Wooooooah!

JR's first wife's mom married JR's dad? Whaaaaaaat? Weird stuff.

We needed a new thread for that?

Why don't you start a thread to discuss the book, instead of Wooooooah! I'm sure many people would like to contribute to that.

DrSeussMd wrote:

Why don't you start a thread to discuss the book, instead of Wooooooah! I'm sure many people would like to contribute to that.

Okay. Sorry. I just found it bizarre. What do you think about the book? I'm coming into this late. I feel like a freshman and you all are post graduates...

DrSeussMd wrote:

Why don't you start a thread to discuss the book, instead of Wooooooah! I'm sure many people would like to contribute to that.

I can't edit my title or my post?...

Nope but you can start over and then we can ask the mods to delete this thread.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't edit my title or my post?...

Mama2JML wrote:

JR's first wife's mom married JR's dad? Whaaaaaaat? Weird stuff.

Yes, it was a tight knit Ramsey clan; in effect making Patsy, Burke and JonBenet ousiders, or... a small foreign faction.

PINKER wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, it was a tight knit Ramsey clan; in effect making Patsy, Burke and JonBenet ousiders, or... a small foreign faction.

That is HILARE.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay. Sorry. I just found it bizarre. What do you think about the book? I'm coming into this late. I feel like a freshman and you all are post graduates...

Most of the main Ramsey case books were written before the depositions in the Chris Wolf libel case in 2001/2, and in my opinion many of those books are out of date. Steve Thomas was sued by the Ramseys, but both he and his publishers then meekly settled out of court with the Rasmeys, which I think was a bit pathetic.

I suppose those Ramsey case books provide background information to a newbie who is obviously going to be mystified and confused at first about a ransom note, and pineapples, and oversized panties, and all the rest of it. The problem with the Steve Thomas book is that he had a 'hypothetical scenario' that Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage over bedwetting, which is completely untrue.

There have been JonBenet books written about the Ramsey case since the Chris Wolf case. Many of them are talked about on the internet in a great fanfare, and then never published, perhaps for legal reasons. Tom Miller, who Jann Scott once described as "not out of the loop" in the Ramsey case, published a Ramsey case book in Japanese but it has never been published in English.

In the MacDonald case Joe McGinniss, who has been described as a "drunken Irish son of a bitch" wrote a biased best selling book about the MacDonald case just before a MacDonald appeal in which he was successfully sued by Dr MacDonald for saying the MacDonald murders were done in an amphetamine psychosis. Another theory without facts.

The best way to appraoach these Ramsey case books is to adopt the attitude that you don't believe everything written in newspapers. That Schiller book contained errors which Ole South has mentioned on this forum. One error was that he said Fleet White arrived after John Fernie, which was completeley untrue, and that Patsy had left a check on the kitchen table for Linda Hoffmn-Pugh. Schiller did say at one press conference that he was going to correct those errors in a subsequent edition, but I don't know if that ever happened.

I have always thought the Stephen Singular 'Presumed Guilty' was on the right track with its suspicions of Fleet White and Randy Simons. The trouble is Singular ten years ago suspected John Ramsey as well, which I could never see. Singular has supposed to have changed some of his opinions since then, but I don't know what he now thinks about the case.

It's just with with the world run by the top 1% for the top 1% and not furthering the interests of the people and war about to break out I sometimes wonder how important all this is in the scheme of things.

I came up with entirely different conclusions from reading the book by Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas’s theory was more akin to SOMETHING happened in the bathroom. A rage over bedwetting is one possible scenario with his theory but other incidents are not excluded. It may not have been bedwetting but incontinence while awake would have been a bigger issue for Patsy.

I think he was spot on. The bathroom was connected, figuratively and literally. Its likely JonBenet had issues from Patsy sitting her on the toilet to bleach her hair. Though not colored that night it would have been a body image issue JonBenet struggled with 24/7. JonBenet would have had anger and behavior problems pursuant to this dilemma.

My inkling is JonBenet died in an incident of domestic abuse with Burke responsible. Her parents thought the lifeless body meant she had broken her neck hence the faux garrote. There was no way for them to know she had a fractured skull.

While she was ‘unconscious’ she likely was laid on her bed with all manner of first aid attempted. This is where the bathroom became tied into the death and staging. The average bathroom is where first aid supplies are store and where water may have been accessed for cleaning the body.

PINKER wrote:

I came up with entirely different conclusions from reading the book by Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas’s theory was more akin to SOMETHING happened in the bathroom. A rage over bedwetting is one possible scenario with his theory but other incidents are not excluded. It may not have been bedwetting but incontinence while awake would have been a bigger issue for Patsy.
I think he was spot on. The bathroom was connected, figuratively and literally. Its likely JonBenet had issues from Patsy sitting her on the toilet to bleach her hair. Though not colored that night it would have been a body image issue JonBenet struggled with 24/7. JonBenet would have had anger and behavior problems pursuant to this dilemma.
My inkling is JonBenet died in an incident of domestic abuse with Burke responsible. Her parents thought the lifeless body meant she had broken her neck hence the faux garrote. There was no way for them to know she had a fractured skull.
While she was ‘unconscious’ she likely was laid on her bed with all manner of first aid attempted. This is where the bathroom became tied into the death and staging. The average bathroom is where first aid supplies are store and where water may have been accessed for cleaning the body.

what about the molestation Pinker? Who did that?

