Epiphany

For a long time, the JonBenet Ramsey murder struck me as an intractable mystery. The more I learned about the case the more unlikely it seemed that JonBenet could have been attacked by an intruder. It definitely looked like an inside job. The "ransom note" was certainly phoney, since there had been no kidnapping. It must have been written by either John or Patsy Ramsey. There was only one problem. The Ramseys had called the police, very early in the morning, shortly after discovering the note. If they had written it to cover up their own role in the crime, then they would certainly have not called in the police while the body was still in the house. Sooner or later it would be found in the basement and at that point it would be clear that the note was phoney. It would have done them no good and in fact it did serve to cast suspicion in their direction from day one. So why wouldn't they have, at the very least, destroyed it before calling 911? Given these circumstances, it seemed that an intruder must have committed the crime after all. But how could this person have entered and left the house leaving no sign of his presence, and why would he have left a potentially incriminating note without taking his victim with him?



A panel of experts was convened to analyze the note's handwriting. They ruled John out, but were unable to do the same for Patsy, though it seemed "unlikely" that she could have written it. This fateful conclusion had a decisive effect on both the future of the investigation and the public's perception of the case. Suddenly all eyes were on Patsy and a bandwagon mentality took over. Comparisons of her handwriting with that on the note appeared in the tabloids, with special emphasis on certain points of similarity; a lawyer named Darnay Hoffmann intruded himself in the case by hiring "experts" of his own, who, as might be expected, determined in no uncertain terms that the note was definitely written in Patsy's hand. An "expert" on content analysis, who had first insisted the note could not have been written by Patsy, changed his mind and decided she must have written it after all. All over the Internet, in forums devoted to the case, a growing number of case aficionados decided for all sorts of reasons that Patsy must have killed her daughter, possibly in a rage over bedwetting, possibly out of jealousy, possibly during a battle with her husband, and then written the note in a crude, "over the top" attempt to point away from her own guilt.

To many, the logic seemed inescapable. All the evidence pointed away from an intruder, so it must have been an inside job. John had been "ruled out." Which left Patsy, who hadn't. So she must be the one who wrote it. What other possibility was there? This logic clearly colored people's perceptions, of Patsy, of the note, of the handwriting evidence, of literally every aspect of the case. After all, the note had been written on her pad, with her own sharpie pen. When fibers from Patsy's sweater were found intertwined with the cord of the "garotte," that "proved" she must have constructed that device. The fact that anyone could have used Patsy's pad and pen, and that her fibers could easily have been transferred to the cord from JonBenet herself, who had been in close contact with her mother earlier that day, were all too easily overlooked.

I remained deeply puzzled. First of all, Patsy struck me as a truly devoted mother and her public appearances seemed sincere, while John seemed strangely cold and detached. Secondly, the note contained expressions more likely to occur to a man than a woman, such as "foreign faction," "monitor," "law enforcement counter-measures and tactics," "scanned for electronic devices," "99 percent chance," "constant scrutiny," "Don't try to grow a brain." To my eyes, Patsy's writing style as a whole was totally different from that of the note, despite certain letter to letter similarities. I wondered what John's writing style was like, but since he'd been ruled out, there seemed literally no interest at all in examining any of his exemplars.

What bothered me most, however, was the incontrovertible fact that the Ramseys had called the police so early in the morning, while the body was still in the house, which was not consistent with the staging implied in the note. If they were involved, there's no way they'd have called in the police so soon. Unlike the many defending the Ramseys, I was unable to accept the intruder theory. But I was unable also to accept that Patsy could be involved, mainly because it made no sense that she would have called the police on herself, handing over a note that she herself had written, a note that would have done her no good in any case, since there had clearly been no kidnapping. Something was missing.

Then, one day, out of blue, the following example of John Ramsey's handwriting suddenly appeared on the Internet:

As I studied it, a chill literally went down my spine. The resemblance to the note seemed uncanny, and deeply disturbing. So how could John have been ruled out? And what if he were ruled in, what would that mean? My mind started racing, and as I reviewed the case in the light of this new possibility, I felt I was actually having an epiphany. I realized that the 911 call was not made by "the Ramseys," that in fact there was no such animal as "the Ramseys," but two separate individuals, Patsy and John. Patsy was the one who made the call, John was not. If the note had been written by John, and Patsy was unaware of that, then suddenly everything fit into place.