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.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Patsy's Role

There's been lots of discussion here lately by several very intelligent, observant (and persistent) commenters focusing primarily on the 911 call and whether or not John wanted that call made. To save time and effort, I've decided to add a post summarizing my thoughts on this issue, and explaining, moreover, why I feel so sure John is the culprit and Patsy the innocent dupe.

If we focus only on the call per se, and neglect the overall context of the case as a whole, then admittedly it's hard to understand why Patsy would want to support John in a lie over who decided to make that call. Since my approach has been to concentrate primarily on the facts, I've emphasized that it was Patsy who called, not John. And on the basis of that incontrovertible fact, I've concluded that, given the absurdity of the intruder theory, Patsy must be innocent and John guilty. My reasoning is summarized as follows:

The call would not have been made if both were collaborating on the staging of a kidnapping, because that call effectively nullified that staging. Why go to all the trouble of writing a long "ransom" note and then bring the police into your home while the kidnap victim is still inside? By the same token, if Patsy wrote the note and John was innocent, she would certainly have not wanted to make the call and would have seriously resisted, insisting it was too dangerous and calling his attention to the threats in the note. And if she'd resisted, and John nevertheless wanted the call made, I see no reason why he would not have made it himself.

Why would an innocent John bother to browbeat his reluctant wife into calling 911 when all he'd have needed to do was pick up the receiver and dial three numbers? In fact it's surprising that he didn't make the call anyhow, assuming he's innocent, since he's the level headed CEO of a big company and she's the hysterical mother who can barely get her words out. So, based on the fact that Patsy is the one who made the call, and some very straightforward reasoning based on that fact, I've been able to conclude that John must be guilty of murder, and the only crime Patsy committed was her decision to support her husband's version of what happened -- easily explained once we realize how manipulative John could be. (Lest we forget, during his first marriage he managed to conduct an illicit affair for two years before his wife found out.)

Unfortunately my emphasis on the facts surrounding this one aspect of the crime has given many the impression that this one fact alone is my reason for believing Patsy to be innocent. That's not at all the case. In this post I'll present several other reasons why I feel so sure she could not have been involved:

First of all we need to apply some simple common sense to the overall picture presented by the evidence. And we have to ask ourselves, if one parent had killed this beloved and doted upon child, why the other would want to take such an enormous risk to collaborate with the child's killer on the staging of a coverup? Were the Ramseys so closely bonded, a Boulder version of Romeo and Juliet? I don't think so. Would they really want to cover this up to protect their "family honor," as has been alleged? That strikes me as absurd, though many seem to have taken it seriously. And if this had been an "accident," on the part of either Patsy, John or Burke, it could easily have been reported as such. No need for elaborate staging. Nor, assuming Burke was responsible, would there be any reason for his parents to take such a huge risk in staging a full blown kidnapping, complete with hand printed ransom note. A call to their lawyer would have informed them that he was too young to be prosecuted. And the writer of the note would be risking prosecution as the murderer, meaning a lifetime spent in jail.

It's important also to consider the crime itself, certain aspects of which point to a male rather than a female attacker. JonBenet was sexually assaulted, an act far more likely to have been committed by a mature male, not a female, not a 9 year old child. There was evidence consistent with chronic sexual molestation, again something John would be far more likely to be responsible for than either Patsy or Burke. Also, it seems highly unlikely that a pageant mom/ housewife like Patsy would have known how to assemble the garotte-like device that strangled JonBenet. Or why she'd want to do such a disgusting thing to a child she'd supposedly killed by accident.

If both Patsy and John were involved in a coverup, they would have cooperated with the police from day one. I see no reason for the long delay before permitting the police to question them since they could have gotten their story straight very quickly and presented a united front to their interrogators. We must remember, moreover, that Patsy was a heavily medicated basket case for some time after the murder and not in a position to confer with lawyers or negotiate with the authorities. It was John who undertook that task. And it was John who would have encouraged his lawyers to place any obstacles they could think of between "the Ramseys" and the police for a period of several months. But why? Obviously, as I see it, he needed time to work on Patsy, to make sure she wouldn't say something that would contradict his version of what happened. You can call it manipulation, you can call it "gaslighting," whatever it was it would have taken time. If they'd been in it together that would not have been necessary. And if John were the innocent party, then why would he have worked so hard to delay full cooperation with the authorities?

If both were involved, the pineapple evidence would have been easily explained. Assuming, as the evidence suggests, that JonBenet had eaten some pineapple after coming home, and assuming both John and Patsy were in cahoots, they would have had no problem when asked about that pineapple: "Oh yes, we fed her a pineapple snack just before we put her to bed." Why not? There's nothing suspicious about feeding a child some pineapple. It's only if one of them had fed her the pineapple unbeknownst to the other that both would deny any knowledge of her having been fed pineapple. Only for different reasons. The guilty party would deny it because it would have seemed suspicious. The innocent party would deny it simply out of ignorance. And, of course, JonBenet would never have sat down to eat some pineapple, or anything else, in the middle of the night, with someone who didn't belong in that house.

As we know, JonBenet's body had been redressed in panties much too large for her, panties that had in fact been purchased by her mother as a gift for an older girl. An intruder would have had no idea where to look for panties to redress her in. And Patsy would have know very well the difference between panties she'd purchased for an older, larger child and panties belonging to JonBenet. Once again, the circumstances point to John Ramsey, who would have know where to look, but not what to look for, and very probably had no idea that these oversized panties existed.

Also, I'd like to add one more item to the list, something I've thought of only recently. If both Patsy and John had been collaborating on the kidnap staging, there would have been no reason to complete the note in a rush, so it would be ready by the time they were scheduled to wake up. If both of them were in on it, they could have taken their sweet time over that note, in fact they could have taken all day. Who would have known the difference. They would, of course, have awakened Burke. And explained to him that JonBenet had been kidnapped. Actually they could even have told him she'd gotten sick and was in the emergency room. They would then have cancelled their travel plans, and most likely sent Burke off to stay with friends. Since they would not have planned on calling the police until the following day, there would have been no need to show anyone the note until it had been completed. So the very fact that Patsy found the note so early in the AM already in itself tells us how unlikely it was that she participated in the staging or knew anything about it.

When we add to all the above, John's much discussed window break-in story, which is certainly a fabrication (see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html et seq.), we have to ask ourselves why John would go to such elaborate lengths to first stage a break-in at that point, and then tell a wild tall story in a desperate effort to unstage, if he were an innocent victim and his wife the guilty party.

So as you can see there are a great many reasons for my conviction that John is guilty and Patsy innocent. It's not just the 911 call, but so many other aspects of the case that give John away.

Now, returning to that call let's consider the understandable skepticism on the part of certain participants in our discussions regarding my conviction that Patsy made that call against John's wishes. Some posters have insisted that there's no way John would have permitted Patsy to blow his staging by calling 911. That may or may not be a valid assumption. But the fact remains: the call was made. And if we want to assume John wanted it made and told her to make it, then we are forced to conclude that he had nothing to do with the note and must be innocent. However, if you read the above summary, not to mention so many other posts on this blog, that conclusion becomes extremely difficult to maintain. Actually, in my view, impossible to maintain.

Others have approached the situation somewhat differently, wondering why Patsy would have stood by silently while John announced to the world (via CNN) that calling 911 was his idea, and that he told Patsy to dial it. She seems to have deferred to him immediately, while "gaslighting" takes time, so why would she do that? Well, I've offered various reasons why she'd defer to John on this matter, but of course it's all speculative. Who knows for sure? But one thing we do know for sure (see above) is that 1. they could not have been in it together and 2. if one of them is guilty, all the signs point to John and not Patsy. In this broader context, the meaning of the 911 call becomes clear. Regardless of how unlikely it might seem that John could not prevent Patsy from making the call and how unlikely it might seem that Patsy would be willing to accept John's version of what was said even though she knew better, the facts speak for themselves.

125 comments:

  1. Whenever you set out your theory, backed by facts and logic, it makes total sense and I am convinced you are right. You are brilliant and you have a masterful skill at putting everything in words that are easy to understand. I think all of us posting here know that and occasionally need a gentle pull back to your logic once in awhile. It is so easy to let our minds drift through the "morass" of this case and start overthinking every little detail. So why do so many of us continue analyzing all the details and even, at times, challenge your theory? I believe it's because we all have an insatiable desire to see justice brought for JonBenet and we all hope that we'll find some little piece of the puzzle that hasn't yet been discovered. You've once again reminded me that all the pieces you need are right there. Why on earth hasn't the Boulder DA's Office seen this case as clearly as you do? Do we all need to write them a letter and tell them to read this blog?


    Thanks for the new post, Doc.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank, folks. Now if I'm so smart, why can't I get a date with Leslie Stahl? :-)

      Delete
    2. I agree, you are very smart, in the way you have figured this case out. I still don't understand why everyone was and is so against Patsy. She WAS an emotional basket case, and seemed very drugged out. John Ramsey insisted that they be interviewed together and not separated- proof he was afraid they could break Patsy down. But the biggest thing for me, was when I saw his real handwriting- that was total proof, why didn't the police see that???

      Delete
    3. I think part of JRs strategy was to partially frame PR, but not outright frame her. First he wanted people to believe the intruder theory, but if some people didn't buy the intruder theory (and let's face it, it is hard to believe) better the suspicion on Patsy than him. Let me be clear, he didn't want Patsy convicted, he just wanted people suspicious of her, to distract and take the focus off him.

      So he put her on nationally TV one week after the murder, when she was out of her skull with grief, and heavily medicated. (I wouldn't be surprised if JR manipulated the doctor into upping Patsy's dosage). She looks like a nut to everyone, and he sits there and plays the calm and normal concerned dad. All eyes are moved from him to her.

      He hired the hand writing experts. The word was sent I'm sure to exonerate JR and say there is a remote possibility the RN was written by PR.

      Delete
    4. You make an excellent point. I don't think "framing" Patsy was part of his original plan. But once he was "ruled out," and everyone began focusing on her, that definitely took a lot of the pressure off of him. Steve Thomas even offered him a "pass," hoping he'd inform on Patsy. That would not have worked for him, as he needed her cooperation. But all the attention on her certainly helped him and it's possible he encouraged it, yes.

      Delete
  2. I'm having some trouble following this:

    "Also, I'd like to add one more item to the list, something I've thought of only recently. If both Patsy and John had been collaborating on the kidnap staging, there would have been no reason to complete the note in a rush, ..." " ... Since they would not have planned on calling the police until the following day, there would have been no need to show anyone the note until it had been completed. ..."

    Elsewhere on the blog you suggest that it might be the case the note was written in advance, though your go back and forth on that issue. It would seem then that the note isn't all that "rushed". It has a beginning salutation, a body, and a sign-off, much as any traditional letter. It lays out not only the threats, but gives JR the perfect excuse to go cruising the countryside looking for a dumping spot. It seems complete to me. Am I misinterpreting something?

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't mean the note was incomplete. What I meant was that IF Patsy and John had been conspiring there would have been no need to stay up half the night completing it so it would be ready by 5:30 AM. They could have taken all day to complete it IF they were conspiring. Of course, they were not conspiring. John wrote the note on his own, and was therefore forced to complete it before Patsy awoke on the morning of the 26th.

      Delete
  3. My view in light of the scientific evidence is that Patsy played no role in the commission of this crime.

    I believe I have solved this crime,

    copy and paste or click

    http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doc,

    Thank you for going over all of the facts again. I think it's clear now that either John committed this crime or someone close to the family. This person would've had a key to the house. Possibly this person took the note pad and pen with them to write the note. I don't think we can rule out Linda Hoffman-Pugh and her husband. Linda refutes the broken window but Patsy clearly insists that she helped her pick up the broken glass. Why would Patsy lie about something she knew Linda would call her out on? Why wouldn't Patsy just say she picked up the glass alone?

    BG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they take the notepad and pen with them to write the note? What purpose would that have served? If the note was written in someone else's hand, and there was no attempt to forge either John or Patsy's hand, then what was the point? Also, if they intended to kidnap JonBenet, why didn't they take her? If they had a key, then who broke the window and why? And what happened to the glass?

      Linda and her husband are not particularly sophisticated or highly educated people, so how could they have hoped to bring this off? And how could they have written that note? And if someone was helping them who could it have been? If his motive was kidnapping, he'd have taken his victim, no? They were thoroughly investigated and the police found nothing suspicious.

      Linda and her husband are only two of a great many people who've been adopted as pet suspects in this case. None will ever be arrested since no intruder theory makes sense.

      Delete
    2. As for Patsy's story about Linda helping her, that strongly suggests an implanted memory. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_implantation

      If she were simply lying, she would not have included Linda in her story. But if the memory had been implanted, then it would have been only logical for her to fantasize that Linda was helping her when she cleaned up, since that's what Linda always did.

      The alternative is to accuse Linda of being involved in JonBenet's murder. But there is no evidence of that despite her being thoroughly investigated, complete with writing samples, DNA, and no doubt a polygraph.

      Delete
    3. I don't think that if someone such as LHP and co had written that note that it would have to have been forged to either John or Patsy's handwriting. The note contained knowledge of the Ramsey's and they could have only been covering their own handwriting hoping the details of Johns bonus and how Patsy referred to John would be enough to throw suspicion to them. As you say DocG the Pugh's had limited intellect. They certainly had motive, and Patsy did say they had been in the cellar for trees and repairs, but as you point out there is no evidence against them.

      Delete
    4. I full agree and truly believe somehow, Linda and her husband were involved. She had motive and access. If she was not directly involved she was an accomplice and like you said DocG, they were not sophisticated and highly intelligent people, and that's exactly why the kidnapping went wrong.

      The Ransom Note itself screams mediocre, watching too many movies such as "speed" and "ransom". This was a kidnapping and their mistake was to include a pedophile as second person. Or they were unsuspecting of this fact.

      TB

      Delete
  5. Doc, I agree with your take on the facts of the case and who is guilty, and always have. My guesses regarding why Patsy Ramsey behaved the way she did are directed toward understanding why she lied and thus protected John. The marriage was not strong and she was not a pushover. It is not really important, except that she essentially helped her husband get away with murder. Since we agree she was not involved in the crime, by lying for him she was either a co-conspirator after the fact or a victim of massive brainwashing. I think she was both: she colluded based on a mistaken impression of how, why and who killed JonBenet.

