John Ramsey's Role

[allan]

Thanks very much to all who responded to my question about the sincerity of Patsy Ramsey’s 911 call. The consensus is that Patsy is acting – a point of view supported by evidence linking her to the crime scene. I shall have to mull over these comments further since I felt Patsy was being sincere.

The importance of the 911 call is obvious. It is the first point of contact between the Ramsey household and the authorities. If Patsy is lying on it, then it follows logically that she is involved in the murder. If she is not lying, then it follows logically that she is innocent.

My question now concerns John Ramsey. When I first started reading about this case, I took it for granted that, if chronic sexual abuse had occurred, the father was the sexual abuser and the murderer. (The idea that the mother abused her daughter’s vagina as a form of corporal punishment seemed outlandish to me then – and it still does, today.) It seems that most people, however, consider John Ramsey to be innocent of the murder. His guilt is restricted to the subsequent cover-up of the crime.

It seems to me that prior sexual abuse is as decisive an element as the 911 call. If John Ramsey sexually abused his daughter, then he is almost certainly the murderer. If John Ramsey did not sexually abuse his daughter, then almost certainly he was not involved in her murder because there seems to be no motive for it. (The motive for Patsy Ramsey is also problematic: it seems to me that any parent who accidentally kills a child would stage an accident to explain the death – not an elaborate charade of the kind created here.)

What was John Ramsey’s role in this? If he does appear on the 911 tape with Burke, then he is lying about Burke's wherabouts. If he is lying about that, then it follows that he is also involved in the murder. Would people be kind enough to express their opinions about this?

[Barbara]

Your post is very well thought out and intelligent.

This is one of the main reasons there are many of the Burke did it belief. It is hard to understand why any parent would cover for another parent, especially with sexual assault that has been called chronic. But some can in fact, imagine a scenario where both parents would cover for a family member, especially their own child.

However, I do not rule out the possibility of either parent OR GRANDPA PAUGH, someone else who nobody hears about, his whereabouts and schedule seem to be contradicted, and has been very low profile throughout the investigation.

Just some more food for thought.

[Brefie]

Hi allan!

I will give it a shot, although, I must warn you, I am probably the least qualified poster to do so.

For reasons that even I cannot fully justify, I believe that JonBenet was NOT molested or murdered by John Ramsey. I have not decided between Patsy and Burke but I am leaning toward Burke being the killer and Patsy leading the cover up. I do, however, believe that Patsy must have some kind of hold on John for him to have kept quiet this whole time. I believe a man who has lost ONE child, does not cover up the murder of another child lightly.

This is all, of course, in my opinion only.

[FULTON]

I have always felt that what Steve Thomas said was likely the sceniero,that Patsy lost it and in a rage struck or caused JB to be injured.The cover up came when her and John realized that when the police found out they could loose all they had. The house,status,Johns career,money,and even Burke may have been in there eyes, taken from them.This I feel was when they both ploted a cover up to protect Patsy(in Johns opinion she was only guilty of an accident and should not suffer any more that what she already was) from going to jail and the family.

[Sprocket]

(The idea that the mother abused her daughter’s vagina as a form of corporal punishment seemed outlandish to me then – and it still does, today.)
But, it didn't seem outlandish to the detectives, or the CASKU unit of the FBI that investigates child abduction and serial killers, on a daily basis. I would tend to think that this would be agroup of investigators who have "seen it all."

There's been a lot of specualtion, whether or not Patsy had a touch of one of the "Cluster B" disorders... and I think there is a strong possibility of that. Several of the Cluster B disorders abuse/use sex as a means to control, or, have some kind of problem with it, (such as sexual addiction). (What comes to mind is Sante & Kenny Kimes.)

To me, John is full blown narcissist. But that's

jmho, of course. :D

[Ivy]

Originally posted by FULTON
This I feel was when they both ploted a cover up to protect Patsy(in Johns opinion she was only guilty of an accident and should not suffer any more that what she already was) from going to jail and the family.
Unless John Ramsey is a complete idiot, how could he believe JonBenet's death was an accident? Sure, the skull fracture could have happened accidentally, but even if John didn't notice the blood droplets in the crotch of her panties indicating sexual trauma, my God, she had a ligature embedded in her neck!

