From the Denver Rocky Mountain News:
Edward Gelb, a respected California-based polygrapher, said he administered two tests to John Ramsey and three to Patsy Ramsey earlier this month. Both were asked whether they killed JonBenet or knew the killer. Patsy Ramsey also was asked whether she wrote the ransom note found in their home. "What are the chances that two separate individuals would take a series of five polygraph examinations and pass them all — and yet be lying?" Gelb said. "You're going to find it's somewhere between four in 1,000 and one in a trillion."
What are the chances indeed? But first, before considering that momentous question, let's ask another: what are the chances that two suspects in a murder case, who both claim to have been fast asleep all night, both knowing nothing about who attacked their daughter, are given a total of five (count 'em, FIVE) polygraphs? Why the odd number if both were asked the same questions? More on that presently.
Shortly before their exams, on April 28, the Ramseys were interviewed on Burden of Proof and asked the following pointed question:
COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?Patsy is asked whether or not they took a private polygraph and invokes lawyer-client privilege. John then changes the subject. Obviously they had already been given polygraph exams. If not they would simply have denied it. And if both had passed, they'd have been eager to report it. Obviously, one or both failed.
J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.
P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...
J. RAMSEY: Being a lawyer, also recognize that any lawyer would tell their clients: Do not, under any circumstances, take a police polygraph test. They are subjective. We've gotten a number of letters from former polygraphers, we got one the other day from a retired FBI polygrapher, who said I could make the pope look deceptive, if I chose to do so. We got a letter from a state attorney general who said: You are absolutely correct, it must be fair and independent if you are going to do this. Don't give up on the point.
Returning to Gelb's exam, it's important to understand that a prior drug test is an essential part of any polygraph, since certain drugs can mask deceptive responses. However: "The results cannot be skewed by drugs, so no screening was done, Gelb said." Gee, I guess in situations like this, when you buy your own test you can make up your own rules.
The tests are 97-98 percent accurate, said Robert Lee, director of operations for Axciton Systems, which makes the computerized polygraph instrument used by Gelb. The first test asked the following: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death? Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you?
In the second test, Gelb asked: Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet? Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet?
Patsy Ramsey was given an additional test about the ransom note: Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house? Regarding the ransom note, did you write it? Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?So ingrained in the minds of both the public and media is the "fact" that John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, that the reporter simply accepts at face value the decision not to ask John that last question. I'm sorry, but even if we knew for sure John didn't write the note (which of course we don't), it's nevertheless just as important to ask him about it as to ask Patsy. If both were asked whether they were concealing the identity of the person who killed their daughter, then why not ask both if they're concealing the identity of the note writer?
So. Now we know why they were so reluctant to acknowledge that surreptitiously administered polygraph. When asked about the note, whether he'd written it or knew who did, John must have failed. At that point, it would have been best for them not to go public with another. But they had previously been outmaneuvered on national television and literally shamed into agreeing to take one.
Fortunately for them, the test would be totally under the control of the Ramseys and their lawyers, with the hands of the examiner completely tied. Hired by the Ramseys' attorneys, his results would be protected by lawyer-client privilege, so anything that might make either John or Patsy look guilty would have to be suppressed. Reading between the lines of Gelb's report, it's not difficult to see that a compromise was arrived at. Since John had already failed when asked about the ransom note, that question would no longer be on his agenda. And since everyone had swallowed, hook line and sinker, the absurd decision to rule him out, that became the perfect excuse for sparing John Ramsey, the Teflon suspect, from being asked anything at all about the note.
You've raised some very interesting points. I'll admit I'm a sucker for Patsy Did It, but you're making me re-think what I think (does that make sense?).
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the time and effort you're putting into this blog.
sting that in the second test the questioner used the phrase "for sure" twice. What is that phrase even added to the question? It is not necessary at all. Doesn't that phrase actually give the Ramsey's a technical out?--perhaps they don't really know at what exact point their daughter actually went from unconsciousness to death, so they don't know who killed her "for sure".
ReplyDeleteSince the test was given by an examiner hired by the Ramsey legal team, we have no way of knowing what actually went on, and what sort of modifications were made in the questions to make sure they "passed." It's possible one or both failed until "for sure" was added to the mix, so you have a point, yes. We have no way of knowing because the whole fiasco was shrouded in "lawyer-client privilege," exactly as Patsy said.
DeleteThe polygraph was thus a complete sham with no significance whatsoever. However, if we read between the lines of Gelb's report, it's not difficult to see that John must have failed the ransom note part. So next time round they just left it out. Amazing what they were able to get away with.
And if Ramsey defenders want to claim I'm being unfair and drawing unwarranted inferences, well, that's the price you pay when you insist on controlling your own investigation.
Yes, adding the phrase "for sure" does suggest that it was necessary for them to pass the test. Perhaps the examiner said "FOR SURE" very carefully and deliberately. Who knows, like you say. I didn't think about them "flunking" the question without the phrase in, but that makes a lot of sense. It definitely implies at a minimum that they know a lot more about how JonBenet died that night than they are admitting.
ReplyDelete...or perhaps the Ramseys were very practiced at thinking it possible that an initial "accident" actually killed her right away or later--so it wasn't a person "for sure". There are so many ways you can twist the truth.
DeleteOR, John simply popped a pill before taking his poly. A couple Valiums might have been adequate, or maybe something stronger. He'd have had plenty of time to research it. And since he owned the process, he made sure there was no drug test prior to the exam. Twisting the truth is what John does best, apparently, so, hey no problem.
