her.

[thewhitewitch1]

Except whether or not JonBenet wet the bed wasn't a big deal to Patsy. They didn't have to catch a plane any more than my husband has to catch his car to work in the morning. Patsy didn't have to deal with washing sheets etc since LHP was coming and I don't know any experienced mothers of bedwetters who worry about bathing them just because they wet the bed.

In 1997 Patsy said:
ST: Was it common for her to uh, get up during the night at all, either to uh, use the bathroom or to go downstairs or uh, was she a, a fairly good sleeper that would sleep the night through.
PR: She, she was a fairly good sleeper. She um, very rarely, you know, would wake up at night. If she did she would, you know, sometimes she would have wet the bed and she would get up and get in that other bed or she, sometimes would come up to our bed, but it was not very often.

Which matches how it was handled in our house.

It's just not a big deal.

Why are you saying they did not have to catch a plane? They did have to catch a plane and at a specific time.
If JB had wet the bed and gone and woke Patsy up, then the fact is, they were both up. We have no way of knowing if that happened or not.
As stated many times before, JBs bed was not made in its "usual" way with the white blanket under the comforter. This tells us that at some point between the 23rd and the 26th, JB had wet the bed. That and the fact that the sheets on the bed were not the ones LHP put on it on the 23rd. We can deduce that she may have wet the bed on the 23rd and the white blanket was just not put back on the bed, which would place it in the dryer. How would an intruder know and why would they even bother to retrieve that specific blanket from the dryer? I am curious to know what was in the dryer, if anything, that morning...specifically childrens clothing.
Just because Patsy says that the bed wetting "was no big deal", some of us do not take her words as gold. What else is she going to say? "It really pissed me off?" :shrug:
KingCoyote (without pointing a finger at anyone) has a pretty convincing case going against Patsy. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

The closest they had to having to "catch" a plane was they were supposed to meet JAR et al at "elevenish." John said they were chronically late on trips like that and whatever his good intentions, people who are always late are always late. If beng on time had been a big deal to them they wouldn't have always been late.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

I refer you to P. 11 of DOI where Patsy clearly states " got to be at the airport by 6:30 or so"....."going to push us to get everyone going because time is so short"...."Minutes later I hurry down the back stairs"....PR disagrees with you about having to catch a plane....I cannot change PR's statements.

LHP, according to ST - P50, stated that PR would strip the sheets before LPH got there and I have seen other references to PR stripping bed and putting sheets in washer.

I must admit that I know nothing about being a mother of a bedwetter but a bath after a child wets the bed isn't out of the realm of possibility or need either. JBR was also known to soil herself with fecal matter as well. ST 37/38

Louisa, I am not trying to prove Patsy did anything...I have not set my sights on Patsy and gone out to find evidence against her. I am letting the evidence find what is the most possible or probable scenario and consequently a culprit that fits with that possible/probable scenario. Sometimes you have to let the chips fall where they may.

To be honest with you, I had not even considered a timeframe of events to be coupled with my discussion of bedwetting in the Pam Griffin Factor thread. The Whitewitch1's comments just got me to thinking about linking up my thoughts with another person's thought's. If you want to know the truth, Section 3 of the Pam Griffin Thread was mostly an afterthought. I almost didn't even do the analysis since most of the statements did not come from Pam Griffin.

I am here to use the collective thoughts of a forum to give me, and me hopefully give them, some ideas about figuring out what happened. I can do nothing about the probabilities of PR and JBR coming face to face at midnight or the fact that neighbors saw lights on at midnight and/or heard screams at 2 AM. I can do nothing about the fact that a timeframe of midnight till 2 AM would allow for digestion of pineapple to match the autopsy.

thewhitewitch1:

According to PMPT729 LHP says the crime scene photo shows the pink/white sheets LHP's says she put on JBR's bed on 12/23 are in the dryer and the crime scene photo shows the Beauty and the Beast sheets on JBR's bed.

KingCoyote

[Tober]

Maybe she heard it, maybe not. There is no way to independently verify whether she actually heard it or not. First, she told police she heard nothing. She later changed that to hearing the scream, saying she wasn't truthful at first because she "didn't want to get involved." Another time after that she said the scream may have been "negative energy" coming from JonBenet. She said when she (allegedly) heard the scream, she didn't look at the clock. She estimated she heard it around 2 a.m., but she also said it could have been as early as midnight. If, in fact, she heard the scream around midnight, it can be inferred that JonBenet's head injury took place in conjunction with the scream at that time. If so, that means JonBenet could have consumed the pineapple as early as 10 p.m. IMO, the most logical scenario is that JonBenet was awake when they arrived home and ate the pineapple shortly thereafter.

[KingCoyote]

Tober:

I cannot argue with you...the credibility and veracity of Melody Stanton is clearly an issue to reckon with...Your scenario has possibilities as well...I commend you on your logical thought and your detail in analyzing Stanton's statements.

KingCoyote

[shill]

JB was asleep when she got home according to the Ramseys.
I would guess JB got up around midnight to pee as she did routinely, went downstairs and found some pineapple to eat, which accounts for the lights seen around midnight. Two hours later after eating the pineapple around 2am she was killed, accounting for the scream that was heard.

They know that she ate pineapple probably two hours before she was killed. They don't know when she was killed!

It could have been as late as 5am, which would mean she ate pineapple at 3am.
Unless you know her time of death, you don't know when she ate pineapple.:shrug:

[rashomon]

Except whether or not JonBenet wet the bed wasn't a big deal to Patsy. They didn't have to catch a plane any more than my husband has to catch his car to work in the morning. Patsy didn't have to deal with washing sheets etc since LHP was coming and I don't know any experienced mothers of bedwetters who worry about bathing them just because they wet the bed.

In 1997 Patsy said:
ST: Was it common for her to uh, get up during the night at all, either to uh, use the bathroom or to go downstairs or uh, was she a, a fairly good sleeper that would sleep the night through.
PR: She, she was a fairly good sleeper. She um, very rarely, you know, would wake up at night. If she did she would, you know, sometimes she would have wet the bed and she would get up and get in that other bed or she, sometimes would come up to our bed, but it was not very often.

Which matches how it was handled in our house.

It's just not a big deal.

The housekeeper LHP said it was always Patsy who washed and dried JB's sheets, who were wet daily. So this seems to have been one of the few chores Patsy did herself.
And even if it was no big deal to Patsy most of the time, she might still have snapped and lost it on that fatal night. even indulgent parents can get very angry at their children, given the circumstances.

Imo, the strongest indicators of toilet rage possibly being at the origin of the tragedy are:

- Dr. Ron Wright's statement about JB's bladder having voided completely at the time of death.
Dr. White said that normally, dead people's bladders void only partially, so he thinks it possible that JB had shed urine shortly before her death.

- the oversized underwear on the child's body. Where were the underpants panties JB had originally been wearing? Were the removed because they were wet and possibly also soiled?

[rashomon]

Guilty until proven innocent?
My post was about there being no reason for the police to simply 'believe' a suspect, and not about the courtroom rule "innocent until proven guilty" and the prosecution's burden of proof in the courtroom.

[KingCoyote]

Rashomon:

Regarding the panties that may JBR may have been wearing prior to the oversized bloomies, please see the discussion at Patsy Ramsey 1998 Interview Page 456. It is a discussion of what appears to be a pair of soiled or stained panties that, I think, are on the floor of JBR's bathroom. Of course we have no idea when they were left there but we do have some timeframes to rely on since LHP was there on 12/23 and more than likely she would have picked up dirty clothes on the floor.

