Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Fantastic Theories - Part Deux

Now to continue with the next fantastic theory, a perennial favorite entitled:

Patsy Did It

Christmas comes and goes. The Ramseys return from a party at the White's, deliver some packages, go home and go to sleep. At some point during the night, JonBenet wets her bed. For some reason Patsy wakes up, discovers the wet bed and flies into one of those rages so typical of so many women who fly into rages over the bedwetting of their children. This has been documented so we know it can happen.  One thing leads to another and at some point Patsy cracks. Reaching for a handy Maglite flashlight that just happens to be nearby, she smashes her daughter over the head with a tremendous blow, a blow so powerful it's been described as capable of felling a full sized man.

Realizing what she's done, and in a total panic, she decides to cover up the murder of her child by staging a fake kidnapping. No wait, why not stage a crazed pedophile intruder, who attacks the girl sexually and then strangles her? Patsy, ever the drama queen, goes "over the top," deciding to combine both scenarios. After carrying her daughter's body down to the basement, she reaches into her trusty paint tote, breaks the tip off one of the paint brush handles, and jams it into her daughter's vagina. This may seem like a strange thing to do, but again hysterical women have been known to do exactly this sort of thing. It's documented, apparently, but I have no idea where.

Then, to make the pedophile attack even more convincing, she takes the rest of the brush handle and constructs a "garotte," using a knot she's learned in one of her macrame classes. She's very proud of what she's learned so goes to some trouble to make a really nice looking, elegant knot:


She then proceeds to strangle her daughter by systematically tightening the handle while the cord is around her victim's neck. It's a gruesome sight,

[I decided to remove this image at the request of a reader who found it disturbing and was concerned about others also being upset by it. I agree.]

but Patsy takes comfort in the fact that no one could possibly in a million years believe someone like her could do something so utterly depraved simply to cover up what could have been reported as an accident.

There are still several more things to be done. Recalling a biblical passage from Psalm 118, containing the phrase "bind the sacrifice with cords," she decides to bind her daughter with cords, because after all she is a very religious person and this particular psalm has special meaning for her. She also finds some duct tape and places it over her daughter's mouth, to complete her staging of the attack. Little does she realize that fibers from her red sweater are now entwined in the knot of the "garotte," with four additional fibers attached to the gummy side of the tape. This it is that will ultimately give her away, because as is well known, fibers of this sort can never be transmitted indirectly, it's a strict rule in the game of Clue.

So far so good. She has successfully staged a pedophile attack. Now to stage the kidnapping. But for that she'll need to write a phoney ransom note. What a great opportunity, since she studied journalism and can therefore use this as a chance to show her stuff. No two or three sentence note for her, oh no. Patsy always goes over the top, and this is her chance to shine, so she decides to write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, a full 2 1/2 pager.

Using her own notepad and her own pen, because she feels more comfortable using items that belong to her, she addresses the note to John and takes the opportunity to tell him the kidnappers "do not really like" him, because this note is not only a part of the staging it is also a personal message to her husband, who sometimes ticks her off. She gets stuck for a moment on the ransom amount, not knowing how much to ask for, but then remembers her favorite psalm, number 118. Well, $118 seems too little, so how about $118,000? That seems right, so that's what she asks for. She realizes of course that she will have to disguise her handwriting but soon forgets in the heat of inspiration. This is her biggest mistake, not making any effort to disguise her writing, so even the most incompetent and unprofessional "experts" will have no trouble convincing themselves she wrote it.

She also decides to use some of her own favorite expressions, such as "two gentlemen" and "use that good southern common sense," because after all she wants John to realize the note was written by her, otherwise what would be the point?  When the note has been completed, she places the three sheets near the bottom of the staircase she usually uses to get to the kitchen in the morning. Realizing no one is going to believe her victim has been kidnapped with the body in full view, she decides to hide it away in a remote, little used basement room.

Then she goes upstairs and gets into bed, still wearing the same outfit because, well, it's just too much trouble to change and she is tired. Soon John wakes up, showers, notices she's still in bed, but for some reason fails to notice that she's fully dressed. A bit later, Patsy gets up, brushes off the outfit in which she recently clubbed,  sexually assaulted and strangled her bleeding daughter, and completes her staging by going downstairs, "discovering" her note, crying for John, who at this point suspects nothing, and then, using every ounce of her considerable theatrical talent, feigns hysteria while calling 911. No sooner has she done this then she realizes her mistake. With the body still in the house and the police called in so soon, her kidnap staging is doomed to failure. Well, no matter, because if they don't buy the kidnapping, they'll certainly buy the pedophile attack, no need to worry.

