If they were not in it together, and in fact John did it all on his own, as I contend, then . . .
1. Why would Patsy have supported John's contention that calling 911 was his idea and that she agreed and then made the call? Doesn't this contradict the theory that they would not have made that call at that time if they were in it together? On another occasion, during the filming of the A&E documentary about the case, she provided a different version, implying that the call was her idea. So one of these versions isn't true. Whywould she purposely lie if she were innocent?
2. Why would Patsy have supported John's absurd story about breaking the window the previous summer, claiming she cleaned up all the glass, assisted by Linda the housekeeper? Since Linda denied knowing anything about any broken window, it looks as though Patsy lied. Why would she have done that if she and John weren't in it together?
3. Why would Patsy have echoed John's absurd contention that he couldn't recall whether or not that window had ever been repaired? She too couldn't recall, it seems. Obviously both are lying, but why would she have wanted to lie if she were innocent?
4. If Patsy were innocent, as I feel sure she was, then why would she have never become suspicious of John, always insisting that she never had any doubts regarding his innocence?
It's puzzles such as this that make this case so fascinating. Indeed on the surface it appears to be an impenetrable mystery.
To penetrate the mystery and explain such apparent contradictions, it is necessary to return to the first few days after the murder, when "the Ramseys" were refusing to be questioned separately by the investigators. And it's important to realize that we are not really at this point dealing with "the Ramseys," because there was a huge difference in mental state between John and Patsy at that time. Patsy was in a state of almost total collapse, hardly able to lift herself off of her bed and unable to speak coherently. This was partly due, no doubt, to the shock of losing her beloved daughter in such a violent manner, but was also due to her continually being fed, possibly for weeks at a time, various medications that would have not only tranquilized her but also kept her in a state of confusion.
So when we read that "the Ramseys" were being uncooperative during those first few days and weeks, then what we are really talking about is John Ramsey and his legal team. It was in fact John and his lawyers, and not "the Ramseys" that refused to be interrogated, and continued to refuse for months. As I stated earlier, if John and Patsy had been in it together there would be no need for such a long delay, as they could have got their story straight from the beginning. And if Patsy had been involved in her daughter's murder she would have been faking all that distress and would have been perfectly capable of "cooperating fully" with the authorities.
On the other hand, if Patsy were innocent and John was the guilty party, there is no way he'd have wanted her to be questioned separately, since she might say something that might make him sound suspicious. She might, for instance, describe their disagreement over whether or not to call the police. She might reveal that John insisted that they not make that call, and tried to prevent her from making it, and that she suddenly ran downstairs while he was distracted and made the call despite him, which would be consistent with the version she provided in the documentary.
Also Patsy might have innocently informed the police that she too, like the housekeeper, knew nothing about any broken window, thus calling into very serious question his story about having broken it the previous summer.
So if you are looking for some reason why "the Ramseys" stalled the police for so long, there's your answer. What other reason could there have been -- if they'd been in it together? And if you want to argue that John is the innocent party, and Patsy did it all on her own, I'm sorry, but at this point it is John and the lawyers who are calling the shots, not Patsy, who's lying prone on her bed, in a state of collapse, according to the testimony of all her family and friends.
What's seems clear to me is that John needed to buy time to convince Patsy that it was in the interest of both of them that she tell some "white lies" about what happened that night and what happened the previous summer. And what enabled him to convince her to do that without raising her suspicions was the same thing that has convinced so many for so long that John could not have done it all on his own: the decision by all those "experts" to rule him out as writer of the note. If Patsy was innocent then she knew very well that she didn't write the note. And if during the period when she was emerging from her fog, she was informed that John could not have written it, then she would have had no reason to suspect anyone but that mysterious, inscrutable intruder. She never suspected John simply because she accepted what everyone else has accepted: that John could not have written the note. And under those circumstances it would have been easy for John, and his lawyers, to manipulate her into supporting his version of what happened, both on the morning after the crime and the previous summer. And why she always steadfastly "stood by her man" through thick and thin until the day she died.
As I wrote in an earlier post, "if she had expressed any suspicions, he could have responded more or less as follows:
Look, the experts ruled me out, so you know I couldn't have written the note. You know very well you didn't write it. Which means an intruder must have gotten in, murdered JonBenet and written the note. If you bring up any of this stuff with the police all it will do is make us both look more suspicious than we already look. We have to stay on the same page. You have to support my version of what happened, or we are both in trouble."By the time of their first police interview, John and his lawyers would have had lots of time to work on Patsy to make sure she understood exactly what she should say and what she shouldn't say. Which imo is why she acts so confused at times and why her testimony at certain points sounds so suspicious. She is trying hard to do what she was told, convinced that the police are "out to get" both of them, and will take advantage if she isn't careful. The fact that John was ruled out and she was not is also a factor, making her especially vulnerable and consequently easy to manipulate.