    James Kolar thought the behavioral evidence indicates that Burke did it. If John even hinted the same to Patsy, how likely would it be that Patsy would think so too? And if she thought her husband covered it up to protect Burke, she would join him, not oppose him. She would keep it a secret forever and fight like a mama bear if anyone tried to hurt her family. I suggest, similar to Doc, that she would NOT fight like a mama bear to protect John alone. And after she became the focus of the investigation, accused MANY times of writing the note and of murdering her daughter, does anyone truly think she would keep lying for John? She might not mention that there was no broken window? That 911 was her idea and hers alone? She might not suggest that someone polygraph John on the ransom note question? When she was near death, under hospice care and leaving her son in the care of a murderous father, that she would keep lying to protect him?

    I don't buy it, not this lady. She was quite verbally aggressive when she wanted to be, more so than John. There had to be a reason she lied, and I think it was to protect her son. Not that I think Burke did it, but she thought he did. Since John covered it up she thought that her husband was just as guilty in the eyes of the law, and that was why they had to lie, even though Burke was only 9 and not culpable.

    This explanation fits the facts of the case and explains the behavior of both John and Patsy afterward. It is convoluted, perhaps, but so is the case.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wrote: "James Kolar thought the behavioral evidence indicates that Burke did it. If John even hinted the same to Patsy, how likely would it be that Patsy would think so too? And if she thought her husband covered it up to protect Burke, she would join him, not oppose him. She would keep it a secret forever and fight like a mama bear if anyone tried to hurt her family."

    I tried to imagine what John would tell Patsy in those days before the CNN interview that would accomplish his ends:

    "Patsy, I need you to trust me. Something horrible happened between the children while we were sleeping, and I woke up and discovered it. I tried to protect Burke and I think it will work, but we have to stick together on this. I am not even certain he knows what happened for sure, and I want him to just stay confused. It was a complete accident, I am sure. By the time I found her, she was gone. We just have to stick together, or they will put him in an institution and put me in prison. The lawyers will help us - we can tell them we did not do this and it will be the truth. But we have to protect him - he did not know what he was doing."

    If he said anything like this to Patsy -- and she kept the secret and never asked Burke about it and never told anyone else -- it explains everything. And he would only have to say it once.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He would not have said anything like this to Patsy because the first thing to do if a child is injured is call 911 stat. NOT write a 2 1/2 page phony ransom note.

      Delete
    2. Right. But JonBenet was not injured, she was murdered by her father who did not expect to have the body and ransom note found in the house at the same time. He has unstaged the intruder - he needs another suspect. How about the kid who hit her last summer with the golf club?

      MM

      Delete
    3. I can't imagine Patsy not confronting Burke over this immediately. And he would certainly have denied it if it weren't true. It's an interesting possibility, but strikes me as extremely unlikely.

      Delete
    4. We know from statements from both Patsy and Burke that they never discussed the death of JonBenet. Gaslighting is an interesting concept - it works when you tie into the psychological defenses of the person you are gaslighting. Patsy would have been horrified by the very idea, and praying it was an accident but never completely sure. I would guess she did not want to know.

      MM

      Delete
    5. There are 3 reasons I do not believe Burke did this: First, I don't believe Burke was responsible for the sexual abuse. Not a 9-year old. Second, I don't believe either parent would stage (or allow to be staged) that horrific garrote around her neck (which was tight!). If they were innocent, what purpose would it serve to do that? A bit of overkill staging, I think. And imagine how difficult it would be for them to do that after just learning their daughter was dead. And, last, it is absurd to think they would come up with all the other elements of staging. Besides making themselves vulnerable to criminal charges if they tried to cover for Burke, I think John would have had the presence of mind and intelligence to make a quick call to his attorney, and then he would find out that charges could not be brought against Burke.

      bb

      Delete
  7. PS - Doc, Not sure if I am the persistent one to whom you refer, though I certainly qualify! The more I read transcripts and interviews with Patsy, the more struck I am by her feisty, combative nature. That was what started me down this road. Again, total agreement on the facts of the case, just trying to fill in parts that don't make sense. Brainwashing and gaslighting can take more than one form - I am trying to put myself in Patsy's shoes and the only thing that would make me ignore all the facts AND tell lies that throw myself under the bus would be a perceived threat to my child.

    MM

    PSS -- good news, I might be done for today :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about a perceived threat to you personally? As in: if we don't stick together on this they are going to assume we staged that window break-in and we're both going to spend the rest of our lives in jail. You know I'm innocent because I was ruled out. But you've never been ruled out, so you're the one they're going to after. If I thought there was any other way to get us out of this I'd do it, but this is the best I could come up with. Obviously the window was broken by the intruder, but we'll never get them to believe that so we need to find another way to explain how that window got broken.

      That would have been one way of doing it.

      But considering the strange nature of her story I wouldn't rule out gaslighting. Bottom line: we really don't know. But what we do know should be enough (see my most recent post).

      Delete
    2. With apologies, this does not make sense. John was not ruled out until much later -- early on he was the number one suspect. "Obviously the window was broken by the intruder..." -- not obviously, there was no glass on the floor. How could Patsy buy that story? If she is perfectly, completely innocent then she suffered accusations for years and lied to protect him and only him, taking all the suspicion upon herself and never once crossing him.

      Sorry, but I don't think you have answered why she would do that when the person who suffered the most from her lies was herself.

      MM

      Delete
    3. There's a difference between her acquiescence regarding the 911 call and her false testimony regarding the broken window. In the first case, John could easily have claimed that Patsy didn't remember the details of what happened that morning because she'd been so heavily sedated shortly afterwards. Even if that didn't convince her, she might have assumed that it was John's memory that was faulty. Since both she and John were convinced that JonBenet had been attacked by an intruder, it would not have mattered all that much whose idea it was to make that call. It certainly would not have mattered enough for her to make a big deal about it. If that was how John remembered it, then as far as she was concerned, fine, why not go along with it? The important thing was that the two of them were united in the search for that intruder, not bickering over whose idea it was to call the police. That's doubly true because in her mind there would have been nothing suspicious in not wanting that call made, because of all the threats in the note.

      The window story is another matter, because that was an out and out lie. We have no evidence, however, that Patsy knew about that story early on. And for some time after the murder she was too medicated and distraught to think clearly about anything other than the loss of her beloved child.

      It's important to understand, also, that John hired those handwriting "experts" very shortly after the day of the murder. It was reported in Newsweek on Jan. 13 that his own experts had ruled out both of them as writers of the note. Since such magazines require at least a week of lead time before publication, this means the report would have come in no later than Jan. 6th, meaning that John had managed to get himself ruled out within two weeks. And Patsy may not have become aware of John's window story until much later -- we really have no way of knowing. There is no evidence in any case that she was conducting her own investigation and there is good reason to believe that whatever information she had would have come from John or his lawyers.

      So he would have been in a good position to work on her. And once aware that John had been "ruled out," she would have had no reason to see anything that he did or said as suspicious. In her mind only one person could have written that note: the intruder.

      One other factor to consider is the condition known as "chemo brain." For some details, see this website of the American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/chemo-brain

      One of the symptoms of "chemo brain" is: "Forgetting things that they usually have no trouble recalling (memory lapses)"

      John might well have manipulated Patsy into believing that her memories of what had happened last summer were distorted due to "chemo brain." "Don't you remember when I broke into the house last summer and you cleaned up the glass?" "No, I don't. And I never noticed that the basement window was broken either." "Well it wasn't that long after you had your chemo treatments so they must have fogged your memory and might still be making your forgetful." "Well, I suppose. If you say so John."

      Not necessarily in so many words, but you get the idea. I think it would have been possible for John to convince her that his "break-in" actually happened, even though she would have had no recollection of it.

      Delete
    4. Doc, you have just quieted me down with the January 6th (or before) results of the handwriting analysis. I did not realize it was done and released that early in the game. I am aware of the chemo brain arguments, and I guess I cannot really comment on that because we don't have many stories to back up the theory re: Patsy. The stories I have read seem to paint her as an alert, capable woman. But if she thought John was ruled out early on, and if he managed to not frighten her the morning of the 26th, then it seems that he had little to fear from her and did not need to risk bringing Burke into it.

      MM

      Delete
  8. Doc,

    Based on your brilliant analysis, I would have to agree that it was John who committed the murder. There are just too many facts pointing in his direction. I do, however, think it happened differently. I believe that either:

    1. John changed his mind about going through with his plan to later move the body while he had time to reflect about what he done. This would most likely have occurred in the shower. I don't know about you, but when I shower, I often do a lot of reflecting with better plans, and creative ideas usually pop into my head because the warm water relaxes me. I think it's probable that he realized how dangerous the task would be to move the body himself. Couple that with the guilt he was beginning to feel, I think he could've changed his mind. He decided to go with Plan B. Unstage his break in and discover the body himself so his DNA could easily be explained when it was found on JonBenet. He left the ransom note in place with the attempt to provide a motive for the kidnapper/murderer and a red herring for the police to be puzzled over. Keep in mind, Patsy and John both suggested Linda as the first suspect. Perhaps John was trying to frame her.

    2. When John was showering, Patsy woke up before her alarm went off, went downstairs and found the note. After reading that JonBenet had been kidnapped, she didn't bother to read the rest. She picked up the phone and called 911 and John obviously couldn't have stopped her since he was in the shower and assuming Patsy was still asleep.

    BG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If John decided to change his mind and go with Plan B simply out of reluctance to dispose of the body (and not because Patsy called 911), then he would not have left the note for Patsy to find, but would have destroyed it and reported an intruder breakin instead. With the body in the house, the note no longer functions as staging and in fact makes him (and Patsy) look extremely suspicious. Your second alternative does make sense, and I agree, that's how it could have happened.

      Delete
  9. Doc, assuming everything you wrote is correct, that Patsy Ramsey is a despicable human being, because she would have known it was John and never said a word about it. Patsy in her interviews seemed like a person who aggressively wanted answers, yet we are supposed to believe she overlooked the million clues that you have layed out that John did it.

    -Patsy would have known Johns handwriting
    -Patsy would have known the references written in the RN and whether they pointed to John
    -Patsy KNEW whether the window was previously broken or not
    -Patsy KNEW where those oiversized panties were and would have known that an intruder would never have been able to find them
    -Patsy could have woken up at any time that night and not seen John in the bedroom with her. I dont think she would write it off to a bathroom break when she wakes up to her daughter being dead
    -Patsy would have KNOWN about the lie detector test John took or refused to take
    -There were supposedly TWO 911 dials, and Patsy would have known WHY!
    -There were a ton of perdiatrician visits and I imagine any type of molestation could have or would have been discussed, so unless it was Burke, she would allow this???

    This idea of "gaslighting" is just dumb. Unless John had her under a hypnotic state, then it just doesn't make sense. Patsy HAD to sense whether John was involved or not. We can't just say she dialed 911 because she "sensed" John might be involved and then for the next 8 years she never says anything. We can't just say the handwriting sample swayed her off of her scent that John was involved.
    Her daughter that she cherished MORE than she cherished John was molested and murdered, so are we to believe she NEVER sensed it could be John? Don't but it

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make some interesting points. Especially when it comes to the lie detector tests, which Patsy would certainly have known about. But some of your other points are not so convincing.

      If John's handwriting had fooled 6 "experts" why wouldn't it have fooled Patsy? It looks to me like he went to a considerable amount of trouble to disguise his hand.

      Patsy did know about the window, but since it was in an out of the way place she might have not paid much attention to whether it was broken or not. And gaslighting IS for real, people have done it, it's been documented and even tested scientifically. See my reference to "chemo brain" in the comments above.

      And as I've stressed several times, once the verdict came in that John could not have written the ransom note, Patsy would have had no basis for suspecting him, regardless of any of your objections.

      Delete
  10. Correction in the 1st sentence, should have read "then Patsy Ramsey is a despicable human being"

    ReplyDelete
  11. J- I have run through all the same thoughts about Patsy as you! I did finally have to accept that IF Patsy recognized all these things, and that is a big IF given her state of mind at the time when she would have first been able to recognize them and become suspicious, I do think that she was fearful. Fearful of being framed because of those handwriting analyses. I recall hearing her say on TV, "I didn't write that note. John Ramsey didn't write that note." If she did suspect John, she became convinced that John was off the hook and she was not, so now she has to hang on to her freedom for Burke's sake. He was all she had left. I would do the same, hang on to my freedom whatever the cost, in order to be able to raise my only living child and maybe even protect him should there be any concern whatsoever about John being a pedophile. Regarding the pediatrician visits, didn't the doctor state that he saw no signs/evidence of molestation, but we don't really even know if she was examined in this area? It seems like she would have been examined but apparently not to the degree that the abuse was discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I understand that “gaslighting” is a real thing, but in this instance I just can’t buy it. John couldn’t manipulate Patsy into NOT dialing 911, but can convince her of so many other things that he fabricated? The oversized panties I mentioned is crucial, because Patsy knew about them and knew where she put them. So, at no point does she question how an intruder found them? How about the call to the pilot made by JR? Patsy just writes that off as well? Regarding the handwriting in the note, there were so many movie references and other little phrases written in the note that I just can’t believe that Patsy didn’t notice something that was similar to what John says.

    I am not making the argument that Patsy was directly involved, but I am making the case that IF she didn’t suspect John, then she would simply have to be one of the dumbest people of all time. Linda Arndt was with John only that morning and had said right after being around John that she counted her bullets out of fear. It just isn’t possible on any level to make an argument that John not only committed the crime as Doc has laid out, but that Patsy also didn’t suspect him. Gaslighting or chemo brain is one thing, but Patst would have to ignore SO many things that just do not add up.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  13. Again, I agree with you, J, that it makes the most sense that at some point in time, maybe many months or a year later, Patsy had to have gotten suspicious. Even if she was gaslighted, and/or taken advantage of while on meds due to emotional state after losing her daughter, and/or had chemo brain fog, she had to have reached a point where she looked at all that was reported and wondered. I do not for one minute think she is dumb. In fact, I think she was smart. She thought it through in the same manner as I would have. Here's what would drive my decision to come forward with my suspicions: 1) I am fearful. If John really did this, I know what he is capable of doing to save his own hide, and he will take me down. It already looks like they are trying to frame me based on the handwriting. John, if guilty, will allow me to go down before himself. 2) I am fearful for my only living child. I want to protect him and be here for him; I can't be here for him if I'm in jail. 3) How will Burke and I live if John goes to jail, or we spend our entire wealth on defending him? I've already lost my daughter and I need to be able to support Burke. Net, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm weighing all my options, looking at what the possible outcomes are, and realizing a few things: I'm going to have to stay married to John, no matter what. If I turn on him, he can destroy me and he will destroy me. I'm going to have to kick this cancer so I can be here for Burke, and I need John's financial support. I need to ride this out and if they catch John red-handed and convict him, at least he'll be in jail, I'll move home with my parents, and then Burke and I will be safe with him behind bars. Until then, I need to assume that John will not be taken down easily. Personally, I do think when Patsy talked to Linda Arndt, she expressed that she had misgivings about John but had no proof and they both agreed that no one would ever be arrested for this crime. I have always noticed, btw, that in public Patsy and John never showed much affection for each other. No holding hands, arms around a shoulder, etc. To me, they always seemed wary of the other one. He is wary she will expose his lies, she is wary that he will keep on spinning the facts until she is the one who ends up getting arrested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the perspective of an outsider, and probably most outsiders, it would have been pretty obvious almost from the start that there was no intruder, and that the murder of JonBenet had to have been an inside job. And the ruling out of John as writer of the note would not have changed that, either for the police or the general public, because, after all, Patsy could have written that note. And in fact for a great many that was the only possibility.