But maybe you're saying that as part of what John considered as covering up for Patsy accidentally clobbering JonBenet on the head and causing her death, he or Patsy then strangled JonBenet's corpse and inserted something sharp into her vagina post mortem to indicate an intruder had assaulted her. If that's what you're saying, I don't buy that either. I firmly believe that all three traumas--the vaginal injury, the skull fracture, the strangulation-- happened in quick succession, right before JonBenet's death, and that she died from having been strangled with the same device that was found on her neck. I do not believe that any of the trauma found on her body was staging.

The only scenario that makes sense to me is that Burke inadvertently killed JonBenet as the result of sexual play that went horribly wrong, and that John and Patsy did their best to cover it up by wiping the body down (including the genital area) and writing the fake ransom note. I don't believe that John and Patsy defiled JonBenet's dead body in any way. I believe that JonBenet's skull and vaginal injuries were inflicted by Burke, and he is also the one who strangled her. I think it unlikely that John and Patsy were even aware of the skull fracture.

IMO

[vicktor]

Allan, you have asked some forthright questions.

I don't believe JB was abused by John. Neither the coroner who examined her, or her personal physician, who knew and checked her out thought she had been abused. Compare this to other "experts" who had done neither yet were willing to put forth their opinion. BTW these experts were likely by en-large self created. IOW, they would write a book, appear on news programs, crime shows and talk shows, be a source to quote for news stories, all to develop celebrity status for themselves as an "expert", without regard as to whether they actually did have skills and experience to justify being considered an expert. And as you have noted, if John wasn't abusing JB, then he would have no motive, and wasn't involved with her death. IMO, John didn't assist in any coverup for Patsy. Since his life was ruined for 3-4 years, if he had covered up, I think he would have divorced Patsy to get his life back on track.

[BlueCrab]

The importance of the 911 call is obvious. It is the first point of contact between the Ramsey household and the authorities. If Patsy is lying on it, then it follows logically that she is involved in the murder. If she is not lying, then it follows logically that she is innocent.


In their separate police interviews in 1998 all three Ramseys lied about Burke being in bed at 5:52 A.M. when he was actually in the kitchen carrying on a conversation with his parents. The comments among the three of them heard at the end of the 911 tape revealed they are invoved conspiratorily in a coverup, and also had been up long before 5:30 A.M., the time John and Patsy claim they got up.

Patsy was lying on the 911 tape when she claimed she had just discovered JonBenet missing, when in fact she already knew where JonBenet was. The Ramseys have stated all along that they didn't search the basement that morning (not a very likely scenario) prior to calling 911. But a slip of the tongue by Patsy disclosed the truth:

TOM HANEY: "So you're here at the base of the stairs?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."

TOM HANEY: "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember my voice was just cracking. I mean it was like JOHN, like that. I mean like, I can't even, you know, I hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just -- "

So John came up from the basement screaming. Now why would John be doing that prior to the 911 call? It's obvious John had discovered JonBenet's body long before Patsy made the 911 call. Patsy lied during the 911 call and all three Ramseys lied to the police during subsequent interviews. Therefore, nothing the Ramseys have stated about what happened that morning can be considered credible. They lied from the very beginning.

JMO

[Barbara]

[QUOTE=vicktor]
... BTW these experts were likely by en-large self created. IOW, they would write a book, appear on news programs, crime shows and talk shows, be a source to quote for news stories, all to develop celebrity status for themselves as an "expert", without regard as to whether they actually did have skills and experience to justify being considered an expert... [QUOTE]

I'm curious to know to whom you refer. The experts differed on opinions, but they were all credentialed as far as I know. Who are you referring to? Have I missed something?