Regarding the fact that JBR's bladder was completely as opposed to partially empty, I too have seriously considered this issue. This expert opinion make it much easier to put a timelime to a sequence of events that may explain this death. I am not one to rely heavily on "expert" testimony since both sides can bring in a slew of experts who do nothing but obfuscate so much that all experts tend to "wash each other out." But thank you for the reference.

KingCoyote

[Tober]

It could have been as late as 5am


Being that 911 was called at 5:52 a.m., I find it very unlikely that JonBenet was killed around 5 a.m. Think of the amount of time the staging would have taken, including writing the ransom note, which was most likely written after JonBenet had been killed. Though it can be inferred that the staging was done in a panic, it certainly wouldn't have been an easy thing to do. The stager may have needed to work up the intestinal fortitude to perform the staging, that would have taken time and would have been quite an emotional experience. IMO, it can be inferred that the staging was complete at the time 911 was called, which makes it highly unlikely that JonBenet was killed around 5 a.m.

[thewhitewitch1]

JB was asleep when she got home according to the Ramseys.
I would guess JB got up around midnight to pee as she did routinely, went downstairs and found some pineapple to eat, which accounts for the lights seen around midnight. Two hours later after eating the pineapple around 2am she was killed, accounting for the scream that was heard.

They know that she ate pineapple probably two hours before she was killed. They don't know when she was killed!

It could have been as late as 5am, which would mean she ate pineapple at 3am.
Unless you know her time of death, you don't know when she ate pineapple.:shrug:


Shill, we may not know what time she ate the pineapple or the exact time of death, but there can be an estimated time for each due to the advanced state of rigor mortis she was in when found (even had a "odor of decay").
Logic would have it that the pineapple, kitchen lights on at that time and the scream all tie in together to make the time frame between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.
I believe she was awake when they arrived home from the Whites and ate the pineapple at that time. Something then happened around midnight...whether JB wet the bed or Patsy woke her up to use the bathroom and it was in that time frame that something horrible happened.
This is why Patsy will not admit to the pineapple. Because to make the story simple, they decided to say that she was asleep when she got home and never woke up. It was their (almost) original statement and once told, they could not admit to her being awake because LE would wonder why they lied about it in the first place. This is why the pineapple is such a "mystery".
If they had no involvement in her murder, why would they need to lie about anything?
I know I am an RDI but if you look at the sequence of things, it pretty much falls into place. IMO The only other things that remain a mystery is how and why.

[Athena]

PMPT pb, pg 76:

"Melody Stanton, up the street at 738, told the police on January 3 that she was certain she had heard a child's scream at about 2:00 AM on the night of the murder. Her bedroom window, which looks toward the Ramsey house from across the street, had been partly open. When questioned by the police, Stanton said that there had been only one scream but it was horrifying. If it came from the child, she assumed it had awakened her parents."


ST’s book p. 79 says between midnight and 2AM

This is yet just another "fact" modified to fit into ST's theory that JBR wet the bed. Schiller had access to the police reports; the same ones that ST had - yet Schiller's account says Stanton was certain she heard the scream at 2AM and ST says between midnight and 2AM. Sorry but I go with Schiller's account on this one.

ST IMO took liberty with some of these so-called facts to fit his theory. Just like he says he believed JBR was put to bed in a red turtleneck, wet it and PR was soaking it was admitted to in his depo -- it was a red jumpsuit soaking not a red turtleneck and JBR was put to the bed in the same shirt she was found in.

[Tober]

Notice that he specifies "about 2 a.m." She didn't take note of the time she (allegedly) heard the scream, she is estimating. She also said it may have been as early as midnight. One must also consider her initial statement of not hearing anything and her "negative energy" comment regarding JonBenet and the scream.

[Tober]

I find it very telling that Patsy distances herself from the pineapple issue entirely. She not only claims she didn't feed JonBenet the pineapple, but claims she has no idea where the bowl of pineapple (which contained Patsy's fingerprints) came from. If she isn't being truthful about the pineapple, then it is certainly reasonable to be suspect of any of her claims regarding JonBenet's death.

[Zoey]

I find it very telling that Patsy distances herself from the pineapple issue entirely. She not only claims she didn't feed JonBenet the pineapple, but claims she has no idea where the bowl of pineapple (which contained Patsy's fingerprints) came from. If she isn't being truthful about the pineapple, then it is certainly reasonable to be suspect of any of her claims regarding JonBenet's death.

IMO, Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl because she was the one that put it in the cupboard after having washed it when the kids used it to put the materials in it to be used for the gingerbread houses. I believe she did not know where the bowl of pineapple came from. The bowl, yes, the bowl of pineapple no.

[Tober]

Patsy acts as if the pineapple itself was foreign to the house entirely. She even implies that JonBenet may have consumed it at the Whites. This is the problem I have. She won't even acknowledge that the pineapple itself came from the home. She also states that JonBenet wouldn't have been able to reach a bowl that size, which implies that the pineapple wasn't in the refrigerator in the bowl and that someone would had to have gotten it for JonBenet. Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl.

[KingCoyote]

Athena:

(Use of capitalization is for emphasis only and is not to be interpreted as yelling.)

I agree that ST took a ton of liberty with his statements and hypothesis about PR going into a rage and killing JBR. In fact one of my previous posts in this thread confused the concept of primary/secondary and objective/subjective and "single" hearsay/"double hearsay" and started a spirited discussion about categorizing sources. As I stated somewhere in those posts I try, as much as possible, to back up all sources, especially ST.

I have read and re-read ST's Deposition dated 9/01 regarding the red turtleneck. He ONLY admits that he could not substantiate his statements that it was wet or wet from urine. There is still the statement of his hypothesis that he made that (paraphrased) JBR may have indeed worn the [turtleneck] shirt HOME. He only admitted in the CRADM chat that (paraphrased) she wore the sequin shirt AT the Whites party. I have fully analyzed those statement in relation to the confidentiality aspects and protective order aspect of the Deposition, especially in relation to Lin Wood not addressing the issue of what JBR might have worn home. Yes, I may be seeing pictures in the clouds but the statements are sufficiently different to warrant analysis. I did that in one of my most recent posts in the Scarves, Scarves, Scarves thread.

As to the statement that PMPT makes about Stanton hearing the scream at 2:00 AM and other neighbors seeing lights on in the kitchen area at midnight, this gives us a possible timeline for the beginning of the cause of death phase of the crime and an ending to that phase. The two hour span also allows for digestion of the pineapple to the point in JBR's intestine. I am not saying it all happened in that time nor who did it. I am just saying that some evidence can be linked together to form timelines and sequences of events.

I really think that if we start looking at a slightly bigger pictures of stages, phases, events and activities and group evidence within those categories we may be able to see bigger pictures that become one very big picture.

I very much enjoy your posts as they keep me on my toes to be as precise as possible and do very, very thorough analysis.

KingCoyote

[bullmoose]

Patsy's prints were indeed on the bowl; being how as she was almost certainly the one to have last washed it and put it away. If she is claiming to have no knowledge of the pineapple, maybe she had no knowledge of where it came from. The pineapple, which was sliced up, had to have come in a plastic wrapper or package; unless this was found with Patsy's fingerprint/s on it it is purely supposition to assume that she put the pineapple in the bowl or even knew about it before being asked. The BPD did a great deal of work to try to trace where the duct tape and cord came from; I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have expended an equal effort to try to link the pineapple. Store of origin, purchase receipts, credit card receipts, etc. Yet I've never read of what was done to trace the pineapple. Was this done?