DeleteYep, I now completely agree with your take on things. I went back and read a lot of your entries and agree with you that John's very likely the killer. Very interesting, as I always thought it was Patsy before I read your blog. It also explains a lot of John's strange behavior in the house that day, especially the way he found her body, how he moved it, and how he wanted to leave town right away. Also, didn't he say he didn't want to know who did it, but why they did it? That makes sense--he probably doesn't understand what motivated him to do such an evil act.
Deleteyou all are as uninformed and blind to the facts around this case, as is the publisher of this blog...
ReplyDeleteIt would help if you could be more specific. If you are aware of facts we don't know about, please share.
Deleteshe means you do not know your facts, which is true in genereal.
DeleteAnd you know them, undoubtedly. Sorry but unless you can be more specific, I'm not impressed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI just finished watching 'perfect murder, perfect town'...
ReplyDeleteI realize this is an 'old, cold case' but i am very moved by cases like these. I feel such a personal obligation to the victims. Its just in my nature as a caretaker.
My comment or question is this....
I found it very interesting and strange that the date on her headstone differs from that on the death report according to the show. Is that true? Also, the show pays alot of attention to the son (burke) possibly knowing more then revieled but then they didnt elaborate on it or conclude it. I am very mixed. Any revelations that might help? Thank u.
It's been a long time since I've seen that movie. But I have the book, to which I've referred many times. There are a great many odd things about this case, and the date on the headstone is only one. The Ramseys decided she must have been killed prior to midnight on Christmas, probably because the "kidnapper" said he would call them "tomorrow." All VERY confusing. But not very helpful in solving the case, I'm afraid.
DeleteMany people think Burke knows more than he's ever let on, and I agree. The police recently attempted to interview him, but he refused. I feel sure he's not responsible for JonBenet's death, but I do think he is hiding some important information.
So another question and I realize the most likely doesn't pertain to the case but I'm just super curious in the diner where they show the news broadcast sings in the movie perfect murder perfect town the Barbies hanging from the ceiling and I was wondering if anybody had any answers are ideas as to what that was all about.
DeleteHow's wanted to share with people that although this case is old and seems cold there's a little girl out there that murder went unsolved and left my heart ache in many people even those not close to her such as myself. I feel for this little girl in the trouble that she entered and I it's just really take a hold of me and I've been watching that movie and doing as much research as I can. I just compel everybody to still keep her and all those like her child or adult in your mind and in your prayers in your heart.
No I can't help with the Barbie aspect. But I do understand when you express your feelings about this case and the sweet, innocent victim. I like to be logical and sometimes I can sound pretty cold and clinical when discussing this case, but what it all boils down to is compassion for this poor child and a deep need to see justice done on her behalf. So thanks for reminding us.
Deleteit seems that John made a comment something like that Burke will have trouble with the murder of his sister when he is like oh I dont know 40 something. well wouldnt that be convenient because John will be something like 83 and will either be dead or near it when Burke finally has to get some things off his chest. and all of Burkes grandparents wil be dead too. none of them will have to live with his revelations. just some aunts and cousins and step-siblings left alive by then. wonder if JR made a pact with Burke on just such a deal. heres money for college living expenses and you keep your mouth shut til you are 40 and Im dead and gone.
ReplyDeletewow sometimes i amaze myself---tongue in cheek
Ramseys out guilty.. case closed. Your explanation made no sense what so ever.
DeleteRamseys are guilty as hell. The whole family conspired: from the fake note, Patsy changing her writing style and talking to police 4MONTHS LATER, Burke not talking to police, the fake lie detector test, the lawyering up, the way John found the body....Horrible creepy sick family benefiting from terrible police work and lots of money!
ReplyDeletei know, when detectives told John to search the house, he went straight to the basement. Kinda makes me think he picked up the body before the detective to see to make him look innocent. This case makes me so sick. I wanna believe an outsider did it, but cmon EVERY SINGLE lead goes straight to the Ramsey family. Insead of the family saying ¨do anything you can to clear our name, take DNA tests, do anything to prove it is not us¨ they sue! ugh so sick and twisted
DeleteThey had already looked upstairs, and the main floor was filled with people, where would YOU have looked?
Deletestill think Burke did it
ReplyDeleteif he did not do it then why in his interview with Dr. Phil was he showing a very uncomfortable, and nervous grin. if he did not do it then why did he show that he was not curious, maybe he already knew all the answers. if he did not do it then why did he hit Jon Benet in the head with a golf club, previously. if he did not do it then why do the ¨stun gun¨ marks match his toy train tracks in the basemant. A little boy did not do this by himself... I believe someone helped burke commit this murder. You can tell by in all of his interviews how nervous and uncomfortable he is. Recently, after his sisters death he did not show any sign of distress. He acted like nothing happened to his ¨beloved¨ sister.
ReplyDeletei did not know all of this information, at first i thought it was Patsy but now i kinda have a feeling Burke did it. I did see in a documentary that Burke had some psychiatric related issues... Seems so suspicious that Burke did some weird stuff to Jon Benet like leaving a grape fruit sized feices in her bed, and yes, hitting her with a golf club. Makes me want to look into the case more!
Deletethe ramseys for sure did it, most likely they had help from someone outside the Ramsey family,Since their is outside-of-the-family DNA. Maybe the Whites...
ReplyDeletei also recently heard that their was Burkes bootprint next to the body, experts say that it was the same size, and brand of Burkes boot upstairs. The grooves and everything matched! hmm... suspicious or a coincidence?
ReplyDeletei definetly agree that it is Burke, so suspicious and weird, huh?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBurke Ramsay....only person ever NOT to be given a polygraph test...when so much controversy hovers over the family..the entire family, with such a flawed investigation..and powerful and controlling suspects/witnesses. Shocking Dr. Phil, shocking.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "shocking Dr. Phil"?
Delete