At some point, John figures out what's happened (he's no fool) and confronts Patsy privately. She confesses and begs him to back her up and defend her in spite of everything -- in the name of family honor. After all, what will the neighbors think. He agrees, hires a lawyer, and takes over, aggressively defending his wife regardless of all the evidence pointing away from an intruder, and all the "experts" ruling him out. 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Submitted for your approval: a woman with no past history of ever even striking or spanking either of her children decides one fine day to murder her daughter over a bedwetting incident, subsequently covering what could have been reported as an accident by staging an elaborate pedophile attack, complete with vaginal penetration and "garotte" strangulation, and then writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note not bothering to disguise her hand, and then calling the police while her victim's body is still in the house, thus negating the effect of her carefully crafted note. When her husband finds out what she's done he decides to assist her in the coverup. Dah dah dah dah dah dah. Welcome once again to: The Twilight Zone.

Only this is not the Twilight Zone, but the murder of JonBenet Ramsey as seen by detective Steve Thomas, whose book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, has convinced many thousands of case followers that there is only one possible solution to this crime: Patsy Dunnit.

19 comments:

  1. Did I detect a note of sarcasm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh. The logical term is reductio ad absurdum.

      Delete
  2. The religious/Ps 118/sacrifice thing always cracks me up. So many people following this case keep saying it's "well known" that very religious people "commonly" cite that psalm and go around signing letters SBTC, too. I'm very religious. I've never heard anyone say "SBTC" in my life. Nor have I ever heard anyone cite psalm 118 as a call to sacrifice anything (certainly not a human being!) nor have I ever heard anyone claim the expression "saved by the cross" as a rationalization of any form of violence. The whole "religious fanatic" line is the product of anti-religion fanaticism run amok. Anyway, far from being an "Evangelical religious fanatic" as PDI's keep saying she was, Patsy, like the other Ramseys, was an Episcopalian, a denomination that is now shrinking rapidly because it is so low-demand and low-involvement.
    And the idea that a beauty queen, mother of a beauty queen, sister of a beauty queen, would forget to change clothes... is that all the PDI's have?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, they have all sorts of stuff. Once you start looking for "evidence" to fit your theory, there's no limit to what you can find. The bottom line is that NO scenario that includes Patsy as either murderer or stager makes any sense, as I tried to demonstrate above.

      Delete
  3. Patsy was sort of a fanatic who probably never read much Bible except verses that backed up the say it and claim it fervor that the most popular television shysters listed in some book. Patsy thought she was miraculously healed and had been sent a dream about healing. She must have believed the dead could still be raised. That sounds pretty charismatic . Patsy probably watched lots of TBN while john was working and the episcopal church had the moneyed members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used to watch the name-it-and-claim-it televangelists all the time. I've read their books. They never said anything of the kind. The religious group the PDI's keep trying to say she was part of not only would not be compatible with the Episcopal Church, it probably doesn't even exist. If it did, I would have run into it. I haven't. Not on TV. Not in Evangelical bookstores. Not at Pentecostal picnics. nowhere. I doubt the kind of Christian they're saying she was ever existed at all. They are grasping at straws. Imaginary straws.
      Even if she thought the dead could be raised, wouldn't she try that on someone she had already lost years earlier?
      It's just beyond ridiculous to try to draw an imaginary charismatic group around a hypothetical theory.

      Delete
  4. Well written, but one request please--?

    Can you mark a warning about graphic content at the top of the post?

    I can't look-- or glance-- or think-- about those images and do everything I can to avoid crime scene photos. I averted my eyes quickly and scrolled back but I caught a glimpse of something I wish I didn't see.

    Running into them with no warning is a startling, stomach-churning event that makes me sorry I stopped by to read one more entry before bed, makes me wonder now if I will be able to sleep tonight and makes me a little reluctant to read onward.

    A warning of some sort for the squeamish placed at the top of the page would be so much appreciated, you have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your right. That was thoughtless of me. I've removed the image. Thanks.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd like to tell you about the case that is my true passion/obsession, the Jeffrey Macdonald case. You may be familiar with it, but to make a long story short, just in case you're not, Macdonald murdered his wife and two young daughters, ages 5 and 2. It is believed that a fight began between Macdonald and his wife in the master bedroom over, guess what, a bedwetting incident. At some point the older daughter entered the scene and was hit over the head (either by accident or on purpose) by Macdonald, who was in a rage, with a piece of wood, fracturing her skull and rendering her unconscious and near death. The fracture would have been fatal. His wife is also attacked with the club and likely dead or near death when Macdonald comes to himself and realizes what he's done. He then decides that he isn't going to lose everything he's worked so hard to achieve, including his reputation. So in the name of self preservation, he goes to the kitchen, gets a paring knife and an icepick and enters the room of his 2 year old daughter, who is still unharmed. He puts her over his knee and stabs her multiple times in the chest then turns her over and stabs her multiple times in the back using both the weapons. Her body is found in her bed with defensive wounds on her hands as she tried to protect herself from her daddy. He then uses both the weapons multiple times on his dead or dying wife, and hits his older daughter a couple more times in the head with the club for good measure, and stabs her multiple times with a knife. Macdonald then stages the scene, complete with writing the word "pig" in blood on the headboard of his bed, stabs himself in the chest and calls the police, claiming crazed hippies broke into his house and murdered his family.