[KingCoyote]

Bullmoose:

One of my earlier ideas is that the pineapple may have arrived with a guest at the 12/23 party and placed in a Ramsey bowl in such a fashion using plastic wrap that the guest's fingerprints didn't get to the bowl. I further hypothesized that PR may have moved this bowl while in the refrigerator in order to put her prints on it. Further Burke may have helped himself to an afternoon snack (maybe with his improvised iced tea?) before going to the Whites and simply left the pineapple on the table and no one noticed it. This idea does assume Burke and the guest who brought the pineapple decided never to own up to their activities.

Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote

[Sprocket]

My post was about there being no reason for the police to simply 'believe' a suspect, and not about the courtroom rule "innocent until proven guilty" and the prosecution's burden of proof in the courtroom.

And I will add that, the "innocent until proven guilty" only applies inside a court of law. It is ridiculous to apply it outside the courtroom. Vincent Bugliosi has written some excellent arguments about this very issue.

Outrage-page 29

Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in reference to a pending case, that "we"--meaning the editors and their readers--have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities.

snip

page 30

It is one thing to say that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence, and that in the absence of affirmative proof of guilt he is entitled to a not-guilty verdict even if he presented no evidence of his innocence at all. To go a step further, howwever, and say that he is legally presumed to be innocent when he has just been brought to court in handcuffs or with a deputy sheriff at his side seems to be hollow rhetoric. One day a defendant is going to stand up in court and tell the judge, "Your Honor, if I am legally presumed to be innocent, why have I been arrested for this crime, why has a criminal complaint been filed against me, and why am I now here in court being tried?"

As any seasoned criminal trial lawyer will attest, most juries see through the transparent fiction of the presumption of innocence. Whether they verbalize it or not, as reasonable human beings they know that if the defendant seated at the counsel table in front of them were truly presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law, they would not be empaneled to hear and adjudicate the charges brought against the defendant [i]by[/] the law.


And of course, as always, behavior is evidence.

[rashomon]

Thanks Sprocket, for digging up the quote from V. Bugliosi. I was looking for this passage in his book 'Outrage' when writing my post, but couldn't find it.

[rashomon]

Rashomon:

Regarding the panties that may JBR may have been wearing prior to the oversized bloomies, please see the discussion at Patsy Ramsey 1998 Interview Page 456. It is a discussion of what appears to be a pair of soiled or stained panties that, I think, are on the floor of JBR's bathroom. Of course we have no idea when they were left there but we do have some timeframes to rely on since LHP was there on 12/23 and more than likely she would have picked up dirty clothes on the floor.

KingCoyote
I know about those panties, but someone had posted on another forum that these panties were found inside some jeans, therefore I thought JB simply chagged clothes before going to the Whites' party.
But that's what is in the original inteview:

16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her

18 pants.

19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular

20 pants, when she would have worn those last?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably

22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the

23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.

24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0457

1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It

2 appears they are stained.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet

5 had a problem with?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at

7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you

8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you

10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed

11 to just bed wetting?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That

13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those

15 would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in

16 there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them

18 last.

19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,

0458

1 would you have done something with them?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that

3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out

4 of that bathroom.

5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in

6 there.

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the

9 floor that night when you got the --

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear.

12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I

13 don't know.

14 TOM HANEY: Could have.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.

16 Don't know for sure.

17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point

18 during the night she would have gotten up and put those

19 on or thrown them down there or changed in some way;

20 trying to account for those being there.

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine

22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out

23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she

24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

25 What she had on earlier that day, I just

0459

1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just

2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,

3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left

4 them there.



I have language question: at the top, does the use of the word 'pants' mean underwear here (for I think 'pants' is also used in American English for trousers/slacks)?
From the context it seems clear that they were underwear turned inside out/soiled, but it would really interest me where that other poster drew the inference that they were inside some jeans, for there's no mention of any jeans here.

[LindaA]

Rashomon, you are right "pants" in the US almost always refers to an outer garment. I had the same question when I just read your post. However, I believe in this case they are referring to underpants, which as almost always called "panties' these days when speaking of a garment worn by a female. However, it seems kind of strange to be asking someone if they remember when a certain pair of underwear were worn. It makes more sense to ask about an outer garment. But since the conversation moves directly to their being stained, I think it refers to underwear. JMO. HTH.

[bullmoose]

Excellant quote, Sprocket, from Bugliosi's book. The fact that a jury is going to believe that a person that is front of them, an empanelled jury, is probably guilty, not truly considered innocent until proven guilty, is a statement I can accept. The fact remains that it is not that easy to get someone to trial before a jury because of the safeguards built into the system; the evidence has to be there to get an indictment, or to get the local or federal DA to file charges. Or catch a culprit in the act. In the case of Jonbenet obviously no one was caught in the act of her murder and up until this late date no one has been brought to trial before an empanelled jury; as we all know the grand jury which could have indicted whoever they chose to bring to trial chose not to indict anyone.

[Louisadelmar]

I know about those panties, but someone had posted on another forum that these panties were found inside some jeans, therefore I thought JB simply chagged clothes before going to the Whites' party.
But that's what is in the original inteview:


I have language question: at the top, does the use of the word 'pants' mean underwear here (for I think 'pants' is also used in American English for trousers/slacks)?
From the context it seems clear that they were underwear turned inside out/soiled, but it would really interest me where that other poster drew the inference that they were inside some jeans, for there's no mention of any jeans here.

In going through Patsy's interviews 'panties' and 'underpants' seems to be used to refer to underwear and with the exception of pajamas and the longjohns that were put on her on the 25th, 'pants' refers to trouser/slacks type pants.

These aren't all the instances where the words were used but here are some examples:

Panties
16 THOMAS HANEY: Did JonBenet have
17 panties

15 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you remember the
16 white panties

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she would,
12 like we talked about earlier, you know, her
13 wiping habits weren't terrific. And so she had
14 urinated, maybe she wouldn't wipe properly and
15 her panties

1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties,

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Mrs. Ramsey, I
13 never purchased a pair of girl's panties.

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties

Pants
22 Q. And did the panties come down
23 with them when you removed those pants, if
24 you remember?
25 A. I don't remember.

TT: Okay. And I’m sorry. What kind of pants, what color of pants. . .
PR: They were black velvet. Black velvet jeans, kind of like, from the Gap. Some little black velvet vest.

PR: That might be what it was. Genie, Barbie. Ah it was this little, grandma got it for her, it was little pants like, that nylon kind of stuff, you know. Just a little (inaudible) white piece.

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her
18 pants.
19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular
20 pants, when she would have worn those last?


Underpants

8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, we
9 are going to move on to another area. And
10 what I want to discuss with you is the
11 underpants that JonBenet was wearing at the
12 time that she was discovered on the 26th.


18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) 40 pounds is the
18 wrong size pair of underpants, would you
19 agree?
20 A. Yes.

[KingCoyote]

Boy...Am I glad to see that everyone has the same problem with that discussion that I did...that is why I said it "appears to be panities." First I thought it was clearly pants, and I think I also read some other internet poster's idea that there was both pants and panties there....the staining and issues of "wiping herself" led me to believe it was panties....the "turned inside out" led me to believe it was pants. The reference to the black velvet pant/jeans leads me to believe it is pants.....OK....right now I vote.....undecided leaning toward pants........what a cop out on my part!!!!

