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.
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.
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.