Patsy and John

I have to admit that the biggest problem with my theory concerns Patsy's role. As I see it, she was innocent of both the murder and the initial coverup, but participated in later aspects of the coverup by either remaining silent about what she knew to be true or lying outright. I'm referring in particular to two specific cases: 1. her decision not to challenge John's assertion that calling 911 was his idea (despite the fact that, in the A&E documentary, she provided a very different version in which this was her idea) and 2. her testimony supporting John's obvious lie about breaking the basement window pane on an earlier occasion. I think it revealing that in both instances she was lying to support John's version of what happened.


I've already provided explanations of why I think she would lie to support John despite her innocence. They can be found here and also here. However, since so much suspicion has been cast on Patsy and since so many are convinced she wrote the note and participated in either the murder or other aspects of the coverup, it's difficult to convince those who've been following the case for some time that her lies have a very different meaning than John's and that she was lying for a very different reason.

Unfortunately, Patsy is no longer with us, so we will never be in a position to question her on this matter. However, the fact that she is now out of the picture actually simplifies matters for any future prosecution, because it is no longer necessary to worry about the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted.

Clearly, John is not innocent. His lies about breaking the window at an earlier time tell us this, because such a lie could only have been concocted to point away from the staging of a breakin at the basement window the night of the crime. Whether Patsy was involved in this staging (I feel sure she wasn't) is no longer relevant, since she cannot be tried, but clearly John was, or else he would not have lied about breaking the window earlier. (And it's important to remember that this lie totally destroys any possible intruder theory, DNA or no DNA.) Neither is it any longer relevant whether Patsy participated in other aspects of the coverup, including the writing of the note (I feel sure John wrote it, not her, but that no longer really matters).

What is relevant are the injuries to the victim's vagina, which tell us she was sexually molested the night of the crime. And there are chronic injuries consistent with prior molestation. Since the most likely person to have inflicted such injuries is the only mature male in the household, this points very strongly to John as the molester, which also would have provided him with a motive to kill his victim if he had reason to believe she might expose him. To this we can add the ligature strangulation with a "garotte," which looks much more like something an experienced sailor and ex-navy man would construct than a housewife obsessed with beauty pageants. Add to this the presence of John's fibers in the victim's crotch, and clearly there is a very strong case to be made against John, regardless of what Patsy's role might have been.

It's been asserted that Patsy struck the devastating head blow and it's also been asserted that this blow could have been struck by Burke. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for either claim, only speculation based on vague psychological assumptions. I see no reason to avoid prosecuting John because some are convinced JonBenet might have been killed by her mother or brother. The most likely molester is the mature male in the house, and the most likely motive for murder by far is associated with the same molestation. If John would want to claim he was only covering for either Patsy or Burke, he would have ample opportunity to do so during the trial.

So. Since it is obvious that John lied about breaking the window earlier, a clear chain of inference follows, consistent with John's guilt. Regardless of Patsy's role (or Burke's for that matter), there is no longer any reason not to prosecute John Ramsey for the molestation and murder of his daughter. Anyone who still feels hesitant about proceeding promptly with an indictment should think very carefully about the Sandusky case and what the long delay in prosecuting this very devious individual has meant.