KingCoyote = confused

[Sprocket]

as we all know the grand jury which could have indicted whoever they chose to bring to trial chose not to indict anyone.

How do "we" know the grand jury actually took a vote, and voted not to indict? Got a source for that?

[bullmoose]

Sprocket: Take a deep breath and reread my last post, or any of my prior posts and tell me, please where it was that I said that the grand jury took a vote??? What I said was that they chose not to indict; either they voted not to or they didn't vote at all on it, the result is the same;IMO, they chose not to indict.:tongue:

[KingCoyote]

I am not an expert on Grand Jury Proceedings in Colorado or anywhere else but it is my understanding that it is possible for a Grand Jury to return a True Bill of Indictment and the Prosecutor does not accept the Bill and refuses to prosecute. Are there any forum members out there with expertise in the Colorado Grand Jury Procedures? That would be interesting if that happened.

[Louisadelmar]

Boy...Am I glad to see that everyone has the same problem with that discussion that I did...that is why I said it "appears to be panities." First I thought it was clearly pants, and I think I also read some other internet poster's idea that there was both pants and panties there....the staining and issues of "wiping herself" led me to believe it was panties....the "turned inside out" led me to believe it was pants. The reference to the black velvet pant/jeans leads me to believe it is pants.....OK....right now I vote.....undecided leaning toward pants........what a cop out on my part!!!!

KingCoyote = confused

Based on raising 3 kids I think the logical conclusion is it's pants with underpants inside them. They slide both underpants and pants off in one move and then just step out of them.

[bullmoose]

I am not an expert on Colorado legal matters but I think I've heard somewhere that the scenario you mentioned is possible; but did not happen in this case. I do not think that such an action could or would stay secret for more than five minutes; there would have been public outrage, had that occurred.JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

From what I understand, the GJ did not indict because they did not think they had enough evidence for a conviction. Once the case was tried and lost, the Ramseys could not be tried for it again. They were hoping more evidence would surface in the future that would guaranty a conviction. Or something like that.

[Sprocket]

Even though Chuck Green's recent article in the chieftan does not mention a source for the Myth's that he writes about, (see Myth's thread) I tend to believe his version that:

There is a myth that a grand jury decided there wasn’t enough evidence to indict anyone for the slaying. The reality is that the jurors were never allowed to vote on whether they thought there was enough evidence to indict.

This is far different than that grand jury actually making a decision to indict or not.

Chuck Green is a respected journalist, and personally, I would tend to believe this information over another uncorrobrated source or opinion that the grand jury actually came to a decision.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

You have convinced me!

KC

[elvislives]

Actually, I have wondered ever since DOI came out why, if they are guilty, the Rs would draw attention to themselves in that way. They took a h*ll of a chance having it published.
.


I am surprised their attorneys allowed it. I did a little checking and found that indeed their comments can be used against them at trial, if it ever came to that.

[elvislives]

Hmm, but isn't it strange then that these 'preferable primary sources' John and Patsy Ramsey weren't even called to testify before the Grand Jury?
What's the value of a GJ where the jurors don't even get to see and hear the main suspects? That GJ was never meant to indict imo.

This is a great question, rashomon and one that has bothered me for some time. Why on earth would the GJ NOT call J and PR to testify?Guilty or not, they were in the house at the time of the murder and surely would have some important information regarding the events leading up to the murder. I know they called Burke which is important, but this has never made sense to me.
Also, does anyone know if Colorado GJ testimony is sealed FOREVER...or will we someday get to read it? I would love to understand what info the GJ had that caused them to not indict.

[elvislives]

The housekeeper LHP said it was always Patsy who washed and dried JB's sheets, who were wet daily. So this seems to have been one of the few chores Patsy did herself.
And even if it was no big deal to Patsy most of the time, she might still have snapped and lost it on that fatal night. even indulgent parents can get very angry at their children, given the circumstances.

Imo, the strongest indicators of toilet rage possibly being at the origin of the tragedy are:

- Dr. Ron Wright's statement about JB's bladder having voided completely at the time of death.
Dr. White said that normally, dead people's bladders void only partially, so he thinks it possible that JB had shed urine shortly before her death.

- the oversized underwear on the child's body. Where were the underpants panties JB had originally been wearing? Were the removed because they were wet and possibly also soiled?

Hey Rash, we've discussed this before, but not thorougly. What is your opinion of the sequence of events on that eve? JB wets the bed, Patsy snaps...then what?
I've mentioned this before, but just for emphasis, I also used to believe that PR snapped, then bashed JB over the head in a fit of rage. Then once she realized she had killed her, she staged the rest of the scene. Only problem with this theory..the autopsy refutes it, which is probably why no charges were ever filed against PR.
So what do you think happened? Do you think that PR was so pissed at JB that she strangled her? This seems unlikely to me since JB would have passed out after a few minutes then PR would still have to strangle her for another few to finish her off.
The theory that PR bashed JB on the head, then strangled her will only work if you think she strangled her immediately after the head bash, which again is hard to imagine. Unless of course, she intended to kill her. Then any scenario would work. But if it was a 'rage attack", how do you think it transpired??

[Sprocket]

Actually, I have wondered ever since DOI came out why, if they are guilty, the Rs would draw attention to themselves in that way. They took a h*ll of a chance having it published.
.

Because they wanted to change public opinion, just like they wanted to manipulate public perception about them by going on CNN and talking to the media six days after the murder. During that interview they said:

ST book page 88:
The Ramseys also told the national television audience that they were "not angry" about the murder of their daughter and wanted to move on with their lives.

As we know, Scott Peterson chose to speak to the media many times instead of talking with the police. When you choose not to communicate with the very agency that can actually help you find the missing wife, or the murder of a child, that behavior in and of itself is suspect.

Bypassing the police, and talking directly to the media is a tactic to manipulate public opinion.

[elvislives]

Even though Chuck Green's recent article in the chieftan does not mention a source for the Myth's that he writes about, (see Myth's thread) I tend to believe his version that:



This is far different than that grand jury actually making a decision to indict or not.

Chuck Green is a respected journalist, and personally, I would tend to believe this information over another uncorrobrated source or opinion that the grand jury actually came to a decision.

Sprocket, can you elaborate on this? Who would have the power to prevent the GJ from voting? I have always been baffled by the actions of the Boulder GJ. I live in California, and I realize that the laws differ by state, but in California it seems that everyone is indicted by the grand jury, guilty or not. The reason for that is the burden of proof for the GJ is "by a preponderance of the evidence" and not reasonable doubt. A VERY different threshold. I've been a fence sitter for some time because I am not convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the R's are guilty. But if I were on the GJ, I would indict for sure. All that does is hold them over for trial. Any light you can shed on this would be appreciated.

[elvislives]

Because they wanted to change public opinion, just like they wanted to manipulate public perception about them by going on CNN and talking to the media six days after the murder. During that interview they said:



As we know, Scott Peterson chose to speak to the media many times instead of talking with the police. When you choose not to communicate with the very agency that can actually help you find the missing wife, or the murder of a child, that behavior in and of itself is suspect.

Bypassing the police, and talking directly to the media is a tactic to manipulate public opinion.