[Nehemiah]

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember my voice was just cracking. I mean it was like JOHN, like that. I mean like, I can't even, you know, I hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just -- "JMO

That passage from the interviews was the most telling, in my opinion. Second to that was Patsy's change of mind on the heart drawn on JBR's hand.

John came up from the basement. There it is, right there. In Patsy's own words.

IMO

[BrotherMoon]

John did not have a history of using JonBenet for personal gratification, Patsy did.

The role of sex in this crime is ancillary to the more fundamental themes of use of another human being, control and identity disorder.

I think John had nothing to do with it. Patsy involved him in it when she screamed and handed him the note. The 911 call is acted, not spontaneous.

I think John found the body earlier and took time to think, already sensing something wasn't right. He brought JonBenet's body up after faking her discovery to postion HIMSELF, without attempting to position himself WITH his wife. The bad police work and the role of lawyers perpetuated John's position.

I say; AT NO TIME DID JOHN AND PATSY CONSPIRE TOGETHER.

Patsy made her play, the ransom note, to protect herself. John made his play, the fake finding of the body, to protect himself. They ran parallel courses after that without colluding.

[Arielle]

I am a seriously confilicted person when it comes to this case. On most days, I feel that it was an intruder who did this. Therefore, the 911 call was genuine and the role of John is as a grieving father. However, I also feel that the intruder was someone the Ramseys knew, and knew well. Possibly even John's oldest son, John Andrew. From the things I've read, and I have by no means read everything, nor do I have them memorized nor can I quote from them, I feel like if the Ramsey parents are involved in any kind of a cover up, it did not begin until the trip to Atlanta for the funeral. To me, this is when their behaviour began to become strange. up until that time, I don't think that anything they did was particularly off the wall. It may not be exactly what I would have done, but then I'm a crime buff and know a lot about this stuff. I've also been trained in forensic science, so I am not in the same sort of situation as the Ramseys and can't really compare what I migtht do to what they did. also, I've never been in any kind of remotely similar situation and who's to say what I would do if I ever was?

Anyhow, that is my main thought on the subject. Then I have days where I feel like Patsy did it, premeditated, and John knew absolutely nothing and is still in some sort of denial of the whole thing.

And then I have days where I feel like John did it and Patsy didn't know anything about it.

And finally, I have days when I believe that Burke did it and the parents both covered up for him.

So, that is my opinion, or opinions as the case may be.

Welcome to the discussion.

[BrotherMoon]

I am a seriously confilicted person when it comes to this case. Then I have days where I feel like Patsy did it, premeditated, and John knew absolutely nothing and is still in some sort of denial of the whole thing.

Spend more days like these. It won't be pleasant but you will learn more about human nature.

[Nehemiah]

I echo your feelings. You said it well.

IMO

[vicktor]

[QUOTE=vicktor]
[QUOTE]

I'm curious to know to whom you refer. The experts differed on opinions, but they were all credentialed as far as I know. Who are you referring to? Have I missed something?

I can't remember exactly who made statements that her condition showed prior abuse. It seemed like Wecht and Richard Krugman, director of the Kempe Foundation in Denver came out on the abuse side, among others. Wecht may be an expert, I don't know enough about him. As far as Krugman, I believe he is the head administrator at Kempe, I don't know how much work he performed doing exams in the past. The sub-point is that for an expert to offer an opinion, it would seem he would want to know and examine the child first hand.

[Shylock]

So John came up from the basement screaming. Now why would John be doing that prior to the 911 call? It's obvious John had discovered JonBenet's body long before Patsy made the 911 call.
I'm missing something, BC. Where are you getting the idea John was in the basement PRIOR to the 911 call?

[BlueCrab]

I'm missing something, BC. Where are you getting the idea John was in the basement PRIOR to the 911 call?


Shylock,

Patsy let it slip that John was in the basement prior to the 911 call. Tom Haney was questioning Patsy about what she allegedly did and said immediately after she found JonBenet missing from her bed:

TOM HANEY: "So you're here at the base of the stairs?

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."

TOM HANEY: "You scream for John?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."