      From Patsy's perspective, however, things would have looked totally different. The decision to rule John out, which came very early, was never questioned by anyone in LE or the media and remains unquestioned for the vast majority following this case. So why would Patsy doubt it? Obviously she didn't. And if she knew she didn't write the note, then for her the only remaining possibility would have been an intruder. It's really as simple as that.

      Regardless of what you might think of Patsy's intelligence (I happen to think she was highly intelligent), the decision to rule John out would have trumped any lingering suspicions she might have had. It's important to emphasize that NO ONE other than myself and Fausto Brugnatelli, the Italian handwriting expert, ever expressed any doubts regarding John's having been ruled out. That pronouncement was accepted by the world literally as gospel. So why would Patsy doubt it? The only difference was that Patsy would have known she didn't write that note, so her perspective would have been completely different from everyone else's.

      Delete
  14. Doc, I also believe Patsy was intelligent, which is why I made the statement that she would have to be the dumbest person ever to not suspect John. Patsy and Burke were the two other people in the house not only the night JBR was murdered, but also in the years that followed. Lets say that she honestly believed in the intruder theory, which means she also believes in the RN. In fact in order to believe the intruder theory, then she absolutely MUST believe the RN is real obviously. Maybe in the beginning I would believe that the handwriting expert could have swayed her away from suspecting John and I bet that no spouse ever wants to believe their other half could be responsible for such a horrific crime. The problem though becomes that in the days, weeks and months that followed, there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a foreign faction called S.B.T.C. Furthermore, Patsy and John’s reputations were being drug through the mud, so I imagine she was doing everything possible to find the killer and clear her name.

    The problem Doc, is that its just a huge stretch to think that a few experts that John hired, ruled him out, so she just put any suspicions she may have had away. This site has a good following, and Doc, you are quoted on other Jon Benet bloggers sites. People like myself come on here all the time to post a theory or ask a question, so the reason I say this is because this was Patsy’s pride and joy that was murdered. I bet there wasn’t a single second of any day where she didn’t think about the case and try to think of a clue as to who could have done it. Not to mention, if she didn’t think it was John, then she must have lived her entire life in fear of the intruder striking again. She did have another child…her only living child to protect and no amount of financial security would have stopped her from blowing the whistle on John.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think it would also be interesting to know what their (powerful) lawyers advised them when communicating with each other and with the public during interviews, for example. I am guessing John's lawyers told Patsy that she absolutely needs to maintain a united front and that since John did not commit the crime she needs to completely support his version of the events. This will enable both of them to move on, keep the inconsistencies and associated "headaches" to a minimum, and will help keep the focus on finding the "intruder". I suspect John discussed this approach with his lawyer, who was only too happy to let Patsy know that it is legally prudent and crucial to support their agreed on version of the events. John probably said to Patsy we have hired lawyers for their expertise and we will do what they say. Agreed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I've often thought that the lawyers must have played a role in convincing Patsy to go along with John's version of what happened, i.e., to be a team player. As for whether or not she ever became suspicious, that's really hard to say for sure. I'm inclined to think she didn't, because from my experience people believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see -- and it seems clear that Patsy wanted to see John as she saw herself: an innocent victim, along with JonBenet, of a crime committed by some perverted, demented, monster who broke into their home -- OR someone out to get John out of jealousy or some personal resentment.

      I just don't see any sign that she was ever suspicious of John, despite some things that seem rather obvious to us, in retrospect. Don't forget, the Ramseys have a great many defenders, convinced of their innocence in spite of all the many signs that the murderer was someone inside the home. So if all these people were, and still are, assuming John is innocent, why wouldn't Patsy?

      Once again: people see what they want to see.

      Delete
    2. Based on the evidence of Jonbenet's prior sexual abuse, Patsy is a women who could miss very important signals if they conflicted with what she wanted to see.

      Delete
  16. Having been one who has wrestled with how an intelligent, perceptive woman like Patsy could not see through JR - his manipulations, lies, and outright strange behavior like planning to fly to Atlanta just hours after JonBenet's body was found, I decided to watch, for a 2nd time, the video of Patsy's last interview (John was present and was interviewed as well) with a church pastor in Hawaii. After listening to her speak and observing her body language, I would have to agree with Doc that she seemed to have no clue about John. And my oh my what a good actor is John, if he did in fact murder JonBenet. I do think he did it, and want to add that his habit of licking his lips/protruding his tongue when he talks is rather creepy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. while we're on the subject of Patsy, it reminded me of something i read a while ago.the article is written about a four point statement analysis.I Know that Doc is very skeptical of this. Having said i'm doubtful of any involvement of Patsy, the article does point out some strong references against Patsy as i'm sure many others do too. If you haven't already read this you can find it if you google this below.. Rather lengthy but interesting.
    Four Points of Study of the Jonbenet Ramsey Case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May I just say that the Four Points study is a crap.

      CH

      Delete
    2. Sorry, that was a bit harsh. Let me rephrase. The Four Points study is a Conclusion gone of in search of supporting evidence.

      CH

      Delete
  18. Excellent web site. A lot of useful info here.
    I'm sending iit to several pals ans additionally sharing in delicious.
    And obviously, thanks tto your effort!

    Look into my web sit %anchor_text%

    ReplyDelete
  19. I dunno evej, I read that study and it sounds like what Doc describes as cherry picking to me. For example, Doc found examples where John uses the word "hence" and then all the other handwriting and statement similarities between that note and John's style of writing/phrasing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's cherry picking. And actually worse. Because the person is trying to give the impression that he or she is in possession of some special scientific knowledge of some method called "statement analysis." This may or may not be a legitimate field of study but the person offers no evidence that he/she has ever actually studied in this field or has any real knowledge of it. It's an exercise in pure ego. "This looks obvious to me and since I'm a superior person then I have some special insight that enables me to say for sure what sort of statement a guilty or innocent person would make."

      If statement analysis (assuming it actually exists as a legitimate field of study) were that good we'd be seeing experts in this field consulted on a regular basis in the courts.

      The person has made up his/her mind from the start as to who did what and has in fact taken the easy road, since so many have suspected Patsy ever since she was not ruled out by those handwriting "experts."

      I don't see an ounce of common sense in that report, just pure blather, sorry.

      Delete
  20. No common sense, cherry picking, maybe so most of it is, but whether the writer is or is not an expert, I found as the writer of the article did, an unusual way in patsy's response during the 911 call even if she was hysterical her choice of "we have "is strange.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is the very reason this murder will not be solved because still, today, you (referring to whoever believes its the Ramsey's) are refusing to acknowledge that this murder might not be committed by one of the 3 people in that house!!

    I feel very strongly about this, you are no better than anyone at the boulder police department. Please, please lets start with fresh eyes, just because facts suggest its the parents, does that mean we should believe that? If this turns out to be someone other than the 3 members who were present in that house. It would be a great tragedy, not only for Jonbenet but Patsy who has also passed on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I think DocG is way better than the Boulder police department. I think he is smarter, better educated, not biased, not a cherry-picker, not beholden to the DA's office or some other political agenda, not trying to cover up for department mistakes, not "hoping" to nail someone in particular. He has said several times here that he hopes he is wrong and that it was not John. None of us want to see this otherwise normal-appearing dad as the monster who murdered a precious young child. But if you just follow the known facts, you can see that John should not have been ruled out. He was ruled out, and that is not the right way to run an investigation. Those handwriting experts were derelict in their duty and nobody questioned them. Regardless of who did it, this is totally unfair to the victim. So you speak of fresh eyes! Put some fresh eyes on that handwriting analysis, and you will see for yourself that the BPD was inept.

      Delete
    2. "If this turns out to be someone other than the 3 members who were present in that house. It would be a great tragedy, not only for Jonbenet but Patsy who has also passed on."

      I too have been deeply troubled by such thoughts. On its face the intruder theory looked seriously flawed, mainly because it's impossible to see any motive for any intruder to do all that was done. Nevertheless, there was always the possibility that there could be some aspect of the case no one has ever considered.

      Logically, it's been impossible for me to accept that anyone intent on kidnapping would wait until inside the home of his victim before writing his ransom note. And if the intent was not kidnapping but something else, then what could it have been? A pedophile would simply have assaulted his victim, or taken her with him -- no need for a ransom note. And someone intending to frame Patsy or John would have forged the hand of one of them, not written the note in his own hand. We have to remember, moreover, that the discovery that the note was written on a pad from the house was by no means routine, but in fact a lucky break. Hard to believe that someone wanting to frame the Ramseys would have depended on the investigators making such a discovery.

      For the above reasons alone any intruder theory always seemed hopeless. Yet there was always some degree of lingering doubt -- until the publication in 2003 of "The Police Files," by the National Enquirer. For the first time, it was possible to read the transcripts of the police interviews with Patsy and John. And what finally convinced me beyond doubt that John has to be the guilty party is the story he tells about breaking into the basement window the previous summer. For my analysis of his testimony regarding that incident, see Chapter Eight of my book, or read the series of blog posts beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

      His story is simply not credible. Nor is the inability of either Patsy or John to recall whether the window had ever been repaired. Moreover, the fact that the police decided to question John at such length about this window, and on two separate occasions, tells us the break must have been fresh and not the result of an earlier break-in. And since there was no sign that anyone passed through that window, or even opened the grate above it, then it could only have been broken from the inside, by someone already in the house.

      There was simply no reason for John to lie about that window unless he himself was the one who broke it on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder break-in. Once we see that, then we must also see, very clearly, that there was never any intruder -- regardless of any Hi-Tec footprint, any possibility of a stun gun, any DNA evidence, what have you.

      Despite my reluctance to implicate a man who has always seemed, on the surface, to be perfectly sincere and normal in every way, there is no longer any question in my mind that he is the one who staged the phony kidnapping, wrote the note, and, as disturbing as it might seem, raped and murdered his own daughter.

      Delete
  22. It doesn't bother me whether a writer is an expert, amateur, cherry picking or even egosistacal. If there is anything found suspicious or strange it is food for thought. I agree there is a lot of blather there as you put it, but i was referring more to where the writer was speaking of Patsy's 911 call. Even hysterical as she was, some of her use of words seemed strange. The "we" rather than i or my in the call. Not proof of anything, just something i feel strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think its strange, though I see that you do. I am from the south, its just way "we" talk. It is "parent-speak" if you will. I would have probably said the same thing to the 911 operator: "WE found a found a note. OUR daughter is gone!"

      Delete
    2. With respect, I don't see the use of "we" as indicative of anything at all.

      John, Patsy, and Burke were all at home, as a family. The (apparent) kidnapping of Jonbenet isn't Patsy's personal problem, it's a problem for the whole family. Though I would probably not have used "we" I see no problem with it.

      The author goes on to suggest that PR calling the situation a kidnapping is a conclusion. He thinks she should have described JBR as being "missing" rather than being kidnapped. But I would suggest that when the first paragraph of the RN claims that the group has JBR in their possession, and she's missing from her bed, a kidnapping is a pretty reasonable conclusion.

      I don't feel like going through it point by point, I'm just going to say that it's perhaps even worse than Cherokee's analysis, though mercifully shorter.

      CH

      Delete
    3. In reply to anonymous further above, my mistake, as i'm from the uk. As to
      the other anonymous below that one, with respect, unless DocG asks for us not to discuss any other theories again or points of interest, i feel no reason not to.
      Also thanks CH for your explanation.

      Delete
  23. Maybe nobody went out by the window, because they had a key to get in and just staged the basement window to go with an intruder theory, it was someone they knew, who had access to that house.

    Again, Linda comes to mind

    ReplyDelete
  24. The readers on this blog already acknowledge that nobody went out the window. There was a spider web on the grate and a one on the window frame that pretty much rule out someone having gone in or out of that window. This blog has already addressed Linda and the overall intruder theory, as well. Speaking for myself, I don't want to engage with people who haven't read and considered the discussions that are already available, and rehash what has already been covered. I would much rather hear any new insight or evidence you may be aware of that would convince me of an intruder. We all agree that many, many scenarios are possible, but the facts in this case -- just the facts -- do not point to an intruder at all. So let's not take us down the same roads that have already been traveled on this site. This blog is well organized, so I suggest you read it thoroughly, digest it, and then provide fresh comments or arguments related to the posts. Finally, this blog is not pushing "the Ramsey's did it" theory. It is making a case for JDI. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you really do need to read everything first, then comment. This blog is the antithesis of "making up one's mind and then finding facts to fit it." It is taking the facts and removing the emotions, ego's, opinions, etc and following logic to arrive at conclusions based on the logic.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Doc and others have stated that PR might have called 911 on purpose when JR went to check on Burke because of suspicions she may have had about John. But than in later posts, those same people argue that Patsy was never suspicious of John. Assuming Patsy had NOTHING to do with the crime, then certain things were done that if Patsy knew it wasn't her, it HAD to be either Burke or John:

    -The Pineapple that experts feel was eaten AFTER the Ramseys got back from the party. If Patsy didnt feed it to JBR,it had to be JR or BR. There is no way that she wouldnt have known about that evidence and no way that she could honestly be convinced an intruder gave that to her

    -The oversized underwear that she bought and only Patsy OR JR would have known where those were located.

    -Patsy answered the pilot's return call and we do not know what was said between the two of them.

    -TWO 911 calls were made that morning. There must have been a conversation between her and John that once again HAD to raise eyebrows for Patsy.