Is a transcript of the cnn interview available somewhere? I have always found the parents' behavior bizarre, but if they really said they wanted to move on with their lives just a few days after their daughter's murder, that is REALLY odd. I have some experience with parents of murdered children and the one common emotion they share is rage. No matter how nice and civilized a parent may be, when their child is murdered they are consumed with rage....at least that's been my experience.

[Sprocket]

Who would have the power to prevent the GJ from voting?

By dismissing them before they have a chance to vote....??? That would be the individuals who convened (sp?) a grand jury. I'll have to get with SuperDave to see if he knows more about Colorado grand jury proceedings.

[Sprocket]

Is a transcript of the cnn interview available somewhere? I have always found the parents' behavior bizarre, but if they really said they wanted to move on with their lives just a few days after their daughter's murder, that is REALLY odd. I have some experience with parents of murdered children and the one common emotion they share is rage. No matter how nice and civilized a parent may be, when their child is murdered they are consumed with rage....at least that's been my experience.

I just quoted ST's book. He observed the interview. I imagine the tranny might be on A CANDY ROSE.

WE can talk odd behavior all night long.

What do you think of a man who, just days after the murder of his child, is asking his sister-in-law if she retrieved his golf bag from the murder scene?
(source ST book, pg 48)

[Sprocket]

Part 1 of 1/01/97 Interview with John & Patsy on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/video/interview.html

Part 2

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/video/interview2.html

[KingCoyote]

Elvislives:

I am quite certain that the standard for a Grand Jury to Indict is Probable Cause. An Indictment basically carries the same burden as an Arrest Warrant. Probable cause for an arrest warrant is determined by a neutral magistrate such as a judge. By a preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof a plaintiff must meet in a trial of a civil case. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof a prosecutor must meet in a trial of a criminal case.

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

Part 1 of 3

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/19.html
Aired January 1, 1997 - 4:34 p.m. ET
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: And Brian is here, he conducted an exclusive interview today with the child's parents, John and Patricia Ramsey.
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: First of all, from a newsstand point, a couple of items came out, the Ramseys are going to be putting together their own investigative team, they say, private investigators. This is not meant as any disrespect, they say, for the Colorado authorities. They just want the best minds possible, they say, looking into this crime.
Secondly, they will be offering a reward perhaps as much as $50,000 starting next week. It has been a very difficult week as you might expect for the Ramsey family, a very difficult interview as well, we talked to them for about 45 minutes.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL (off-camera): Why did you decide you wanted to talk now?
JOHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

PATRICIA RAMSEY, JONBENET'S MOTHER: We have just been overwhelmed by the cards and letters and visits and people we haven't seen for years have come to call and be supportive in their -- many of them are parents, and they know and can feel our grief.
RAMSEY, J: But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.
CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney.
RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.
RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.
RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.
RAMSEY, P: We can't -- we can't --
RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.
CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?
RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are.
CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten note, three pages?
RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I had just gotten up. We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit.
It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John.
CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?

RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit.
RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

[Louisadelmar]

Part 2
RAMSEY, J: Checked our son's room. Sometimes she sleeps in there. And we just were --
RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

CABELL: How did you happen later to look in the basement?
RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that looked out of place.

RAMSEY, P: Look for clues I guess.

RAMSEY, J: Look for clues, asking us to do that, give us something more to do to occupy our mind, and so we started in the basement, and -- and we were just looking, and we -- one room in the basement that -- when I opened the door -- there were no windows in that room, and I turned the light on, and I -- that was her.
RAMSEY, P: She was --
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL (on camera): Mr. Ramsey did confirm that duct tape was found on his daughter's mouth. I asked him about a cord found around her neck, that was a report out of Colorado today, he said he didn't see, it could have been there but he was panicked at that point. He picked up the body, ran screaming upstairs, hoping she was still alive, of course she was not.
There was also a reference to another child that was lost. They lost his daughter -- his adult daughter -- about four years ago in an auto accident. This is the second child they have lost.
Coming up in just a few minutes, we address the question -- I address the question -- to them of their being suspects themselves. That's natural in a case like this and we'll ask them about that coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LOU WATERS, CNN ANCHOR: At this hour we're concentrating on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey which has shocked and saddened many in her home town of Boulder, Colorado.

ALLEN: CNN's Brian Cabell this afternoon had an exclusive interview with her parents and he's here again with more of the emotional interview after the killing.
CABELL: As you know in cases like this it's very normal police procedure to look at the family first of all as possible suspects in this case. The Ramseys say they understand this, they're well aware of the Susan Smith case of a couple of years ago, they understand that possibly they would be looked at suspiciously and they say they accept this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL (off camera): You were asked shortly thereafter for a hair sample and writing sample, blood sample. Who else was asked for this?
RAMSEY, J: Well, Patsy and I, Burke, our son, who is nine, every family member.
CABELL: Including your two elder children?
RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.

CABELL: Any friends?
RAMSEY, J: I don't know.
CABELL: Now, did you give the samples?
RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.
CABELL: Oh, really? Because the word was that they thought you were too grief stricken. So both of you, you gave samples?
RAMSEY, J: Yes.
CABELL: Were you offended by that?

RAMSEY, J: No.

RAMSEY, P: It was difficult. But, you know, they need to know -- I mean our hand prints are all over our home, so they need to know if there's -- if there are other ones --
CABELL: The police said a couple of days ago, to assure other residents of Boulder there is no killer on the loose here, you can be assured everything is under control. You believe it's someone outside your home.
RAMSEY, P: There is a killer on the loose.
RAMSEY, J: Absolutely.
RAMSEY, P: I don't know who it is. I don't know if it's a he or a she. But if I were a resident of Boulder, I would tell my friends to keep -- keep your babies close to you, there's someone out there.
CABELL: An FBI spokesman was quoted as saying at this point they don't regard it necessarily as a kidnapping. You think that's a wrong assumption?
RAMSEY, J: I don't know. I mean, there is a -- a note that said -- your daughter has been kidnapped. We have your daughter. We want money. You give us the money; she'll be safely returned.

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.
RAMSEY, J: I guess that's what concerns me because if we don't have the full resources of all the law enforcement community on this case, I am going to be very upset.

CABELL: Inevitably, speculation on talk shows will focus on you. It's got to be a sickening --

RAMSEY, J: It's nauseating beyond belief.
RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson -- and I mean, America is suffering because have lost faith in the American family.
We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children.
CABELL: Do you truly think the perpetrator will be found?
RAMSEY, J: Yes. Yes. Has to be found.
CABELL: Do you think it's a single individual?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. In my heart I do.

[Louisadelmar]

Part 3
CABELL: Do you take some comfort in believing that JonBenet Ramsey is in a better place?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. That's the one thing we want people dealing with us to know, to believe that, we know that in our heart.
RAMSEY, P: She'll never have to know the loss of a child. She will never have to know cancer or death of a child.
RAMSEY, J: We learned when we lost our first child that people would come forward to us, that sooner or later everyone carries a very heavy burden in this life. And JonBenet didn't carry any burdens.

(END VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL: The Ramseys are staying here in the Atlanta area with family right now. They say they intend to go back to Boulder within a few days, precisely when they're not quite sure. They say when they go back they will sit down with the Boulder police. They will talk. They will tell them anything they want to know.
ALLEN: Brian, are police saying anymore about the investigation? Leads or evidence from the home?
CABELL: Police have not been particularly forthcoming about leads perhaps deliberately so, but they have said very little as to forced entry, anything like that we simply do not know. The police are keeping that to themselves at this point.