    My point, some people will go to great extremes to save their own ass.

    Jeffrey Macdonald was voted Most Popular and Most Likely to Succeed in high school, was a physician and Green Beret and by all accounts a loving husband and father.

    He was also narcissistic, not unlike Patsy Ramsey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never followed the Jeffrey McDonald case, so can't comment. But I have followed the Ramsey case, and I've never seen any sign that Patsy was a narcissist.

      Delete
  7. I'm not a psychologist, but imo Patsy demonstrates many characteristics of a narcissist, someone to whom appearances mean everything. To have the world, particularly those in her social circle, view her as the killer of her child, regardless of whether it was "accidental" would be unthinkable to her and I believe she would be capable of going to great extremes to preserve what was left of her family and her life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps. But she didn't kill her.

      Delete
  8. I also want to commend your writing. Thank you for being so clear and concise.

    A couple of things:
    In my research of this case, I came across an academic article that discussed how frequently children are assaulted and even killed by parents who fly into a rage over toileting issues. It actually does happen more than people might think. There was a recent case of a father who killed his daughter because she was regressing in her toilet training.

    Is it not a proven fact that JB wet her bed Christmas night? I believe that crime scene photos show a package of pull-up diapers half hanging off a closet shelf in the laundry area, as if someone had put the package back in haste or in a distracted state. And JB was found in different clothing than what they said she was put to bed in...not to mention the oversized underwear. How would you say all of this factors in?

    And while you've convinced me JDI, I think it's pretty obvious Patsy was all about appearance. The upstairs portion of her home was impeccable while the basement, out of sight of guests and the public, apparently looked like something out of a Hoarders episode!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, first of all I'd be very suspicious of anything a murderer has to say about his or her motive for killing. I really doubt that any father (or mother) would kill a child over toilet training. My guess is that this was an explanation designed to cover for a more insidious motive.

      Secondly, it's not enough to argue for the possibility that someone could have done something for some reason. You have to actually present evidence supporting that theory as far as the particular case is concerned. Bunched up panties and some urine stains mean nothing in themselves. Bedwetting in itself tells us nothing about this case. Chronic abrasion of the vagina wall does. And if you're looking for the person most likely to have redressed JonBenet in panties that were several sizes too large I'd look to the clueless father rather than the mother who would have known very well which panties fit and which didn't.

      Obviously Patsy was concerned about appearances and also, imo, her insistence on dressing her daughter like a Vegas showgirl was definitely in bad taste. That doesn't make her a murderer, not even close.

      Delete
  9. No, I completely agree that no attentive mother would have put those underwear on her child. It's certainly more likely that a father would make that mistake (sorry, dads).
    It's just that I thought it was fact that there had been a bed wetting incident that night, which means that SOMEone had to deal with the mess. Whoever that someone was then lied about their contact with the child during those critical hours. I know lying doesn't prove homicide. Heck, perhaps I'm wrong about the factual basis of the bed wetting that night...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bed wetting incident was pure speculation on Steve Thomas's part, something he grabbed out of thin air, very much like Lou Smit's stun gun. There was some sort of clutter found in JonBenet's bathroom, as one might expect in the bathroom of a 6 year old, and Steve saw in that what he wanted to see, evidence of a mortal struggle between mother and daughter. There never was evidence of such a struggle, it was all in Thomas's mind. I don't recall exactly, but it's possible there was some sign of bedwetting, I'm not sure. But that in itself tells us nothing of interest regarding what might have happened. It certainly tells us nothing about who killed JonBenet or for what reason.

      The best Thomas was able to do was demonstrate that yes, mothers have been known to fly into rages over a child's bedwetting -- that's it. He was able to come up with NO evidence even suggesting that Patsy ever flew into a rage over anything JonBenet did, ever. If Thomas could have proven that there was some sort of encounter between JonBenet and Patsy that night, then he could have proven that she lied. But there was never the slightest evidence that such an encounter ever took place. It's just that John was ruled out, Patsy wasn't, and therefore she became fair game for all sorts of fantasies.

      Delete
  10. Makes sense. Thanks for the reply. I believe it was JB's shirt, the one she had worn to the White's party and had reportedly been put to bed in, that was found balled up in her ensuite bathroom. And it was this along with the pull-up diapers hanging off the closet shelf that contributed to ST's conclusions. I'd love to know what he would make of your blog, but he's probably seen enough of the Ramsey case for several lifetimes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well it's not surprising that the shirt she'd been wearing might have been torn off her at some point, since, as we know, she'd been sexually molested. Duh! That tells us nothing about Patsy's complicity, all it tells us is that whoever attacked her seems to have removed the shirt, balled it up and tossed it into the bathroom.

      As for ST, he, like so many others who got mixed up in this case, was so badly burned he probably wants to forget about it.

      Delete