    I really want any people on here who have convinced themselves that Patsy wasn't suspicious of John to think of other things that would have to be explained like the above. I understand that a spouse never would want to suspect their significant other of doing something so horrible, but when Patsy's life became devoted to finding justice for her daughter, its just not possible that she never considered her own husband as he was in the house! So, this begs the question, why would Patsy never come forward to anybody? Maybe she came to grips with it and never truly wanted to believe it or maybe Burke had a role in it and she never wanted him to face any trouble. Either way, believing that Patsy wasn't suspicious of John at any point is almost as far fetched as an intruder theory.

    -J

    -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make some excellent points, J. You'd think that Patsy would have been in a unique position to put two and two together and, over time, realize there was something fishy about certain details of the case that suggested the possibility of John's involvement. But you are thinking like a sleuth, as I imagine comes easily to everyone writing here. However, I see no reason to believe Patsy had such inclinations, regardless of how intelligent she was. Moreover, as far as John was concerned, I feel sure she simply didn't want to go there.

      Now as far as what her thoughts might have been on the morning of the 26th, I do think it possible she could have had some suspicions of John at that time. Nothing definitive enough to cause her to share them with the police, but possibly enough for her to want others there with her, just in case. Which could be why she called both the police and also her friends. I think it likely they had a serious debate over whether or not to call the police and John's insistence that they not call could have made her suspicious -- at that time. Also, she might have seen the same thing in John's eyes that Linda Arndt saw, something that could have alarmed her. Not necessarily a suspicion that John could have had something to do with JonBenet's disappearance, but something that made her nervous about being alone with him.

      Now as far as what happened during the following days, I've already made the point that Patsy was a basket case after the discovery of the body and was heavily sedated for some time afterward. She would not have been in a position to think clearly. And only a week or so after the murder, John's hired "experts" had ruled him out. So all the things you mention that came out in the ensuing weeks and months would have to have been weighed in Patsy's mind against the "fact" that John could not have written the note. That plus her reluctance to even consider such a possibility would, as I see it, been enough for her to simply ignore, or explain away, all the signs that tell us, in retrospect, how suspicious John's actions were.

      Bottom line: even if she did suspect something, it would have been useless to go to the authorities with her suspicions. She was the one everyone suspected most, not John -- who had been "ruled out." So pointing the finger at him would have made her look even more suspicious. If he didn't write the note and there were no intruder, then she is the only one who could have written it. So what would have been the point of her sharing any suspicions concerning John with the police? Her best bet was to stick with that intruder theory. That's what she wanted to believe and that would have been the safest thing for her to believe.

      Delete
  26. Well J, she could have been suspicious and we may never know. All that matters is that she had her reasons for not taking her suspicions to the BPD. I think those reasons have been covered. She could have discussed it with a trusted person like her dad or her sister. They may have convinced her that given the already-transpired events like John being ruled out, Haney and Thomas being out to get her, etc. that she should hold back her concerns for her own safety and for Burke's overall well-being, and let the investigation take its course. She may have convinced herself that if John did it, he didn't mean to do it and just took the whole coverup approach way too far. In the end, she seemed reconciled through her religious beliefs...that God is the ultimate judge, that she will see her daughter again in heaven, etc. To me, she didn't seem that particularly bonded and loving toward John -- just reconciled that she would have to wait this investigation out. She died just 10 years later, and was very ill for some of that time. If you have ever been that ill (and I have), you know that its pretty hard just to get through each day, much less turn your life and that of your son's completely upside down based on suspicions. She believed what she wanted to believe, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous – Listen, we are at a point in this case where there isn’t any new evidence to present, so all of us on here have to look at the facts that are out there to draw conclusions. After the facts, we are left to speculate, so that’s what I am doing in looking at what Patsy did or didn’t know. Its one of two things for me: Either she susepcted John did it OR she didn’t suspect John. Those are the two sides of the fence and I do not believe that there is sitting in the middle and trying to say that she just came to grips with it or accepted that he would have to answer to God. Anybody who has kids will understand that you of course love your spouse, but once you have kids, they become priority. We have been given every reason to believe that JBR was Patsy’s pride and joy that she loved more than anything.

    A lot of people have posted that they believe Patsy was a very intelligent person and I have no reason to disagree. Patsy didn’t hide anything and in fact in the interviews I have seen, she demanded a lie detector for herself because she wanted to clear her name and find the killer. In the beginning I 100% could see how she never suspected John, but as time went on and no further evidence came in for showing it was an intruder, she HAD to have started asking questions. I have said it before and I will say it again. 4 Ramseys entered the house alive that night and only 3 woke up. If Patsy knows she didn’t do it….then she would have had to start looking towards the other adult in the house.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my response just above.

      Delete
    2. J - you seem to think I'm not listening to you, when in fact I've posted here that I, too, struggle very much with my wonderment that Patsy didn't at least suspect, or moreover suspect AND come forward with her suspicions. So can you clarify what point you want to argue? Are you saying that there is no way she would NOT have come forward had she had any suspicions? Or do you simply want everyone to agree on something that is only speculative: that she had any suspicions, ever? Because we can only speculate on what she thought, or why she held back, I have tried to put myself in her place. And in the end, I agree with Doc. She had her reasons for holding back, the least of which was fear that she could go to jail for life or even face the death penalty. That would certainly give me pause for thought! As for solving the case, we cannot change conclusions based on anything speculative, so my conclusion is that John is the likely culprit and should be indicted for this crime. Let him try to blame it on Patsy now! I am a parent, btw. And I would like to assume that Patsy would behave the same as me when it came to looking out for my children. But let's face it: we're all different, too. For instance, I would never have put my daughter in pageants and dressed her like that at age 6. I did pull my child out of a kindergarten dance program though. The reason was that there were mothers of children in that class that behaved like Patsy!! They wanted to put on performances that were not age appropriate, wear costumes that were over the top, and I just wanted my kid to learn coordination skills and have fun. I had to get my child away from those nuts so I put her in YMCA tumbling class instead. So while Patsy is not a murderer as far as I can see, she is very different than me. And here's another example: there is no way I would be letting a doctor tell me my young daughter had a yeast infection without getting to the bottom of it after that many doctor visits. Even if I was told they were due to bedwetting. I would be doing a lot of research on yeast infections, bedwetting and possible cures for this persistent problem, and/or finding another doctor. My point is, we can't predict what Patsy would do based on what we would do. We can agree, I hope, that the fear of going to jail and the death penalty would weigh heavily in just about any person's decision making process. Throw in all the associated fears, such as fear for Burke if John got custody and raised him while she was in jail, and my guess is she was being a mama bear. Linda Arndt said Patsy had many secrets. She must have, and something held her back. Others said John had a fierce temper. He must have, so that right there shows you there was a fear factor when it comes to JR.

      Delete
  28. Anonymous -quick sidneote, can you put an initial or something at the bottom so its easier to reference your posts? Thanks!
    OK, its actually funny, because after I finished my 2nd post above I realized that in my rambling about how Patsy must have known, I realized I never really made a point or argument as to why it is important. So, hopefully I can do better this time

    You are 100% right in saying that none of us truly know Patsy Ramsey, so we can't really speak to how she specifically would act in this situation. The thing I struggle with though is that Patsy would have had to turn a blind eye to soooooooooooo many things in her head to not suspect John. Doc made the reference that we look at the case from a sleuths perspective and that is correct, but I would also argue that PR must have been a sleuth herself. Her daughter was molested and savagely murdered, in her house. So, that's just what doesn't add up for me. Guilty or not, the 2 people most intertwined and close to this case were John and Patsy Ramsey. There wouldn't have been a piece of evidence or a clue that they wouldn't have looked over. Does anybody on here think that 3,4,5,6,7,8,910 years after the murder Patsy didn't still seek justice? I can go with the handwriting experts or John convincing her for a while, but at some point she would have had to just be fed up with zero answers. Finally here is my point:

    -IF PR suspected JR like I think she did, then why keep quiet for so long? She didn't have anything to gain by protecting a man that savagely murdered her daughter. John would have traveled at some point in the 10 years following the crime giving her a chance to escape. I have written on here before that JR wasn't a criminal mastermind but was good enough to avoid justice for so long. The more I look at this case, the more I think JR is an absolute moron! His RN, broken window + the story about crawling though is just amateur hour. The guy is so stupid to call his pilot 30 minutes after finding his daughters body!! John Ramsey is simply lucky, bottom line. If more cops showed up he was toast. If Linda Arndt wasn't incompetent, he's toast! IF Linda Arndt wouldn't have allowed him to search the house, he is toast! The second that 911 call was made by Patsy, John should have been done and his actions following the call only contributed to his guilt.

    I have always said that both Patsy and Burke saw and heard more than they ever said, and unless they were involved, I NEED to know why they never came forward. Again, they had nothing to gain by protecting John!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  29. I hear ya, J. I do think there is an answer to your WHY question, and it has been given here several times, but you don't seem to hear me or accept this reason. She did have something to gain: freedom from prison, from the death penalty! I cannot ignore the fact that the cops, the media, the public...all were pointing their fingers at her. That is enough! This is all that I've been saying. This would be the one BIG reason for not coming forward. After a certain period of time, she could have reached a conclusion, like you said. However she would have known by that point in time that the odds were against her being able to escape John and get him thrown in jail. Heck, she already saw that the police botched the case! That said, Doc also points out that we don't see anything in her actions or behavior that point to anything more than a confused state early on, then a denial state, and then later becoming deathly ill again, and finally dying 10 years after JonBenet died. Remember, ovarian cancer is a slow death. Its long, horrible, debilitating, and I'm sure all she could deal with from 2001 - 2004. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh wow, please tell me that isn't your actual answer to the WHY question? Patsy would go to prison? You were making sense until that comment. Patsy didn't commit the crime! Not to mention Patsy would have most likely gotten full immunity to come forward against John.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes J! You are ignoring the fact that the police were zooming in on her! Watch the interrogation videos! Remember that she sat through those grand jury proceedings and it had to have scared her to death! Note that they didn't rule her out as writer of the ransom note! That John had his own high powered attorneys protecting him, not her! Her own housekeeper turned on her! She was in a spot where she couldn't prove she did NOT commit the crime! Are you telling me that after being targeted the way she was, you would not be fearful? Wow. You are one brave person if you wouldn't be intimidated by all that. And J -- I really don't think you are reading with comprehension, but with a stubborn mindset. I said this was a BIG reason. But as I've posted before and Doc has suggested, there are a number of factors might have played into any thinking that might have gone on in Patsy's head. I know for me, being framed for something I didn't do and going to jail for life/possibly the chair is enough. Nobody was trying to work a deal for immunity. You get immunity when you've done something for which you could be prosecuted. Why would she even need immunity or ask for it if she knows she had NOTHING to do with this and could provide enough proof that John did it? Let's say she told her own attorney that she thought John was suspicious and she felt he did it or was involved. What do you think the first words would be out of the attorney's mouth? "What have you got, besides suspicion?" When she has nothing other than a he said/she said about the window, then what? Dang J if she had known John was molesting her daughter and could provide testimony to that, it would be one thing. But to your point, had she KNOWN John was harming her daughter, she would not be covering up for him. In fact there never would have been a murder because the whole point of the murder was to keep Patsy from finding out her daughter had been a victim of incest. J, you just gotta connect the dots. None of this is black and white and its ALL speculation. But if you want to go with the theory that Patsy connected some dots, then you have think about what her next steps would have been and the reaction she would have gotten from her accusation, given that she had no hard proof against John. -Anonymom

      Delete
  31. Anonymom - Yes, Patsy was being interrogated, but so was John and Burke was being questioned as well. To answer your question, yes. If something happened to my child, I would hope that I would have the courage to fight for my child who couldn't fight for herself. Patsy;s daughter was molested and brutally murdered, so I don't know that Patsy ultimately cared so much about being interrogated. What I think Patsy wanted more than anything was justice.
    If John wanted Patsy dead, she would have been dead, period. When that 911 call was made, John's life should have been over correct? It's not really an opinion.....IF the police did their jobs properly, then John Ramsey would have been arrested. Also, Patsy wasn't "framed" as you say. There have been suggestions that references in the note were made to look like something Patsy would say, but I don't think we can say definitively that was at all what the author was thinking. Patsy was one of 2 adults in the house that night, so naturally she would be investigated. The RN, body in the house and awful staged window scene pointed to an inside job, which meant that the PR and JR would of course be looked at the hardest. ALSO, who told the Ramseys to go on CNN and every other news show???? Who told the Ramseys to write a book??? People act like Patsy was so afraid and scared, yet they kept putting themselves out to the world to critique and nitpick. I know that she was mourning and on pills in the beginning, which is understandable. But in the years that followed, the Ramseys weren’t hiding from the public!
    Lastly, if Patsy came forward regarding the oversized panties, suspicion of prior molestation that JR had committed, how the pineapple could have ONLY been given by JR, etc. You think John would use the “liar, liar pants on fire” defense? John would just point the finger back at Patsy when the window scene was John’s story, when John would have been more likely to tie the garrote, when John was the one referenced over and over in the RN? John’s defense would have been the intruder theory, because it had to be. So, again, it just leaves a TON of questions to be answered. I still feel the molestation and crime could have been committed by BR and that’s because I think Burke had a potential motive and would have been the other male with access to commit what looked like a history of molestation. It also would explain why PR never came forward and would explain why Linda Arndt felt the person responsible would never be charged…because Burke couldn’t have been. I do not need to hear how Burke was too young or couldn’t have done it, because there isn’t anything factual saying a 9 year old couldn’t commit the crime. Doc has done an unbelievable job with this site together and has the most plausible theory out there. I think his motive is a tad weak regarding him shutting JBR up, but Im just convinced that PR at some point suspected John. So, I feel like it would have been nearly imposible with his work schedule, running for office, etc to keep Patsy on the John train. She just couldn’t have been that blind