WATERS: What's intriguing to me is the Boulder cop said -- assured the public -- there was no killer on the loose. Now, that suggests they may have a line on who did this. Isn't that what --
CABELL: You start to question that, but keep in mind this was the first and only murder in Boulder this year so there was a bit of panic, a bit of alarm in the community. I think the police were simply trying to tell them: Don't worry we have everything under control, we have police out in the streets. They did step up their surveillance, so perhaps that's the way to explain that.
ALLEN: When was the last time they saw JonBenet Ramsey?

CABELL: When they put her to bed Christmas night, as a matter of fact, and sometime between the time they put her to bed and 5:50 or so the following morning she was apparently abducted from her bed.
WATERS: Did I hear the Ramseys are putting out some money to hire private investigators?
CABELL: They will be assembling their own private investigative team, exactly how many individuals we don't know, but private investigators, attorneys, they say they want the best investigative minds in the country. They want to coordinate this with the authorities in Boulder and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. But they are hiring their own people and offer a reward starting next week.
WATERS: What kind of reward?
CABELL: Fifty-thousand dollars was the figure he tossed out there. He wasn't absolutely certain but he thought it would be at least $50,000.
ALLEN: Was there something that struck you the most from your conversation with them?
CABELL: It's just looking at two parents, myself being a parent. It's very difficult to conduct an interview, very difficult to be interviewed about losing a six-year-old child especially in such a violent way.
WATERS: Did you try hard to get them to sit down and talk? Most folks, in this kind of situation, I would think, would be very reluctant to sit in front of a television camera.
CABELL: They said that they had to get over this five of six days of grieving and burying their daughter, now they want to get on with this new stage of their life, and that is: finding the killer. They wanted to get this off their chest, they want to get this in motion.

[Louisadelmar]

Is a transcript of the cnn interview available somewhere? I have always found the parents' behavior bizarre, but if they really said they wanted to move on with their lives just a few days after their daughter's murder, that is REALLY odd. I have some experience with parents of murdered children and the one common emotion they share is rage. No matter how nice and civilized a parent may be, when their child is murdered they are consumed with rage....at least that's been my experience.

As John Walsh said (paraphrased) Every family has its own way of dealing with this.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/valerie_percy/7.html
Two weeks after the murder, Chuck Percy announced that his family would get on with its life. He called a press conference together to say he would resume his Senate campaign.
"This is what I must do, and it is what my family wants me to do," he said. Six weeks later, he defeated incumbent Paul Douglas and moved his family to Washington. He sold the Kenilworth home, with its haunting memory.

[shill]

This is a great question, rashomon and one that has bothered me for some time. Why on earth would the GJ NOT call J and PR to testify?Guilty or not, they were in the house at the time of the murder and surely would have some important information regarding the events leading up to the murder. I know they called Burke which is important, but this has never made sense to me.
Also, does anyone know if Colorado GJ testimony is sealed FOREVER...or will we someday get to read it? I would love to understand what info the GJ had that caused them to not indict.
If you call them to testify, it becomes a trial. That is not the purpose of a GJ.
The prosecution has their depositions as evidence and there is no need not put them on the witness stand.

[KingCoyote]

Shill:

I don't think it becomes a trial simply because you are called to testify in front of a Grand Jury. There would be no verdict of guilty or not guilty from a Grand Jury, just a possible indictment which means the GJ found probable cause to indict (have them arressted) and stand trial.

I think the prosecution might use their depositions and the Interviews with Law Enforcement. The depositions would be from civil litigation and be under oath whereas the Interviews with Law Enforcement would not be under oath.

KC

[LindaA]

Louisadelmar, thanks for posting the transcript. What the Rs said and the slight changes made by ST are very interesting indeed. It does, in fact, put a different spin on it entirely. It's yet another example of the misinformation that has clouded this case from the first.

[rashomon]

Shill:

I don't think it becomes a trial simply because you are called to testify in front of a Grand Jury. There would be no verdict of guilty or not guilty from a Grand Jury, just a possible indictment which means the GJ found probable cause to indict (have them arressted) and stand trial.

KC
Shill - KC is correct. Of course the main suspects can (and imo should) testify before a Grand Jury.
Jeffrey MacDonald for example, who was later convicted of murdering his family, had testified before the GJ for several days.

[Louisadelmar]

Shill - KC is correct. Of course the main suspects can (and imo should) testify before a Grand Jury.
Jeffrey MacDonald for example, who was later convicted of murdering his family, had testified before the GJ for several days.

DOI ppbk, p370

One of the accusations that had been leveled against Patsy and me was, “ If the Ramseys are innocent, why wouldn’t they agree to appear before thw grand jury?” The truth was we had done everything we knew how to do to get the prosecutors to subpoena us so we could testify. They wouldn’t allow it […] We were never called and are not sure why.-

I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that they weren't called because then they would have to be given access to (some of?) the evidence. But I would love to hear from the jurors why they weren't called.

[Louisadelmar]

The housekeeper LHP said it was always Patsy who washed and dried JB's sheets, who were wet daily. So this seems to have been one of the few chores Patsy did herself.
And even if it was no big deal to Patsy most of the time, she might still have snapped and lost it on that fatal night. even indulgent parents can get very angry at their children, given the circumstances.

Imo, the strongest indicators of toilet rage possibly being at the origin of the tragedy are:

- Dr. Ron Wright's statement about JB's bladder having voided completely at the time of death.
Dr. White said that normally, dead people's bladders void only partially, so he thinks it possible that JB had shed urine shortly before her death.

- the oversized underwear on the child's body. Where were the underpants panties JB had originally been wearing? Were the removed because they were wet and possibly also soiled?

My impression from Patsy's interview was that her washing JonBenet's sheets was more a function of the fact that LHP didn't get to work until 9am by which time Patsy had already had them started than the idea she felt some sort of compulsion that the sheets were her job.

1997:
TT: OK. When JonBenet would wet the bed weekly, who took care of the sheets? Is that something Linda had to take care of? How often, I guess, who would even clean the sheets, to be more specific.
PR: Well, she normally changed the beds weekly, but typically, it the, as seen as, you know I, Linda didn’t come in till 9 o’clock But typically, I would strip the bed, you know, put them in the washer or something.
TT: OK.

Regarding the empty bladder. I have often wondered if, when John picked her up and carried her upstairs, any urine left in her bladder simply fell out and was added to what was already on the long underwear.

[elvislives]

Elvislives:

I am quite certain that the standard for a Grand Jury to Indict is Probable Cause. An Indictment basically carries the same burden as an Arrest Warrant. Probable cause for an arrest warrant is determined by a neutral magistrate such as a judge. By a preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof a plaintiff must meet in a trial of a civil case. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof a prosecutor must meet in a trial of a criminal case.

KingCoyote

My bad, KC, You are correct, it is probable cause. Same difference tho imo..it is a lenient threshold, unlike reasonable doubt. I completely understand why people have reasonable doubt in the Ramsey case, but surely probable cause to try them exists. Unless of course the GJ knows something we dont.

[elvislives]

I just quoted ST's book. He observed the interview. I imagine the tranny might be on A CANDY ROSE.

WE can talk odd behavior all night long.

What do you think of a man who, just days after the murder of his child, is asking his sister-in-law if she retrieved his golf bag from the murder scene?
(source ST book, pg 48)

Maybe, like OJ, he was planning on searching for the killer on the golf course. Cant do that without clubs...;)

[elvislives]

Thanks Sprocket and Louisadelmar for the CNN transcripts. I'm out of time right now but will read them later.

