The Basement Window -- Part 4

Time to deal with some remaining issues related to the window staging.

Repaired or Unrepaired?

First of all, we must ask the question: why wouldn't John and Patsy have testified simply that the window had in fact never been repaired? What would have been the harm in saying "no, we never got around to replacing that window"? Why did both, on the other hand, insist that they couldn't recall whether that work had been done or not?

If they'd said it hadn't been repaired, then that would have looked suspicious, because normally something like that would have been repaired as a matter of course, especially since workmen had recently been present in the house. If they'd said it had been repaired, then John's story about breaking in earlier would have been beside the point. By playing dumb, they avoided having to deal at all with such troublesome details, effectively blowing smoke in the eyes of their interrogators.

If the investigators weren't sure whether the break were old or new, that would suggest the window might never have been repaired, thus bolstering the significance of John's story. If they'd found it to be fresh, then that would mean it must have been repaired after all. In either case, John and Patsy's story would not have been inconsistent with their findings.

[Added 9-2-12:  To make my point more clearly: if they'd insisted the window had never been repaired, and the investigators had determined the break was fresh, then either it had been broken by an intruder or they were lying. As John well knew, there was "no sign of a forced break-in," so their story about it never having been repaired would mean the window break had been staged on the night of the crime and they were lying. By hedging as to whether or not the break had been repaired they made sure their story would be consistent with the facts regardless of what the investigators found.]

Why Didn't the Investigators See Through John's Absurd Story?

Clearly the authorities were willing to accept John's lame story about breaking the window earlier because it seemed to undermine the intruder theory -- and why would he have wanted to do that? Why, indeed! Herein lies a significant lesson for law enforcement: never take the testimony of a suspect at face value even if it appears to weaken his own case.

New vs. Old

Was the breaking of the glass ever determined to be either recent or old? Wouldn't the authorities have been able to tell by examining the shards? And what makes me so sure they didn't find it to be an old, rather than a new break?

As far as I know, the lab findings regarding the state of the window glass have never been revealed to the public. Nevertheless, simple logic tells us either the breakage was found to be fresh or the investigators weren't sure. If the evidence had indicated an old break, then there'd have been no reason to question John about his previous break-in story, or ask both John and Patsy whether or not it had been repaired. They'd have known it hadn't been, so why bother asking? But they did ask, and at considerable length, in both the 1997 and 1998 interviews. My guess is that the scene confused them. The break must have looked fresh, but where was the broken glass? The possibility that John might have deliberately unstaged by cleaning up most of the glass appears never to have occurred to them.

Itsy Bitsy Spider

In connection with the release of James Kolar's new book, a very interesting video of the Ramsey basement was made public for the first time, presumably by Kolar himself. It's available for viewing as part of Carol McKinley's review of Kolar's book, at the Daily Beast website. The video is especially valuable because it enables us, for the first time, to get a good look at the broken window. Here's a still I captured, providing us with a clear view of one segment:

This photo is revealing. First of all, we can see a fragment of an old cobweb dangling from one shard. If you follow the lines of the web you can see that it's attached to the window frame on the right. On first viewing this puzzled me, because it's easy to associate a cobweb with something that's been sitting untouched for some time. On second thought, however, I realized that if this were an old break we'd be seeing a more fully formed cobweb, rather than a few tiny fragments -- something like the web we see in the corner of the window well, which clearly hadn't been disturbed for some time:

Thus what we see clinging to the broken glass must be broken fragments of a cobweb already in place prior to the time the window was broken. More evidence consistent with a fresh break.

Note also the dangling shard of glass just above the cobweb fragment. It's hard to believe anyone cleaning up after the break would have neglected to detach and dispose of that scary piece of broken glass, which could easily fall to the floor at any moment, especially if she were concerned about children playing in the area, as Patsy had claimed.

Why Did Patsy Lie?

This, of course, is the most troubling aspect of the window saga, especially since, as I've stressed many times, I feel sure Patsy was involved in neither the murder, the writing of the note, nor the window staging, and was, in fact, an innocent victim. In order to understand why an innocent Patsy would nevertheless lie to support John's version of what happened, we need to consider the circumstances facing her in the aftermath of the crime.

Shortly after the body is discovered, Dr. Beuf, their pediatrician, arrives with sedating medication for Patsy. Patsy, apparently "too distraught" for serious questioning, is by all accounts heavily sedated for days and probably weeks. During this time, John hires an attorney, a public relations firm, and two handwriting "experts," whose principal function, it would seem, is to whitewash John. Their decision is made very quickly, so that by January 13, in a Newsweek cover story, it is reported that John could not have written the note, according to what he later describes in their book as "two of the top handwriting experts in the country," who "totally eliminated me as a potential writer of the ransom note," but were unable to eliminate Patsy (p. 140). Since a Newsweek story would require at least a week of lead time, this report would have reached their desk on or around January 6th, less than two weeks after the crime. Patsy very likely learned of it much sooner.

Once John is ruled out, he becomes almost invulnerable, and as we well know from how the case developed, all suspicion falls on Patsy. If John didn't write the note, and there was no intruder, as the BPD certainly seemed to believe, then the guilty party must be Patsy, with John as a possible accomplice. This situation would have given him tremendous leverage over her, and would have made it almost impossible for her to challenge him, least of all in public.

I'm convinced he staged the window scene, breaking the window the night of the murder. To make his story about having broken it earlier stick, he'd have needed Patsy's cooperation. If she'd denied knowing anything about it, and I'm sure she didn't, that would have been very bad for both of them, obviously.

As should be clear by now, we are dealing with a very desperate but also very resourceful criminal, willing to do anything he could to avoid arrest, ruin and, very possibly, the electric chair. Here's more or less what I think he could have said to Patsy when she wondered what his little story about breaking in earlier was all about:

Look, as you know I was ruled out as writer of the note. And as you know very well, you didn't write it. So it had to be an intruder. Which means the window must have been broken by the intruder. But the police are convinced that this type of crime is always done by a family member, they have us in their sights, and since I was ruled out, they've become convinced you must have written that note and may also have killed JonBenet, with me helping you. Ridiculous, I know, but that's what they think.

Sure, I told Fleet and the police I'd broken that window earlier, but there was a very good reason for that. Because if I hadn't, they would have assumed the two of us broke the window that night, to make it look like an intruder did it. So I made up that story, because I had to, I had no choice. Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging. We are in this together, Patsy, and we have to present a united front, because they have no interest in any intruder and are out to get us. So I need you to help me out here and support my story, because if we start accusing each other of lying, that will give them what they need and we will both be done for.

I don't think Patsy would have had much choice. And if she ever doubted John, or suspected he might be manipulating her for reasons of his own, she would readily be comforted in the knowledge that he could not have written the note, and hence, must be as innocent as she was.

If you find this hard to accept, remember the facts outlined in my first two posts and the very simple logic explaining them. Bottom line: if John and Patsy had been conspiring to cover up the murder of their daughter, then there would have been no call to the police that morning. The call destroyed any hope of staging the kidnapping written into the note. If they were both involved in that staging, the call would not have been made at that time, while the body was still in the house. This is basic!

Given this, I can see no reason for Patsy to lie for John unless  he had manipulated her into it, using an argument more or less like the one I've provided above.