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  32. So what is Patsy's case when she decides to talk? After they rule John out as writer of the note, what does she give them? She has no evidence he molested JonBenet, no way to prove he wrote the note, no way to prove he gave her pineapple when her prints are on the bowl and his are not, no testimony that she found him missing from the bed that night, no real proof that he broke the window (doesn't even remember the summer incident), no proof that he purchased duct tape. What does she tell the police exactly? And what do they do with the suspicions she gives them? As for the rest of your remarks, they've all been addressed by Doc. No need to rehash. Burke had no known, documented motive. You THINK he coulda been jealous of his sister. No friends, family, teachers, or acquaintances have said that. The only way Burke was going to go down for this is if John and/or Patsy fessed up that he did it. And then they would need to explain why the police were called in right after an attempt was made to cover up Burke's dirty deed. Again J, carry out the complete theory on Burke, like Doc has already done, and no matter how you look at it, it doesn't hold water. Anyway, you seem to be back to arguing that Patsy was not blind. We agree- she may very well have become suspicious at some point. So lets agree to agree on that. The fact is, she did not come forward. That fact doesn't make her guilty, doesn't complete a case against Burke, and doesn't get John off the hook. Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  33. I am guessing that J and Anonymom are women, like me. Doc and CH are men if I have read this blog correctly. It is interesting to me that the women seem to struggle so hard with the Patsy question. We just cannot accept that she would choose her chilly, cheating husband over her children. I am going to try to let it go, understanding that while she might have had doubts there was too much support for The Intruder(s): the handwriting experts ruling out JR, (4 were independent and 2 were paid by John - they all agreed he did not write the note), the ovarian cancer, the gaggle of lawyers, perhaps her own family, all worked on her to keep her on his side. This is from Wikipedia: "John and Patsy Ramsey were also sued in two separate defamation lawsuits arising from the publication of their book, The Death of Innocence, brought by two individuals named in the book as having been investigated by Boulder police as suspects in JonBenét's murder. The Ramseys were defended in those lawsuits by Lin Wood and three other Atlanta attorneys, James C. Rawls, Eric P. Schroeder, and S. Derek Bauer, who obtained dismissal of both lawsuits including an in-depth decision by U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes that "abundant evidence" in the murder case pointed to an intruder having committed the crime.[11]"

    So truly, as the years went by, the so-called "evidence" just got stronger that an Intruder killed their daughter. Patsy would not grow more suspicious, she would grow more faith in her husband and more confident and secure in the Intruder Theory. In fact, she seemed much more passionate and connected to him and he to her as the years rolled by - this brought them together. For completely different reasons, but there you have it.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm going to jump in here.
    J, regarding the things you find hard to believe Patsy would overlook:

    "-The Pineapple that experts feel was eaten AFTER the Ramseys got back from the party. If Patsy didnt feed it to JBR,it had to be JR or BR. There is no way that she wouldnt have known about that evidence and no way that she could honestly be convinced an intruder gave that to her"

    Maybe Burke and JonBenet snuck downstairs after mom and dad went to bed to play with their new Christmas "stuff" and ate the pineapple then. John said that he had to tell Burke to go to bed after they got home because he was playing with one of his games. I know how kids are after getting all their loot at Christmas. They can't wait to play with all their new toys the next day, so I can totally see a 9-year old wanting to sneak downstairs late that night. Perhaps he coaxed JonBenet in going with him so as not to get in trouble himself if caught. Then maybe John heard them and went downstairs to get them back to bed. That may be when he got the urge to "play" with JonBenet. In this scenario, neither John or Patsy would have known about the pineapple and even if John saw it, he certainly wouldn't have admitted that because that would show he was lying about waking up after he went to bed.

    "-The oversized underwear that she bought and only Patsy OR JR would have known where those were located."

    I can't explain this one, at least as it pertains to Patsy. BUT, it does tell me that Burke did not murder JonBenet. The person who did cleaned her body and redressed her. Why? Because there was probably some traces of semen on her. I may be wrong, but I do not believe Burke was old enough to produce semen, and even if he was, he certainly wasn't smart enough to know that would be something that you would need to clean up.

    "Patsy answered the pilot's return call and we do not know what was said between the two of them."

    Why does everyone make such a big deal about this phone call to the pilot. It's my understanding that John called to cancel the flight they had arranged for that morning. If he later was scheduling another flight out of Boulder, I still don't think that's such a huge thing. Patsy would have thought that John was just being protective of his family and arranging to get them out of Boulder.

    "-TWO 911 calls were made that morning. There must have been a conversation between her and John that once again HAD to raise eyebrows for Patsy."

    This just tells me that John may have convinced Patsy to abort the first call because of the threats in the ransom note. But after he left her (to check on Burke), she might have just panicked and called anyway. She was in shock. She knew she had to call the police. She probably thought the odds were the "kidnappers" would kill JonBenet anyway --- statistics tell us they usually do --- so she may have just felt her only hope of every seeing JonBenet again would be to get the experts (ha!) involved.

    I really think Patsy believed there was an intruder that night. As Doc said recently, "you see what you want to see." I don't think she wanted to see John as the one who murdered JonBenet. She was a very religious woman with great faith. And I believe she had great faith in John too and just refused to "go down that path", as she herself said in her interrogation.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  35. I didn't fully explain the pineapple --- why Patsy wouldn't be suspicious about it. Maybe Burke, and possibly John too, told Patsy that he and JonBenet had a snack while playing with their new toys and Patsy may not have wanted the police to know that. John could have convinced her that if the police knew Burke was up late at night with JonBenet, they might then suspect Burke. John may have innocently explained that away, saying he heard them playing, woke up and went downstairs and then got them back to bed. But if the police knew this, it would not only make Burke look suspicious, but John as well. Patsy could have been convinced to just say they ALL went to sleep that night, but she secretly knew that the kids had been up.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hello MM, yes, I'm female, I'm a mother, and I'm an engineer by degree and it is my life's work. What I've tried to express is that I did, in the past, struggle with my thoughts about Patsy surely being smart enough to become suspicious. For me, it has been a "what if" case -- even though I agree with Doc, and I don't think she ever figured it out for all the reasons you mentioned and Doc has pointed out, I wanted to fully vet my thoughts about this. I came to the conclusion that IF she got suspicious, there were plenty of good reasons to remain silent. So in summary, I don't think she figured it out. Everything I've posted has been preceded by an IF before giving reasons for what she might do in a scenario where she really doubted John. This is what I do for a living, look at different scenarios and cases for outcomes. My contributions here as a female are really just stating what I personally would do if I were in a given state of mind. I DO think Patsy believed what she wanted to believe. IF she harbored any doubts, she could easily talk herself out of those doubts with the help of John, the lawyers, trusted friends, and all the things that we all have mentioned. Since we really don't know what she was thinking, I'm going with what her behavior tells us, which is she didn't see or develop a real case against John. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  37. Let's not forget LS's role. LS starts pushing the intruder theory, and at the time he is one of the most respected detectives in CO. With a man like that claiming it's an IDI case, what else would Patsy believe?

    What I see as possible is the Patsy has an uneasy feeling (maybe suspicion is the wrong word) early on. She might, for example, have been aware that JR was out of bed for hours. Now, suddenly her daughter is missing and there is a RN. I'm not saying that she'd instantly assume JR did it, just that she might have felt something wasn't right (something besides the obvious problem that JBR is missing)

    As time goes on, any uneasy feeling is put to rest by the "evidence" that JR couldn't have written the note, LS thinks it's an intruder case, the police are focused on her so "obviously" they are on the wrong track but this is a good reason for her and JR to present a united front.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  38. CH - very good summary, and very good point about LS and his influence on this case. Uneasy is a good way to describe what Patsy might have felt early on. It might even explain why she sat in a room with her friends and didn't talk much with John on the morning of the 26th. I suspect he fussed at her when that first 911 call was aborted, and she was feeling badly about that too...being either upset with him for his actions or wondering now if she should not have called and further endangered her child. She must have gotten a sense from John that he was not happy about her making that call. And...that could explain his "cordial" demeanor toward Linda Arndt. Cordial is how some people act when they are trying to hide anger or some other explosive emotion. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  39. MM - This is J and I am very much a guy. Not sure if my writing style made you think I am female, but either way I am not.

    A lot to address here and I will preface everything by saying I am very stubborn when it comes to my opinions. I truly try to read everybody's posts and opinions on here to try and see each side of every debate. Now, regarding the pineapple debate that bb wrote above. Your Burke feeding it to JBR is good and could very well be true, but the reason this case is SO frustrating is because we have NO CLUE what Burke knows or doesn't know. Burke was "asleep" according the Ramseys and then they shipped him off to the friends house. I have stated numerous times on here that I believe BR could have committed the crime and nothing I have read on here has swayed me away from that. Before anybody says Doc has disproven it OR other posters have dis proven the BDI theory....thats not true. The DA actually cleared the Ramseys in this case, but does that mean Doc is wrong? No.

    Back to the pineapple....the reason I feel so strongly that this evidence to Patsy should have pointed to JR is that to the publics knowledge, BR NEVER at any point said that he gave the pineaplle to JBR. What would BR have to hide by saying that he gave her the pineapple before they went to bed? Surely Patsy would have talked to Burke regarding this and the oversized underwear and if Burke said he didn't do it, than logically PR would have to look at John. Once again, IF Patsy knows she didn't feed JBR the pineapple and she knows she didn't change JBR into the oversized underwear, somebody needs to explain to me how she justified that in her head. Forget everything else about the case and focus on those 2 things. No amount of "gaslighting" could possibly have convinced her that some random intruder breaks into the house, decided to enjoy a little fruit snack with JBR, then molest her. Oh and instead of just removing her clothes to remove evidence, this intruder was friendly enough to change her underwear. We cannot say that PR is highly intelligent, but then also say that she didn't suspect John because an intruder did it. Again, what did PR have to gain by keeping her mouth shut?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  40. J- could you just help us by playing out your scenario? I.e. what do you think Patsy would do next when she concluded that Burke did not give JBR pineapple or know about the underpants? Let's say she asked him, he denied it, she believed him, then what comes next? Do you think she confronted John and he denied it, too? Then after he denies it, what does she do next? I really want to understand the theory -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymom – Good question, and honestly I spent so much time attempting to prove that Patsy knew, that I never gave a ton of thought as to a theory as to what next. Seeing that since 1996 this crime has been unsolved, we know that Patsy didn’t contact the police to bring down John. We don’t know what Patsy may have said to JR or BR in the days and months following the crime. The double 911 call makes me believe there was some type of discussion between JR and PR, but we will never know exactly what was said. I have always felt that even if Burke wasn’t involved, he 100% saw or heard something that could be crucial to this case. Did he ever disclose what he knew to PR? Remember, John would have had to gaslight both Patsy and Burke to a degree.

    Very quick aside: Why does BR get sent to the friends house? There is supposedly a crazed killer on the loose that just murdered JBR, and the Ramseys home at that point was the safest house in Colorado right? They had police everywhere, so what is the reasoning for Patsy and John allowing Burke to go away with friends? This isn’t something that is really picked apart, but as a parent, I would NEVER let my child out of my sight in a situation like this. Was it that PR didn’t trust John and wanted BR away from him? Was it that PR KNEW there wasn’t a killer on the loose? Neither of the Ramseys action spoke to a parent who was afraid somebody was out to get them.

    OK…anonymom I wish I could give you a theory on this, I really do. Patsy’s actions speak to somebody help covering up a crime for a guy that MURDERED her daughter! The RN and broken window spoke to an amateur criminal (JR) and not some criminal mastermind. John is simply more lucky than smart when it comes to this crime, that’s it. He made a TON of mistakes throughout, so I just have a very hard time believing that in spite of all those mistakes, he was able to gaslight Patsy, BR and all of their friends/family. What I am getting at is though I don’t believe Patsy did the crime, it truly makes me question her involvement. Shes either guilty of being involved in the crime or guilty of being the most naïve person of all time.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  42. I forgot to address your pineapple question. After PR asked BR about the pineapple and he said he didn’t do it, there wouldn’t even be a need to ask John about it. My point is that if Patsy knew she didn’t give it to JBR and believed Burke didn’t do it, then what more evidence would she need. An intruder feeding JBR pineapple out of their fridge when according to the RN, they were trying to extort money in a kidnapping situation had to make zero sense to Patsy. Chemo brain, being gaslit or whatever anybody wants to call it, I do not see how John could have fed Patsy a story that was believable regarding the pineapple and underwear.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  43. J, ok, so let's go with Patsy having no need to confront JR; she is suspicious though. What does she do? Think about telling the police her fears, but then decides not to? Avoids confronting John but decides she'll play along with him in the investigation? -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymom – Ok, now we are getting somewhere. The more I look at PR, the more I believe she must have been involved somehow. Addressing her possibly being fearful to go to the police, how does that explain her with her son living with a man she suspected or knew molested and killed her daughter? Maybe I can go with Patsy not wanting to see John going to jail, but at any point she could have divorced JR claiming it was too hard after JBR’s death and take Burke with her. The problem is that Patsy didn’t do any of these things. The crime wasn’t just a kidnapping gone wrong, due to the molestation evidence, which made this something different all together. Cyril Wecht said that there was a history of molestation according to the injuries he saw, so a history meant that this person either KNEW the Ramseys or was a Ramsey, correct? It couldn’t have been some random stranger. Patsy would have had to care about this aspect of the case. She certainly would have had to know it was either Burke or John that not only had the access to JB, but also were in the house that night. I say all this to reaffirm that I just don’t see any possible scenario that Patsy couldn’t have suspected JR. Which leads to the question of, would Patsy knowingly support a man who molested and killer her daughter?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ok. So we know Patsy didn't go to the police. In this argument, you appear to be going with a theory of JR did it (and most readers here buy that; there is indeed evidence of chronic abuse which is important in the JDI theory). However you are not buying that she was fearful, naive, gaslighted, in denial, confused, clueless due to being medicated for a long while, unintelligent, or any combo of those. So lets go with her knowingly supporting John all these years as the man she knew molested and killed her daughter, not even proceeding with a divorce. Outside of her being a complete narcissist who never cared for JBR or anyone besides herself, you are probably right -- she would have a least left John. But we're at this wall where 1. She ruled out Burke because she believed his answers to her questions, at least according to this theory. 2.She did not leave John. 3. She defended John, at least publicly. Do you now conclude that someone talked her out of leaving John or going to the police? Like maybe her dad, a sister, a lawyer -- someone close who felt that she should stay with him? Or do you conclude that at some point John confessed to her, fed her some bs that it was not all as it seems but he did accidentally kill her, he only tried to cover it up to protect the family, begged her for forgiveness, and played on her religious beliefs by saying that if God could forgive him, he needed her to forgive him too? And she made a conscious decision to do just that? Well, I suppose it could have happened that way. It might explain this religious charade he is putting on to this day. Mind you, I'm a Christian and I wish that all this stuff he says is real for him vs. him impugning Christianity with his act, but I do feel his book The Other Side of Suffering busted his little act - no Christian can buy a story that continues to blame, excuse, and point fingers at friends. Anyway, If I had go with a conclusion that Patsy knew and kept it a secret, I would really wonder why she went to her grave with her secret. Do you think she told Burke and told him to carry this secret until John died? Do you think she made a deal with the devil? As in, you protect my dad's interest in Access Graphics (ie. pay him a handsome price for his stock before you sell the business) so my parents can live well until their dying day, you protect me and make sure you pay for my medical care, you don't let lawyers get their hands on Burke's college fund, and you hope I die first from this cancer so I don't have to tell on you when you die? All of that would be a bigger stretch for me than believing that Patsy never brought herself to believe that John could do this for the myriad of reasons we've discussed, all of which could co-exist as reasons. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymon – Your post’s are always thorough and very well thought out, so I very much appreciate the reponses.