[rashomon]

From the CNN interview:
RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.
RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.
John Ramsey says he and Patsy are not angry about what happened. Which innocent parent would talk like that? Just another drastic example of how the Ramseys, without being aware of it, gave themselves away with their own words.

More:
RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson --
... and Patsy Ramsey, who lied about the death of her daughter just as Susan Smith and OJ lied about what they had done? Imo it is no coincidence that Patsy mentions these cases. Her subconscious took over and carried her away here.

[Patsy R]:
"and I mean, America is suffering because of lost faith in the American family.
We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children."
What on earth does the alleged "lost faith" in the American family have to do with the killing of Patsy's daughter?

And in terms of the "Christian, God-fearing family": in police classes about deceptive responses, it is taught that it is always a red flag when someone proclaims innocence by repeated religious affirmations.

CABELL: Do you truly think the perpetrator will be found?
RAMSEY, J: Yes. Yes. Has to be found.
CABELL: Do you think it's a single individual?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. In my heart I do
Too bad the reporter didn't grasp the opportunity to ask John Ramsey:
"So you don't believe there exists this 'small foreign faction'? You think someone FAKED this ransom note?
And then a camera-close-up on the Ramseys' faces - can you imagine their expressions?

Thanks so much Sprocket and Louisadelmar for directing us to this pivotal interview. Imo the Ramseys come across as being guilty as hell.

It's probably pointless to discuss this interview with IDIs, for they will try to explain everything away, but I'd like to ask all the fence-sitters on this board:
What is your opinion of that interview? Don't you smell something fishy? TIA for sharnig your thoughts!

[Sprocket]

What the Rs said and the slight changes made by ST are very interesting indeed. It does, in fact, put a different spin on it entirely. It's yet another example of the misinformation that has clouded this case from the first.

How so? ST said exactly what the Ramsey's said. That they were not angry and that they wanted to move on.

How is that different? It's not spin. It is what it is.

[LindaA]

He said they wanted to "move on" which implies they wanted to put the incident behind them and get on with everyday living. They said "we have to go on" which IMO implies that life for them could not stop living and they could not let anger consume them. The two phrases, while seemingly the same, are worlds apart.

As far as not feeling anger, you must be aware that there are several phases of grief, and anger is just one of them. Perhaps the Ramseys were able to move through that quickly or moved through it at a later time. JMO.

[shill]

And then a camera-close-up on the Ramseys' faces - can you imagine their expressions?

I'm sure you can, since you seem to imagine a lot of things.

[Sprocket]

As far as not feeling anger, you must be aware that there are several phases of grief, and anger is just one of them. Perhaps the Ramseys were able to move through that quickly or moved through it at a later time. JMO.

Well John moved through it with amazing speed, seeing as how he was focused on more important things; he asked his SIL if his golf bag was recovered from the house within days of the murder.

[KingCoyote]

I have seen and now have read the interviews and if I had been the Ramsey's attorney or Public Relations person, I would have been having a cow just at the sight of them on TV. It really doesn't matter what they said, unless of course, they confessed. They shouldn't have been on TV in the first place. I would have never let them write a book either.

The main reason why: the more you talk, the more you give people to talk about and people love to gossip and talk and talk and talk....look at all the forums and the interest stirred up everytime they opened their mouth. I don't think it helped their image as much as it hurt it.

I remember a lot of talk about this case when it first happened. I did not follow it at all but the first reaction by a lot of people was that they (Ramseys) just could not have done it because they were rich and lived a happy life and all was good and well in Pleasantville/Beaver Cleaver land and Camelot. Then there was the other bunch that seemed to have some kind of grudge against rich people. I heard that more than I could have ever imagined....'you deserve this because you are rich and you treated your daughter like a wh---'...'but those kind of people will just buy their way out of prison'. I think that is why I stayed so far away from this case in the first place. It was much more of a media event than it was a murder investigation. But it is one unbelievable mystery. I think it will go down in the annals of crime along with Zodiac, The Black Dahlia and Jack the Ripper....which is very sad.

I do have to admit that if this had been some poverty stricken African-American 6 year old with the exact same facts as to the cause of death (not the lifestyle of the parents with the pageants) we would have never heard of this case. And that is even sadder.

Just a few thoughts and opinions

KingCoyote

[shill]

Then there was the other bunch that seemed to have some kind of grudge against rich people. I heard that more than I could have ever imagined....'you deserve this because you are rich and you treated your daughter like a wh---'... Those people are still around on the Websleuths blog site.

I do have to admit that if this had been some poverty stricken African-American 6 year old with the exact same facts as to the cause of death (not the lifestyle of the parents with the pageants) we would have never heard of this case. And that is even sadder.

I disagree. I think the Ransom note, the garrote and ligature, the body still in the house, along with the Beauty pageants is what made this case so famous.

[Louisadelmar]

Ralia at Starting Over had what I thought was an excellent synopsis about why this case is so compelling.
http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/posting-vp2279-sanctuary2.html#2279

I guess what makes this case so fascinating are the unique circumstances. The elements of this saga that are so unusual and contradictory. no one can say for sure that a fact is a fact. Is it a cold blooded murder or an accidental death? What came first? the stragulation or the head blow?Do we have an intruder or an inside job? Is the chronic inflammation the result of prior abuse or not? Too many either this or that...What mostly everybody does (including experts) is speculating.I, as a true crime fan, have read dozens of cases but this is one of a kind. To sum up, this story is so interesting because whatever aspect you follow it comes to a dead end. [...]

Added: I think the pageant videos (particularly in slo-mo), the parents wealth, Christmas,and the fact JonBenet's name was so unique that google searches were easy initially gave the case its legs. But I think what Ralia said gives it its endurance.

[bullmoose]

From the CNN interview:

John Ramsey says he and Patsy are not angry about what happened. Which innocent parent would talk like that? Just another drastic example of how the Ramseys, without being aware of it, gave themselves away with their own words.

More:

... and Patsy Ramsey, who lied about the death of her daughter just as Susan Smith and OJ lied about what they had done? Imo it is no coincidence that Patsy mentions these cases. Her subconscious took over and carried her away here.


What on earth does the alleged "lost faith" in the American family have to do with the killing of Patsy's daughter?

And in terms of the "Christian, God-fearing family": in police classes about deceptive responses, it is taught that it is always a red flag when someone proclaims innocence by repeated religious affirmations.


Too bad the reporter didn't grasp the opportunity to ask John Ramsey:
"So you don't believe there exists this 'small foreign faction'? You think someone FAKED this ransom note?
And then a camera-close-up on the Ramseys' faces - can you imagine their expressions?

Thanks so much Sprocket and Louisadelmar for directing us to this pivotal interview. Imo the Ramseys come across as being guilty as hell.

It's probably pointless to discuss this interview with IDIs, for they will try to explain everything away, but I'd like to ask all the fence-sitters on this board:
What is your opinion of that interview? Don't you smell something fishy? TIA for sharnig your thoughts!
Sometimes I realize that you are from a foreign country and do not understand the nuances of American language; other times, like after reading this post here, I have to wonder if you are from the same planet. How on earth do you stand as the arbiter of how an innocent parent would act?? Share with us the experience you have as a grieving parent of a murdered child that would give you the right to espouse what is otherwise just an ignorant ,opinionated Ramsey-hating view. I too watched the very same interview that you smell as being fishy; the only thing that I thought that stunk was your attitude and interpretation of the interview. I think that your fantasy-question and the imaginary close-up of their expressions[your imaginary picture of their expressions] was on the order of the Loch Ness Creature for fishy. OOPS; I'm not a fencesetter. But I suppose you figured that out already.:rolleyes:

[rashomon]

I'm sure you can, since you seem to imagine a lot of things.
No specific imaginative skills are necessary to figure out John's and Patsy's facial expressions here.