Patsy

PINKER wrote:

I came up with entirely different conclusions from reading the book by Steve Thomas. Steve ThomasÂ’s theory was more akin to SOMETHING happened in the bathroom. A rage over bedwetting is one possible scenario with his theory but other incidents are not excluded. It may not have been bedwetting but incontinence while awake would have been a bigger issue for Patsy.

I think he was spot on. The bathroom was connected, figuratively and literally. Its likely JonBenet had issues from Patsy sitting her on the toilet to bleach her hair. Though not colored that night it would have been a body image issue JonBenet struggled with 24/7. JonBenet would have had anger and behavior problems pursuant to this dilemma.

My inkling is JonBenet died in an incident of domestic abuse with Burke responsible. Her parents thought the lifeless body meant she had broken her neck hence the faux garrote. There was no way for them to know she had a fractured skull.

While she was ‘unconscious’ she likely was laid on her bed with all manner of first aid attempted. This is where the bathroom became tied into the death and staging. The average bathroom is where first aid supplies are store and where water may have been accessed for cleaning the body.

If Burke had killed JB, accidental or intentional, there would be little reason to desecrate the child's body. Your scenario is unsupported by psychology, evidence, and forensics.

I think it is really important to remember and note when discussing the Steve Thomas book is not to focus so much on his particular theory. The most important part of his book is not his theory, nor does he make it the focus of his book.

So many posters want to focus on his theory because it involves Patsy but that only distracts others from focusing on the real reason for the book and the main theme. The most important part of his book is to let the reader know how the investigation was conducted and the inner workings of the BPD and the DA during that time.

None of what he wrote about in that regard has been disputed by anyone and that was the main purpose of the book. It is a distraction, and intentional in my opinion when people harp on the bedwetting, etc and his book

Read it for its purpose

Mama2JML wrote:

If Burke had killed JB, accidental or intentional, there would be little reason to desecrate the child's body.

Patsy had no problem desecrating JonBenet's body with hair bleach while she was alive so I don;t think she'd have much problem with the minimla descration that occured in staging.

It appears this little girl was poked once up her vagina, had she lived there would bo no need for reconstructive surgery as children that are 'really' abused require.

PINKER wrote:

<quoted text>
Patsy had no problem desecrating JonBenet's body with hair bleach while she was alive so I don;t think she'd have much problem with the minimla descration that occured in staging.
It appears this little girl was poked once up her vagina, had she lived there would bo no need for reconstructive surgery as children that are 'really' abused require.

according to at least Jane Harmer, Linda Arndt and Dr Wecht, JonBenet was previously molested. Before that night. Patsy?

PINKER wrote:

<quoted text>Patsy had no problem desecrating JonBenet's body with hair bleach while she was alive so I don;t think she'd have much problem with the minimla descration that occured in staging.

It appears this little girl was poked once up her vagina, had she lived there would bo no need for reconstructive surgery as children that are 'really' abused require.

Wow, bleach? She didn't use the normal home routine? That IS, IMO, a questionable practice...

Let me clarify what I mean by "desecrating". I was referring to the faux (yet, highly functional) garrote, the bruising, the paint brush rape, the oral sex, etc. These are practices only a highly abusive parent would partake in, to cover for a minor child (Burke). It does not make any sense, and I see no evidential foundation that would support the previous poster's theory.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
If Burke had killed JB, accidental or intentional, there would be little reason to desecrate the child's body. Your scenario is unsupported by psychology, evidence, and forensics.

The prior molestation had to be covered up. Had there been no sexual assault that night and the autopsy showed the prior molestatoin, what in the world would the Ramseys say and offer as an explanation?

That's why IMO, the desecration was done; to cover up the prior molestation

Capricorn wrote:

The most important part of his book is to let the reader know how the investigation was conducted and the inner workings of the BPD and the DA during that time.

That’s an excellent point Capricorn. Thomas’ theory has to be considered in the context the investigation was corrupted by the office of Alex Hunter. His conclusions may have been different had credit card receipts and phone records been successfully subpoenaed as requested.

And likely the equally important phone records are those of the DA’s office and employees, not just John Ramsey’s cell phone.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, bleach? She didn't use the normal home routine? That IS, IMO, a questionable practice...

What do you think Patsy did to artficially lighten JonBenet's hair? Do you think she bought the commercial My Little Pony or Helly Kitty Brand of Children's hair bleach?

Patsy leaching JonBenet's hair itself was an act of sexual abuse.

Blonds have more fun and sex sells. Patsy was trying to sell JonBenet's image to pageant judges.