    See this is the exact thing I struggle with on this case. Patsy did have a conversation with Linda Arndt basically on her death bed, so I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that room. We don’t have to keep going over the same points, but I just find it to be a huge stretch to think that Patsy just didn’t suspect John and to her deathbed felt that an intruder committed this crime. Its what makes me ultimately question what Patsy’s involvement with this case was. What is she hiding or who is she protecting and why? Anonymom, did the Ramsey’s actions seem like 2 people who were afraid for their lives from some sadistic foreign faction who failed at a kidnapping? Patsy would have literally had to ignore 10 different things that all pointed to an inside job to not suspect John. I know we are going in circles…so I will just say that PR dialing 911 always made me think she was completely innocent, but the more I look at the case as a whole, the more I feel she played a part in this crime to some level.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So many comments, I find it difficult to keep up. But I'm pleased to see this really intelligent exchange between (among?) people with brains in their heads. As opposed to what we usually find on the forums, where common sense goes to die (quoting here from CH I think).

      J raises some very troubling issues that are admittedly not that easy to explain. But I'll try.

      Sure, Patsy would have been aware of some things that should have made her suspicious of John -- and J does an excellent job of pointing those out. The pineapple, the oversize panties, and above all the preposterous story about breaking that window the previous summer, which she must have known was a lie.

      We must always remember, however, that, ever since John was ruled out, it was Patsy that everyone was focused on. Someone mentioned the possibility that Patsy could have cut a deal with the DA, trading her knowledge of John's manipulations for immunity. But it was in fact John who was being considered for an immunity deal, not Patsy. As I recall, Steve Thomas actually came out and said to John, at one point, in effect, "what would you say if we offered you immunity in return for your testimony against Patsy?" John turned him down. And for a very good reason. He depended on Patsy's cooperation. If he'd turned on her she'd no doubt have spilled some of his beans -- possibly enough to bury him. Clearly they were in it together as far as the authorities were concerned, so they needed to present a united front. But it was Patsy who became the focus of their suspicions, not John.

      One giveaway comes when she's being questioned about the evidence of chronic vaginal erosion, suggesting prior abuse. She is asked if she knew about that, and she denies it. One would expect that she would then have been asked if she ever suspected John of abusing JonBenet. But that question never comes. Instead they ask her if she was ever abused as a child. She denies it, but it seems clear from the line of questioning that they don't suspect John -- they suspect her. Otherwise why ask her such a question? People who've been abused themselves as children often abuse their own children. So clearly the interrogators suspect Patsy of abusing JonBenet. In the words of Steve Thomas, John has been given "a pass." If they'd suspected John they'd have asked Patsy about his possible abuse of his daughter -- but, as I recall, they don't. So what is she to think?

      Given the many instances offered by J that should have triggered something in Patsy, I must admit there is good reason to believe she did harbor some doubts. But where was she to go with her suspicions? If she came to the police with them it would look as though she were trying to deflect her own guilt onto John. The fact that he was ruled out would have played a huge role in this. How could she possibly go up against the conviction among literally everyone in LE that John could not have written the note. Plus all the evidence compiled by Darnay Hoffmann's "experts" that she must have written it herself?

      Also, we have to realize that John was Patsy's chief supporter through all this. To turn on him, or do anything that might suggest she didn't trust him (such as moving out), would have meant the loss of that support. She couldn not afford that.

      So even if we want to assume that Patsy suspected John, it's not that hard to understand why she would act as though she did not. Throughout the investigation they both acted as though neither had the slightest suspicion of the other. And for every good reasons. They truly depended on one another. One single hint of suspicion on either side could have been catastrophic.

      So. Either Patsy truly believed in John's innocence, because this is what she desperately wanted to believe, in spite of everything. Or she suspected him, for very good reasons, but was intelligent enough to realize that any attempt on her part to blow the whistle would only backfire, and create more problems for her.

      Delete
  47. Wondering if Patsy ever described her sleep that night. I've read John's overexplanation of how he took a melatonin tablet and slept the night away. Explanation was overkill, in my opinion. But I don't recall Patsy describing how she slept the night away. Did she admit to taking a sleeping pill too? To me, it would be pretty risky for John to assume Patsy would stay asleep all night while he was busy with JonBenet and the ransom note. That must have taken several hours at least. Who doesn't get up to the bathroom after partying and drinking beverages in the evening hours? And what mother can sleep the night through after raising two children who still wet their beds on a regular basis? She'd be checking on them, maybe getting them up to the bathroom, or the kids would maybe come to her if their sheets are wet. You'd think she'd have the upcoming trip on her mind as well--going through the final planning details for that. I usually sleep fitfully before a major trip because of that. And she woke up before the alarm went off? It just doesn't seem realistic to me to think Patsy slept through the entire night.

    ReplyDelete
  48. J-
    I appreciate your comments. I have come to the conclusion that Patsy had knowledge of the events that transpired that night. I am unsure if she participated in the murder- but I do think it is a possibility.
    It seems to me that the 10 years of silence of further support her involvement. All the speculation of her emotional state and never suspecting John is irrelevant to me. Her behaviors are consistently and repetitively complicit. I will not write all the details- the commenters here know the aspects I am referring.

    I have come to conclusion, that there is a truly unique driving motivation to this case. I believe there must have been a mind-boggling component to this murder that is completely undiscovered- outside of the minds of the Ramseys. That is the reason the case seems so perplexing.

    I think I am alone in my interpretation of the 911 call. To me that call does not solidify Patsy's innocence. It only proves that for some reason her hand was forced to make that call. From what I have read there are varying accounts of what was happening around the time the call was made. Patsy's account is inconsistent.

    I think Burke played some role in that call being made- how I am unsure. To my thinking , you are attempting to stage a kidnapping- a 9 year kid interrupts things quickly get out of control. My guess is he woke up, and realized she was gone.

    Actually the 911 call to me works towards her guilt, the call would not have happened if John did not allow it- I can not believe he controlled every important aspect BUT the most important aspect- the call. Patsy made that call- with John's consent- even if it was not ideal- the plan had run amok.


    I know this will not be agreed with- but I think perhaps the body was purposely hidden; The Ramseys hoping the note would not encourage a very thorough search, assuming the child was not there. Pure speculation- but perhaps they had a special place they wanted to lay Jonbenet to rest. An only intended to hide the body, which they were actually successful at. Then though why did John foil the hiding? My only guess is that John knew the search had made it's way to the WC, so it was simply a matter of time.

    In conclusion, if you look purely at Patsy's behavior, it is the actions of a person with an investment in maintaining John and her own innocence- NOT seeing the reality of the evidence or finding the truth of who murdered her daughter.

    Patsy died with a terrible tale.

    OWL

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymom and CH - I now agree with Doc that the odds were stacked against Patsy working with reality. If judges and detectives and (she thought) the grand jury thought an intruder did it, then surely she would think so too, since she knew she did not write the note.

    J- apologies for my wrong guess at your gender based on your posts - apparently I am not a great detective :) I read your post about the pineapple and underwear twice - you make a good point. But if you think about it, most law enforcement individuals who thought the "Ramsey's" did it really thought Patsy did it. The fingerprints on the pineapple bowl, the handwriting, the content of the note, the underwear, the blanket from the dryer, the fibers on the tape, etc. all pointed to Patsy. Since she knew she did not do it, and no one then thought John did it, I think she just came to terms with a really strange intruder, and probably suspected someone who knew them and knew the house.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  50. J, from one of your posts;

    "Very quick aside: Why does BR get sent to the friends house? There is supposedly a crazed killer on the loose that just murdered JBR, and the Ramseys home at that point was the safest house in Colorado right? They had police everywhere, so what is the reasoning for Patsy and John allowing Burke to go away with friends? This isn’t something that is really picked apart, but as a parent, I would NEVER let my child out of my sight in a situation like this. Was it that PR didn’t trust John and wanted BR away from him? Was it that PR KNEW there wasn’t a killer on the loose? Neither of the Ramseys action spoke to a parent who was afraid somebody was out to get them."

    To me this has always seemed a solid reason to doubt not only BR's involvement, but also doubt that he saw anything of any importance. The Whites would be able to question BR, w/o JR/PR present, and BR might tell something, if in fact he knew anything. Also BR could (and in fact did) talk to a detective w/o his parents present. JR wouldn't have allowed such a risk it there was any chance BR would say something that might incriminate JR.

    As for safety, the kidnapping is over. If the kidnappers wanted BR he'd have been gone with JBR - that's how both parents would have looked at it if it had been a real kidnapping. That's how I think PR was looking at it because for her, this was still a kidnapping case when BR was sent to the Whites. He's in no danger at the Whites. He's with two adults, both close friends of the family. With police all over the neighborhood the kidnappers aren't coming back, and even if they did, why would they go to the White's? As far as I can see there would be no reason to keep him in sight all day for his safety, and no reason to let him go to the Whites if he knew anything and might blab.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  51. I have always felt the odds were stacked against Patsy; so regardless of the various theories, she was pretty much backed into a corner. As I said before, the grand jury proceedings alone would have scared me to death. LE and the grand jury (according to Linda Hoffman) focused on Patsy. If I have to pick, I would say she was mostly in denial with some suspicions that she refused to let her mind explore, because the fear of being targeted blocked her mind. I would say that woman was in survival mode. She had cancer, a son to raise, a mother who was ill, a lot of things to worry about. She had to have been thinking that she did not want to die of cancer in a prison, above all else. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  52. I have a question: one of the more bizarre things I have ever read was a transcript from the Larry King show when Steve Thomas and the Ramseys faced off on national TV and basically debated whether or not Patsy killed her child. I have not figured out the legal strategy on this one - it just seems ludicrous. Anyone have a guess as to why they did this?

    Here is a link to the transcript:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  53. J,

    I used to feel the same as you, that Patsy, not being a moron, would have to have started piecing together the puzzle sooner or later. But I don't see it that way anymore. There are two reasons.

    One, she stays with JR and I find it hard to believe that she would stay if she figured out he's the killer.

    Two, her frame of mind, or frame of reference, has to be considered. A person's frame of reference sets boundaries on their thinking. You and I, and everyone else reading and commenting are approaching this as sleuths trying to solve a crime. Initially we are open to all possibilities and we just go where the evidence and logic takes us.

    Patsy isn't approaching it in quite the same way. She "knows" JR didn't do it because he's been ruled out as the author of the RN. She knows the most respected detective in CO (LS) thinks it was an intruder. She knows the vice cop turned rookie murder investigator (ST) thinks she did it, and she knows that's wrong. She not only knows these things, but has a strong emotional connection to these "facts"; a connection you and I don't have.

    So her frame of reference is limiting what she is able to think about the case. She'd have to question the handwriting experts to question the "fact" that JR didn't write the RN. Since the police don't question this, why would she?

    We know LS can put on quite a show and if someone is already even slightly inclined to IDI, his "proof" will be quite convincing. So this reinforces her frame of reference.

    ST is after her, so she's afraid for herself and that makes it even more difficult to change her frame of reference. It's spinning out of control because the police are on the wrong track, and for her it's obvious that the right track is IDI.

    Finally JR starts throwing people under the bus, people who knew the family and the house. LHP, and Santa Billl spring to mind immediately. So PR is thinking maybe it was someone who knew the family and could navigate the house and find things. Someone JBR might trust.

    Consider how many people are IDI. They attribute everything you've mentioned, the panties, the pineapple, and all the rest, to the intruder. Why would the intruder know where the size 12 panties were? Why would he put them on her? They don't know, but they figure it must have been what happened. These are people with no emotional connection to the case. I don't think it's hard to see why PR would never really consider the JR did it. If she wondered about anything you've mentioned, she would attribute it to the intruder because for her that's a more likely explanation than considering her husband who the experts have ruled out and who the police have given a pass.

    To boil it all down it's as simple as this - with JR "ruled out" his innocence is her basic frame of reference. To start to put the puzzle together she'd have to question the basic "fact" of JR's innocence, and she just never does.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CH- This was such an astute take on the Patsy problem. Credit Doc for saying it first, but you put it in a way that makes sense to me:

      "A person's frame of reference sets boundaries on their thinking. You and I, and everyone else reading and commenting are approaching this as sleuths trying to solve a crime. Initially we are open to all possibilities and we just go where the evidence and logic takes us.

      Patsy isn't approaching it in quite the same way. She "knows" JR didn't do it because he's been ruled out as the author of the RN. She knows the most respected detective in CO (LS) thinks it was an intruder. She knows the vice cop turned rookie murder investigator (ST) thinks she did it, and she knows that's wrong. She not only knows these things, but has a strong emotional connection to these "facts"; a connection you and I don't have....So her frame of reference is limiting what she is able to think about the case."

      She seems willfully blind or duplicitous to me, but that is because I am failing to understand her very special reality. Starting to get it :)

      MM

      Delete
  54. And Patsy would also hold on to the fact that John was investigated and no sign of sexual deviancy/pedophilia was found in his history. His older kids also say he was a model parent who cherished his children and would never abuse them. That would hold powerful sway for Patsy as well. She did know that he conducted a long affair in his first marriage though--so you'd think the kids would have felt a bit neglected from Dad being gone with the other woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I read that John never told Patsy about the affair--which he states lasted between 8 months and a year. A fatal attraction, he called it. (Obviously he saw that movie too. ) Yet didn't John admit his mistress left him alone for good after she realized Patsy was now in the picture?) I didn't see the movie, so not sure of its plot. Patsy appeared to find out about the affair from an interviewer. When the interviewer asked her if she knew about the affair she said no. Interesting that John never told Patsy about that and that the affair abruptly ended when he met Patsy. This guy can keep a secret!