[rashomon]

Sometimes I realize that you are from a foreign country and do not understand the nuances of American language; other times, like after reading this post here, I have to wonder if you are from the same planet. How on earth do you stand as the arbiter of how an innocent parent would act?? Share with us the experience you have as a grieving parent of a murdered child that would give you the right to espouse what is otherwise just an ignorant ,opinionated Ramsey-hating view. I too watched the very same interview that you smell as being fishy; the only thing that I thought that stunk was your attitude and interpretation of the interview. I think that your fantasy-question and the imaginary close-up of their expressions[your imaginary picture of their expressions] was on the order of the Loch Ness Creature for fishy. OOPS; I'm not a fencesetter. But I suppose you figured that out already.:rolleyes:
Bullmoose - you may not like it, but jfyi: countless native speakers on other forums have pointed out too that they smell something fishy in that interview, and that John's statement about not being angry and wanting to go on was just monstrous.
BTW, I don't hate the Ramseys. I realize that you are emotionally upset because you are an IDI, but that's your problem, not mine.

[bullmoose]

I'm sorry, but to say--' countless native speakers on other forums have pointed out too that they smell something fishy in that interview' etc. just doesn't impress me. We are not on other forums here; we are on this forum, quoting? people from elsewhere smacks to me of having imaginary friends; friends that always agree with you even though nobody else can see or hear them. Indeed nobody had to imagine the Ramseys facial expressions as they gave the actual interview; it was being recorded; but with imaginary dialogue and imaginary close-ups when the imaginary questions are asked, I think it takes a person with imaginary friends to imagine this odd scenario. But then maybe I'm just emotionally upset at reading such a devastating riposte. I'm sure that countless posters on other forums would agree with that.:biggrin:

[shill]

There are a number of Ramsey hating posters on other sites like Websleuths, that will agree about anything that is hateful to the Ramseys. The same ones that gossiped about John getting a face-lift and what it meant. They are the same ones that keep tabloid magazines profitable.

Obviously they think they are great judges of character, because they base their opinions of the Ramsey's guilt on the Ramsey's appearance and not the evidence.

Any idiot can hate someone, so for those mentally challenged people it is easier to let their emotions decide the case for them because the evidence is to challenging for them to figure out.

[sweetcharlotte]

There are a number of Ramsey hating posters on other sites like Websleuths, that will agree about anything that is hateful to the Ramseys. The same ones that gossiped about John getting a face-lift and what it meant. They are the same ones that keep tabloid magazines profitable.

Obviously they think they are great judges of character, because they base their opinions of the Ramsey's guilt on the Ramsey's appearance and not the evidence.

Any idiot can hate someone, so for those mentally challenged people it is easier to let their emotions decide the case for them because the evidence is to challenging for them to figure out.

And have some extreme loyalities that IMO are questionable - unless they are being feed info from inside (now outside) sources?? JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

There are a number of Ramsey hating posters on other sites like Websleuths, that will agree about anything that is hateful to the Ramseys. The same ones that gossiped about John getting a face-lift and what it meant. They are the same ones that keep tabloid magazines profitable.

Obviously they think they are great judges of character, because they base their opinions of the Ramsey's guilt on the Ramsey's appearance and not the evidence.

Any idiot can hate someone, so for those mentally challenged people it is easier to let their emotions decide the case for them because the evidence is to challenging for them to figure out.


And some RDIs do look at the evidence and draw their conclusions from it. They may also try to "analyze" facial expressions, body language, words and word context. I don't see anything wrong with that.
But I will agree that the cracks about facelifts and such are over the line and make these people sound stupid and juvenile.
Just for the record...I don't "hate" the Ramseys. Discussing this case is just a diversion for me. It takes my mind off of my own problems for a while.

[nuisanceposter]

Bullmoose, I can back up Rashomon's claim that many people outside of CTV have found reason to be suspicious of the R's behavior and comments in many, many interviews, and I find it fascinating that anything you don't agree with becomes "imaginary" to you.

Like it or not, behavior is considered evidence, and the behaviors and comments the Rs have made have been noted by many, including Marc Klaas, to not be consistent with innocent parents who have no idea what happened to their daughter.

Furthermore, Rashomon's English is so adept that I would have had no idea that she does not live in a country that speaks English as a mother tongue if she hadn't told me.

I also don't approve of making snide comments about physical features of people and things like that (like physical ailments, you know what I mean, bullmoose.) I think it detracts from the overall emphasis of what you have to say, and makes one look petty and superficial. I don't approve of people going to other boards and copying and pasting their posts onto this board to make fun of them.

And like TWW, I follow this case for the diversion it provides, and personal hatred of the Ramseys is not my issue. I can hardly hate someone I've never even met, even if I do believe they were responsible for their child's murder and subsequent cover up. I certainly don't like the way they've behaved, making their own selves more important than their dead daughter, and hiring people not to solve the murder but to keep them out of jail. I feel sorry for JonBenet because I believe the people who should have been her biggest champions, her own mother and father, let her down in the worst way possible. But that does not mean I hate them.

[Sprocket]

Bullmoose - you may not like it, but jfyi: countless native speakers on other forums have pointed out too that they smell something fishy in that interview, and that John's statement about not being angry and wanting to go on was just monstrous.

It smelled to me the first time I read about it; born and raised right here in the ol' US. :D

Just watching the Ramsey's body language is revealing in and of itself (to me of course).

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>

I also don't approve of making snide comments about physical features of people and things like that (like physical ailments, you know what I mean, bullmoose.)
<snip>



Is there something bullmoose knows that the rest of us don't?

[sweetcharlotte]

And some RDIs do look at the evidence and draw their conclusions from it. They may also try to "analyze" facial expressions, body language, words and word context. I don't see anything wrong with that.
But I will agree that the cracks about facelifts and such are over the line and make these people sound stupid and juvenile.
Just for the record...I don't "hate" the Ramseys. Discussing this case is just a diversion for me. It takes my mind off of my own problems for a while.

Nice post.......and whatever your problems are I hope they are lightened in 2007.

[bullmoose]

To nuisanceposter: I worked for years alongside a Bavarian that had lived here 40 or more years; he constantly would use terms that while they translated literally correct were often nearly meaningless in American. He said that even in Germany, south German was considerably different in its slang compared to north German. IMO rashoman often does what old Alois did: misunderstand the real context. But thats just my humble opinion. As to making fun of Synthroid Steve Twisting Thomas remember that he was the one , who in his book detailed his heroic battle against his thyroid condition[ by not going to the doctor when he started losing weight and showing unusual exhaustion] and made it part of his legend. He tried to get a police pesion for it but was turned down by the review board, since he could not demonstrate any link of his condition to his work as a police officer. I well remember thats when he wrote his public resignation letter; my wife has had a thyroid condition for thirty+ years, its not terminal, I think my MS is. So, don't sweat the fact that my opinion of Thomas is low and I use his self-described ailment in referring to him. In the words of Austin Powers' dad--:biggrin: if with this, you have an issue, please feel free to take a tissue.