      Delete
    2. And another striking thing about reading the interview where John discusses his mistress when he had just met Patsy--he remembers every single detail about that certain evening--what people were eating and drinking even. Without one apparent hesitation, "I think" or "If I recall correctly". His memory was straightforward perfect for something that had happened 20 years prior. So interesting and different from his often faltering and incomplete memories in interviews of the crime from just several months before. kp

      Delete
    3. kp, this is such a good point. He recalled so little that one wondered about his cognitive ability. But of course, it was a sham. Who forgets the kidnapping and murder of a child? The details are embedded in the brain and recur over and over and over, derailing peoples' lives and mental health. Every single detail becomes a part of the story, no detail too small.

      MM

      Delete
  55. MM- No worries about thinking I was female :-)

    CH- I wanted to address BR going to the White's that morning first. You make a fair point regarding it pointing away from Burke's guilt, except all Burke said then and said today is that he was asleep. It wasn't like they had Burke under a hot lamp interrogating him, because there wasn't any real reason to suspect him. All that would have been asked of him was "did you see or hear anything?" My main point about BR going to the White's though is that its just CRAZY behavior by the Ramsey's. At that point in time, JBR is "kidnapped" according to everybody, so the Ramsey's send their only remaining child to a friends house? CH, are you a parent? I am, and I can tell you there would be NO CHANCE I would let my other child out of my sight in a situation like this. The Ramsey house wasn't a crime scene yet, so it wasn't like they were shielding him from seeing his sister's body. People always say that in moments of terror or panic you want to keep your loved ones closest. Well, I guess that just doesn't apply for John and Patsy Ramsey "ehhhh our daughter's kidnapped, but hey Burke, why don't you just go to the White's house and we will see you in a few hours." The reason this is important to me is because just asks yet another question about the Ramsey's behavior which is just crazy! The kidnapper's were on the loose, JBR was missing and there was a RN stating that they were going to behead their daughter if they didn't comply. SO, Patsy and John just think its ok to let Burke out of their sight?????

    CH - I understand that the handwriting experts ruled out John, YET a million fingers were still pointing at her. So, if the experts ruled out John, then clearly they felt it was an intruder right? Well no, because authorities were still honing in on PR which meant that they still felt it could be or was an inside job.

    The RN spoke to an intruder, so in order to believe that an intruder did it, then you MUST believe the RN was real and written by said intruder. So, in the first few hours, the police and Ramseys went along with the RN and JBR being kidnapped. But then JBR's lifeless body is found, no call is ever made. There is zero evidence of a foreign faction called S.B.T.C, the details emerge about prior molestation, pineapple being in her system and the over sized underwear that Patsy bought. Patsy would not have to be Jessica Fletcher from Murder She Wrote to at least have suspicions of John. Lastly, we all focus so much on Patsy simply just being innocent and going along with John's plan because she was going thru cancer or whatever other reasons people have stated, but isn't the most obvious reason that Patsy ignored every single obvious clue and went along with the crazy window story because PATSY WAS INVOLVED!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  56. J- I think you have a fair point, especially after reading that Larry King show transcript that was posted and wondering to myself, "why is that woman so defensive?" Maybe its just her personality, I can't say. I do know people like her who are defensive about anything that affects their ego. In that interview, both John and Patsy seemed very combative. Then again, that Steve Thomas came across as a rookie who really didn't know how to do an investigation, latched on to certain facts and ignored others, didn't even question the handwriting experts and gave John a "pass" which is not something you do on any investigation that has not yet led to an arrest. He did seem like he was very much out to get Patsy, which would have made her feel threatened and defensive. In that Larry King exchange, Thomas and JR came across as two people who had personal agendas not aimed at getting to the truth. Steve Thomas seemed like an embarrassment to the entire police detective profession, if you ask me. I'm glad he quit and found a new vocation! He may care about victims, but that is not good enough when you're a detective. Anyway, so you think Patsy could have been involved based on her behaviour. So what events do you think caused her, as a player in this crime, to call 911 that morning? Did she get involved later? -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  57. J,

    With respect, I think we need to go through this again.

    Yes, I'm a parent. I don't know what I would do in such a situation (I only have one child anyway) but I see no reason to describe letting BR go to the White's as CRAZY behavior. The kidnapper is gone. He's not returning to a neighborhood full of police cars to try to get BR. Even someone who sincerely believes it's a kidnapping case recognizes that the danger is over. There would be no reason for PR to suspect the Whites had anything to do with the kidnapping, and so no reason not to let him go with these trusted friends. We can't assume everyone would react in the same way. I see it as a very practical decision. A 9 year old doesn't want to stand around all day long, for hours on end, wondering what's going on. He still needs to eat. He needs to be with people who care about him, but his parents are understandably distracted and can't pay that much attention to him while the police are in the house. I think it was quite nice of the Whites to take Burke; it relieved PR of looking after a child when she was in no condition to really concentrate on anything but the kidnapping. We can agree to disagree, but I don't see it as the least bit suspicious.

    "CH - I understand that the handwriting experts ruled out John, YET a million fingers were still pointing at her. So, if the experts ruled out John, then clearly they felt it was an intruder right? Well no, because authorities were still honing in on PR which meant that they still felt it could be or was an inside job. "

    Yes, they are honing in on PR, and PR knows they are wrong. If you believe Doc's overall theory, then ST is in fact wrong about who did it. Patsy knew they were wrong about her, and "knew" they were wrong about JR. IDI is the only thing left in her mind. She's not going to say to herself "Gee, the police suspect me. But since I know I didn't do it, maybe I should consider that John did it. " What she sees is the police bungling the case, not solid reasons for RDI.

    I will go this far in agreeing with you about suspicions - she knows very well she didn't write the RN, and yet "experts" are concluding that she may be the author. (some with 100% certainty :-) She had to reject the opinions of those "experts" so why wouldn't she question the "experts" who ruled out John? It seems she had abundant evidence that the "experts" didn't know what they were talking about. But because Hoffman's paid team of "experts" had an agenda (to find that PR wrote the note, and therefore proving PR knew Chris Wolfe didn't do it, and in turn winning the defamation suit) she may simply have dismissed Hoffman's "experts" while not dismissing JR's.

    IMO the pineapple, the panties, etc. etc. are not going to make PR suspicious of JR. Those things will be attributed to the intruder. Does it make sense an intruder would do those things? Not to you and me, but we are open to the possibility of JDI. Patsy was not open to that possibility.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  58. J,

    I forgot to address this -

    "Lastly, we all focus so much on Patsy simply just being innocent and going along with John's plan because she was going thru cancer or whatever other reasons people have stated, but isn't the most obvious reason that Patsy ignored every single obvious clue and went along with the crazy window story because PATSY WAS INVOLVED! "

    If you think she was involved then, as Anonymom asks, why the 911 call ? Did they actually plan to let the police know there were both a RN and a body in the house? Did they expect the police to buy a kidnapping gone wrong?

    If they were in it together why don't they have an answer to your questions about the pineapple and the size 12s?

    Why would she turn over a RN in her own handwriting? Why wouldn't they at least try to be discreet and ask for unmarked cars - IOWs at least pretend to give the RN some credence?

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  59. CH – quickly responding to Burke going to the White’s….we can definitely just agree to disagree. Maybe it was just a completely innocent action by the Ramseys, but honestly, there is no chance I would let my only other child out of my sight.

    MM – Thank you very much for posting the Larry King transcript! I seriously read most of it with my mouth wide open out of shock. Patsy and John at no point acted like two people with nothing to hide. They wouldn’t answer questions that Larry King or Steve Thomas asked and when they would answer, they mostly answered a question with a question. If Patsy has absolutely zero involvement with the crime then she does a great job of making herself look guilty through her answers in this interview. We do not need to pick apart the entire transcript, but as a whole, it really blew me away.

    Steve Thomas did a great job of bringing up many of the points that bloggers on this site bring up and the Ramseys didn’t have great answers for any of it.

    CH and Anonymom – Trying to prove guilt towards Patsy is really tough, because the 911 call is definitely a hurdle that is tough to overcome. I think the answer potentially starts with that first 911 call that was quickly hung up. Again, Doc chooses to rely on facts and this is obviously pure speculation, but it was a fact that there were two 911 calls right? Im not being sarcastic, Im actually asking. OWL I believe posted about Burke possibly making that call and though I don’t agree with his entire theory, it is a very intriguing wrinkle to this whole thing. Maybe the Ramseys plan was to stage better and remove the body, but the second that first 911 call was made, they had no choice but to call 911 a second time. They clearly couldn’t have a misdial, than a day later call 911 with a crazy story about a ransom note and kidnapping. That’s why the Ramseys invited friends over to cause confusion and sent Burke out of the house, so that they could control the situation better. CH you asked me to explain why PR or JR never had an answer for the pineapple or oversized panties and the simple answer is that the IDI was their only defense. Admitting to either one of those things would push further guilt their way. It was just easier for both of them to play dumb on a lot of things and just claim they slept through the night, even going as far as John saying he took medicine to sleep thru the night. Whether PR previously knew about molestation and turned an eye to it, actually struck JBR, was covering for BR, etc I don’t know that I want to pigeon hole myself into 1 specific theory. I just feel strongly that Patsy somehow was involved

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  60. That's a fascinating document, the Larry King transcript. Four people with very different understandings of what happened. Each one projecting complete sincerity and honesty. Would it be possible to use "linguistic analysis" to figure out who the liar is? I don't think so. My assessment of these people is based on what is known about the case itself, not on any attempt to evaluate their behavior via "criminal profiling" methods.

    I don't see any sign there that Patsy is being overly defensive. In fact it looks to me like she's defending herself very effectively. I'd be pretty miffed if someone accused me to my face of being a murderer, not to mention murdering my own child, so her anger is certainly justifiable.

    It's fascinating to read what John had to say. He was sitting in the catbird seat. Thomas was not accusing HIM of murder. Nor did he even accuse him of child molestation. Which seems odd since made such a big deal over the evidence for prior molestation. If that evidence was as important as he seems to think, then how do we get from molesting a child to clubbing her over the head as a response to bed wetting? And how does Thomas give John a "pass," informing him that in his opinion John was not involved in the assault, but was in bed at the time?

    And why doesn't anyone point out how bizarre it is to assume a mother who just knocked her child unconscious over bed wetting would then proceed to assault her with a paint brush handle and then strangle her with a "garotte"? Believe it or not, that's Thomas's theory. A head injury that could have been reported as an accident morphs into a full blown pedophile attack followed by strangulation and the writing of a 2 1/2 page "ransom" note? What jury could possibly take such a theory seriously?

    And by the way, Thomas's claim that Patsy changed her handwriting after the murder simply isn't true. Another excellent example of confirmation bias. He claimed she stopped using manuscript "a" after the murder, but in fact there are several manuscirpt "a"s in Patsy's London Letter.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I feel for Thomas because by his logic Patsy HAD to be the one who wrote that note. He knew very well that there was no intruder. That part he got right. And if in fact John could not have written the ransom note, as the "experts" claimed, then the only remaining possibility was Patsy. So I can understand his ardor when he very emotionally confronts her over this. In his mind, there was no other possibility. And if Patsy is the only possibility then it's logical to conclude she must have killed JonBenet, because he can see no reason why she'd want to write such a document if John had killed her. And since it's all but impossible to come up with a motive for Patsy murdering her beloved child, then bedwetting, as absurd as it sounds, would have to be taken seriously as a motive.

    Thomas's problem is that he has taken an opinion and treated it as a fact. And why not, since it was an opinion offered by 6 forensic doc "experts" with impeccable credentials. Nevertheless: an opinion, regardless of whose opinion, and how many hold that opinion, is NOT a fact.

    The facts of the case point elsewhere. Certainly not to Patsy. And once all the evidence is carefully examined, the truth becomes clear. John is the one who's lying through his teeth in this exchange. And yes, Patsy, is backing him up. For reasons that should not be all that difficult to understand. What this interview demonstrates is how important it was for them to present a united front. John, because he could not afford to alienate Patsy. Patsy, because John was her principal defender. Can you imagine her saying, under these circumstance, when she is being accused of a monstrous crime to her face: "Mr. Thomas, I know I'm innocent but I can't really say the same thing about John, because I was fast asleep the whole time and there are some things about his story that make me suspicious?" ???????

    ReplyDelete
  62. Doc, CH, Anonymom, and everybody else who post's on here, please go Youtube the 20/20 Barbara Walter's interview with the Ramsey's. One thing cleared up is that John admits to calling the pilot NOT to cancel the flight, but to book the flight out of town. He tells Barbara Walter's "we just wanted to go home." Again that call was made 30 minutes after body was found I believe....so once again I will say that John Ramsey is one of the dumbest people of all time. For a guy who didn't want to draw attention, he has done a great job of it.

    The other key part of the interview was when Barbara asks them to take a lie detector test and just watch both of their reactions. John took control of the interview like he always does, but on that question they both have an extreme hesitation that just isn't normal! If BOTH are truly innocent, WHY the hesitation? IF John was the only one guilty, why the pause and awkwardness from Patsy? I know Im putting a ton of stock into just 1 interview, but if you are truly 100% innocent of a crime, you would scream to the mountain tops "I will take a polygraph right here and now, lets go!"
    Oh and CH, one more nugget from this interview. Patsy says "We were frightened, there was a killer on the loose!" So once again, if that was truly how she felt, then why let Burke out of your sight? I know Im nitpicking and Im not trying to start an argument, but nothing they did that morning screamed of two people who were frightened or scared for their lives. Was it maybe because their wasn't a killer on the loose and they BOTH knew that?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  63. J - I am catching up with posts and have to say this: I agree that the IMMEDIATE lack of concern of the Ramseys in the foreign faction is weird. JR runs a billion dollar company and is connected to the aerospace industry. The concern about terrorism was not as high as after 9/11 but the very alarming reference to beheading is quasi - Islamic terrorist and would surely give pause. One would think at the very least JR would put a security guard on the house Burke was in....but no. He ignored the implications from the first hours, and a week later on CNN claimed to believe that there was only an individual involved, not a foreign faction.

    One can guess he did so because he knew the ransom note he wrote Patsy was over the top and absurd, and no one in law enforcement would buy it. If he is innocent, he would never ignore it from the first moments on. He would accept it at face value until more facts were known.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  64. J- I truly believe that when he made that pilot call on 12/26 that John thought his goose was cooked. It was a glaringly defensive move - I don't think he imagined that he was going to get away with this crime. Who on earth RUNS from the newly discovered body of his child? Watching that Barbara Walters interview it is amazing to think he got away with it. Truly.

    That said, it brings the question up again -- what was the legal strategy here? That the best defense was a good offense? Try the case on TV with Larry King and Barbara Walters and muddy the prosecutorial waters? It seems blindingly dumb, but the lawyers must have supported it. And, of course, it worked.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thanks, J, for reminding us about the Barbara Walter's interview.

    Your first reference is an example of how easily John can lie. Here's what he says about that call in their book:

    "Patsy and I heard that Mike Archuleta was subpoenaed to testify, and I knew he would clarify one of the urban legends that had been floated by the media, if he were asked. They had reported that I had called Mike early on the morning of December 26, 1996, to arrange a hasty trip to Atlanta. Of course, that wasn't true. I had called Mike to tell him what had happened. (p. 324)"

    In an earlier blog post, I described that as "a classic John Ramsey half truth. No, John's call that morning didn't involve a hasty trip to Atlanta. But his call around 1:30 PM, after the body had been found, did involve making arrangements for just such a trip. John has nothing to say about that call, of course."

    We're talking about two calls, not one, as John states in the book. So when he admits in the interview to making the second call, which, yes, was in fact an arrangement to "make a hasty trip to Atlanta" he acknowledges that his story about the "urban legend" was in fact not completely honest -- in fact a lie. And by the way, according to the policeman who caught him in the act, he initially claimed he had an important business trip to attend -- which means taking Patsy and Burke with him was NOT part of the plan.

    As far as the question about the lie detector test is concerned, I see no hesitation whatsoever. However, Patsy's response is a half truth. Neither was asked directly to take such a test, but both were asked whether they would take one IF asked. John truthfully explains this and truthfully repeats his answer: he was offended. When Patsy had been asked, however, she'd responded that yes, she'd take ten of them if it helped the police solve the case. Now let's think a bit about their responses in this interview. Patsy could truthfully have reminded Barbara that's she'd been willing to take a test, in contrast to John, who clearly was not. But she says nothing. This, to me, tells us a lot about her unwillingness to say anything that might make waves, that might indicate that they weren't in lock step on every single aspect of the case. She knows very well that she was willing to take a polygraph, but she remains silent because it would make John look bad. This to me is the story with Pasty consistently throughout the sad history of this case.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I have to agree with J concerning Burke being sent off with the Whites .I also would not want my other child out of my sight. I would feel safer with him in the same room, and police and friends around me. I also struggle to understand why either John or Patsy would call friends round that morning, when the RN clearly states they are being watched and their daughters life depends on their actions.. given the situation, Even if my husband told me to make calls or went to do so himself, I would strongly warn him of the consequences. Maybe J, This is just our perspective.
    Going back to the suitcase and Larry King, when Lou Smit had his interview, he said that reports from the lab showed that fibers on Jonbenet's clothes came from fibers inside the suitcase, suggesting someone had tried to put the body inside.
    So if Doc's theory is correct, maybe this was part of John's plan. He does go on to say that no parent has ever killed their own child with the method used on Jonbenet, First for everything i suppose you could say.
    Just a reminder of patsy's gravestone, it reads " Grace, love and Faithfulness. Through all"

    ReplyDelete
  67. Where is the evidence of this "first" 911 call on the morning of the 26th?

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a feeling that what happened at the Ramsey party, a few days prior to the murder, got confused with what happened the morning after the murder. There was a 911 hangup at the party, and that's been explained as an innocent error on Fleet White's part. But I haven't been able to find any evidence for a 911 hangup on the 26th, no. I apologize for any confusion I've caused, but at this point I think there was just one 911 call on the 26th, with no prior hangup.

      Even if there were a hangup, and regardless of what might have happened prior to Patsy's 911 call, however, I still don't see any reason for that call to have been made if Patsy and John were collaborating on the staging of a kidnap. Even if Burke had awakened and noticed that JonBenet was missing, all they needed to do was show him the note and explain that she'd been kidnapped. They'd have told him they were afraid to call the police because of the warnings in the note. I see no reason why he would have defied them over this, but even if he had attempted to call 911 and report the "kidnapping," and one of his parents had forced him to hang up, there would still have been no reason for them to change their plan. It could easily have been reported as a mistake. Even if police arrived at their door, they could have apologized and said it was a mistake.

      Later, after the "ransom" had been "paid" and the body had been removed, they'd have called the police for sure, to report what had happened. It would have been no problem for them to "confess" at that point that there had been a kidnapping after all, but they'd been too afraid for JonBenet's safety to report it at that time.

      Delete
  68. Thanks, I didn't think there were two calls on the 26th. The 911 call center would have a record of it.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  69. Doc, another odd thing about this case is the timeline of events that morning. Police are called at 5:52am depending on which site you read, followed by the arrival of officers shortly after 6am. But yet the body isn't "discovered" until 1:30 PM. If Linda Arndt doesn't ask John and FW to search the house, what was the plan regarding the body? Obviously if John was the one who orchestrated the entire thing, then he very well knew that no phone call would be coming from any kidnappers at any point that day. The police weren't going to just leave, so I just don't understand waiting 7.5 hours to go downstairs and find the body. It seemed extremely important that John be the one to find the body, hold the body, remove the duct tape so that it could explain any of his DNA being on the body. So, if JR being the one to find her being that crucial, WHY does he wait 7 hours? We obviously know LA asked him to search the house, but he would have no way of knowing she would do that. Plus, the more time that passed, the more obvious it was that the kidnappers were not calling. Im just curious as to an explanation for this. There is no way that John would have just thought the police would leave at that point, so there would have been zero opportunity to remove the body.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. But obviously it would look extremely suspicious for John to just happen to open that door and discover the body. He would have needed a good reason to do that and since the police were focused on a kidnapping, they saw no reason to systematically search the house. And if John had suggested that, and the body was found, that would have looked awfully suspicious also.

      So as I see it there was no safe way for John to discover the body on his own. He was probably assuming that sooner or later they'd find it, and he just needed to sweat it out. Finally, Arndt gave him the opportunity by telling him to search the house thoroughly for clues. If she hadn't done that the body might not have been discovered for some time.

      Regardless, however, there was no way John could have hoped to remove the body after the police had been called. That certainly was NOT a part of his plan as it would have been far too risky. The time to get the body out was before the police were called -- and if Patsy had gone along with that plan, that's what would have happened.

      Delete
  70. I know this is a little random, but I think that The John And Patsy Show is another reason we can assume Kolar is wrong and Burke did not kill his sister, accidentally or otherwise. If they were covering up for their son, they would avoid publicity, avoid the limelight, avoid the subject. Talking about it would be dangerous for the secret they were hiding....and how could they expect Burke to understand and keep silent if they got on TV and lied? Especially after they both avoided indictment? It was over.

    The cynical reason to talk to Steve Thomas, of all people, on the Larry King show, would be for John to show solidarity with his possibly murderous wife. It kept the spotlight on Patsy as the killer while making John look good. It also reassured their entire family and supporters, including Burke, that they would do anything to catch the intruder by keeping the case alive.

    I am becoming convinced, doc, that Patsy was a pawn.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  71. In other words, through your relentless logic, I think you win :)

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  72. I had heard that Linda Arndt visited Patsy shortly before her death. Not knowing if this was a rumor or not, I searched and found this, the transcript of an interview with Linda Arndt where she talks about her relationship with Patsy. I find this fascinating! I think they both knew who killed Jon Benet but, for whatever reasons, didn't talk about it to each other. The mystery of Patsy's behavior for the 10 years after JonBenet's murder, which has been discussed quite a bit lately on this blog, is quite a mystery.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?6954-Linda-Arndt-speaks-


    bb

    ReplyDelete
  73. Yes, bb, I agree. I mostly agree with Doc that Patsy did not see her way to view John as the murderer. Yet, there are a number of things that make you wonder what she did know about John, or at least wonder what secrets she was hiding (per Linda Arndt). Maybe, prior to the murder, she had begun to wonder about JonBenet's vaginal issues and what was causing them. But because numerous visits to the doctor revealed nothing, she had no basis for suspecting someone was harming JB. Over the years the concerns and observations about John could have weighed on her conscience she but could not bring herself to draw any hard conclusions. I do agree with Doc that there were so many reasons and obstacles that would prevent Patsy from really seeing the light. And I know J disagrees with these as being true obstacles. However, in many cases of incest, there is evidence that the mother knew or should have known about the abuse and said nothing. When it comes to incest in families, denial is a way that many people cope with the unthinkable. Patsy probably recalled some things in hindsight that she realized were odd but could not bring herself to raise to anyone. Linda A. must have known this. I do wish Linda would speak out about what she does know that could help. I guess no one in LE would listen to her though. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  74. I just checked the blog and saw I was mentioned, so thought I would comment. :-)

    Here is the thing, regarding the handwriting of the RN. I have and will always believe its just a junk science. On shows like Pawn Stars, we see handwriting experts to determine if it is a celebrities signature and from that standpoint, I get it. Either Joe Dimaggio signed a picture or he didn't. So, the problem for me is that whether John, Patsy, Burke or a million other people wrote that note, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whose handwriting it is because whoever wrote it clearly didn't write in their normal style. The person could have written it with the opposite hand or simply just wrote differently to disguise it. The reason I say all of this is because I am just done reading about a "handwriting expert" ruling somebody out as being the main reason she wouldn't look at John. I just watched a Dateline where the wife was 100% convinced her husband wrote something and it turned out to be another persons. Obviously John Ramsey didn't sit down and in his normal handwriting, sit down and write a 3 page note in his everyday handwriting. Ok, so this is important because I just have a very hard time believing that Patsy would NEVER look at John based on a few experts ruling him out.
    All I am stating is that when you look at the mountain of evidence that there is, any number of them would raise a red flag for her. Another one being that JR was specific in saying that he took a sleeping pill to help him through the night, so IF PR recalls him getting up at any point in the night, I would imagine she would question it.
    I wrote about that Barbara Walter's interview and Doc said he didn't see a hesitation from Patsy was asked whether she would take a polygraph or not. I guess hesitation is the wrong word, because when Walter's asks her, I see Patsy look down, then nodding "no" she says she would. I dont normally like to read too much into body language, but this interview is 8 years after the crime! It is just such a ridiculous reaction to a very simple question that it makes it really hard to explain how a truly innocent person would do that.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, when initially asked, in her police interview, whether she would take a polygraph, she replied that she'd gladly take ten if it would help move things forward. If you read something negative in her body language during a much later interview, the fact remains that she did respond positively to that suggestion when first asked. Imo her demeanor at that time reflected John's influence and the influence of the attorneys who wanted them both on the same page.

      Also it's important to understand that NO ONE in LE or the media ever expressed any doubts as to John having been ruled out. So it wasn't just Patsy being convinced by some handwriting experts, that conclusion permeated the air she breathed, it was simply taken for granted by all involved, even those convinced there was no intruder.

      Delete
    2. I watched the Barbara Walters interview again. More than the hesitation and nodding, I noticed the hesitation and even stumbling on her words a bit. But I appeared to me, throughout the whole interview, that she was slightly drugged or sleepy, or both. She could have very well just undergone some chemo treatments and was feeling the residual of that.

      bb

      Delete
  75. Doc, can we all collaborate on a way to get the Boulder DA to read your book? or the police? do you think a petition would help? Also, just wondering if you think JR will ever slip up again and molest a child? iOW do you think he could be repeat offender? -anonymom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting suggestion. I contacted the DA and the police chief some time ago, sending them links to this blog, but never got a response.

      Here's the problem: There are by now probably at least a dozen books out on this case, plus a whole slew of websites by people promoting one theory or another, centered on a favorite suspect. I think the LE people in Boulder have grown tired of reviewing all the tips and theories and would rather just not think anymore about this very strange and puzzling case. Just in the past year or so we've had a book by the lead detective under DA Lacy, James Kolar, suggesting that Burke was responsible, and another book by a long time Websleuths poster, Superdave, insisting that Patsy did it, which is, of course, most people's favorite theory (backed up by a "mountain" of dubious "evidence"). And also, of course, my book, focusing on John, who hardly anyone suspects of anything more than complicity.

      A better bet than the DA might be the media. There are now so many "true crime" shows competing on television that I get the feeling they must be starved for material by now. But the whole JonBenet thing is now so old and so overdone, I don't see much hope of getting much of a response unless something dramatic happens to renew people's interest in the case. I keep hoping that at some point Burke will decide to speak out, but until then . . .

      As far as getting the word out, however, the most useful thing would be to encourage people who haven't already done so to post reviews on the book's Amazon website. There are already around a dozen, but more would be helpful.

      We might also try to encourage people to email the DA, suggesting he read the book or at least do some reading on this blog. It certainly couldn't hurt.

      As for your second question, John as a person is, for me, an enigma. It's very hard to "read" him. I don't really see him as a serial child molester though -- that seems unlikely. He seems like an ordinary guy who got tempted and let his libido disastrously get out of hand. But truthfully we know very little about John, especially what he was up to on all those "business trips" he took, which kept him away from home most of the time.

      Will he slip up again? I hate to say it, but I hope so. And if he does I hope he gets caught before he does any serious harm.

      Delete
  76. I have a question, as I have never lived in the USA:
    What would have happened to Patsy's health insurance if JR had been convicted of being involved in JBR's death? Or, even, if JR had been convicted of child sexual abuse? - Or again, if Patsy had left / divorced JR?
    Cheers,
    BL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If JR had been convicted and Patsy exonerated, then she would have probably sued for divorce, for one thing - and received alimony and also child support. She also could probably have sued John for wrongful death. One way or another, she'd have been in a position to collect a few million dollars at least, I'd imagine. More than enough to pay for health insurance.

      Delete
  77. I came to this weeks ago. I read most of this blog and a lot makes sense--dismiss motive and focus on the facts. Okay. But I've been reading other sites as well. Most everyone is grazing in one pasture or another. Some pastures are overgrown because they're full of toxic weeds.
    Patsy's motive for placing the call when she did...Patsy knew John's schedule. She knew what he did in the morning. She knew that she could be caught carrying the body out of the house by the neighbors. She could have very easily have waited for John to get up, shower and then scream for him. She could have waited for that moment because that was her routine. If she would have done this differently like allowing him to discover the note, he would have been more suspicious of her. So she was the one to discover the note and dial 911. The 911 call is not solid evidence that John did it, but it's good a very good argument.

    BoldBear

    ReplyDelete