TOM HANEY: "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember my voice just cracking. I mean it was like JOHN, like that. I mean like, I can't even, you know, I hear my scream and I hear his scream WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just --"

This occurred prior to the 911 call. IMO John "came up from the basement" screaming AND likely carrying JonBenet's body. That's why both John and Patsy were screaming. My guess is it was about 3:30 A.M.

JMO

[Nehemiah]

I'm missing something, BC. Where are you getting the idea John was in the basement PRIOR to the 911 call?

It's in the interviews in the NE book.

IMO

[Thorkim]

This is one of my favorite slips of John's tongue from Larry King Live in March of 2000. Thank you to ACR for providing the transcript. This (IMO) goes along with Bluecrab's theory that John knew what happened to his daughter prior to the 911 call. Larry is asking about when John "found" JonBenet after Arndt told him to go search the house. Note the time that he references below:

KING: Did you try anything to revive her, CPR?

J. RAMSEY: I took the tape off her mouth, I tried to untie her arms. They were very tightly bound. I couldn't get the knot unbound and then I just -- I picked her up and I just screamed, the kind of scream you scream in a dream when you -- you're trying to speak, but you can't. It's just a scream.

KING: When you -- did you see her, too?

P. RAMSEY: I heard him scream.

KING: You never saw her?

P. RAMSEY: Yes, I did then see her. My friends were -- I was in the TV room and they were -- I said what is it? What is it? And they kept, you know, holding me, wait, I don't know what it is. One of our friends ran into the room and said, we need an ambulance, tried to dial 911, and I kept screaming, what is it? What is it? And, you know, then in just a couple of minutes, then I walked into the living room.

KING: What did the police say? Did they say anything? Did they...

J. RAMSEY: Well, Linda Arndt was the only police person that was there that I recall.

KING: They all had left? The others had left?

J. RAMSEY: Well, I don't know. There were a lot of people there at 3:00 in the morning.

My comment: 3:00 in the morning???? It came straight from John's mouth on national television.

[Cherokee]

TOM HANEY: "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember my voice just cracking. I mean it was like JOHN, like that. I mean like, I can't even, you know, I hear my scream and I hear his scream WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just --"

What an excellent example of Patsy's evasive, beat-around-the-bush, less than truthful answers to investigator's questions.

Let's decode this generalized double-speak, shall we?

Like - Patsy reverts to "Valley Girl" talk three times in order to buy time and "pad" her answer since she can't tell what really happened.

Just - Patsy uses a "throwaway" word three times to pad her evasive non-answer.

You know - Patsy uses another "throwaway" phrase two times to further pad her non-answer.

I mean - Patsy begins three sentences with this useless phrase that is spoken primarily when a person is trying to "sell" or convince another of a certain point.

It was - Patsy uses an impersonal pronoun and a past tense verb three times to describe "what"?

- it was "like John, like that."

- it was "just a horrible thing"

- it was "just ..."

Patsy can't even finish her sentences, and when she does, she tells us nothing. Let's look at the noun of the predicate to which the verb "was" is linked.

It was like that, it was a thing, and it was ....

In four and half sentences, Patsy tells us it was "that" and it was "thing." Lots of information there.

And last, but not least ...

I and my - In four and half sentences, Patsy uses the personal pronoun "I" seven times, and the possessive pronoun "my" twice. Patsy isn't giving information, she's thinking about herself and how she can get out of this question. It's me, me, me and I've got to save, save, save myself.

All Haney asked her was to tell him the exact words she used to call to John when she found JonBenet was missing. He asked for a relatively short answer. He asked, "Was it more than just John or - - "

All Patsy had to say was, "No, I just called (or screamed) 'John.'"

OR

"No, I screamed, 'John, come here! Hurry.'"

OR

something similar ...

Instead, we get the "War and Peace" of run-around answers that tells us nothing except Patsy is lying about what really happened. When you try to tippy-toe around the truth, sometimes you "step in it."



IMO

[Cherokee]

TOM HANEY: "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember my voice just cracking. I mean it was like JOHN, like that. I mean like, I can't even, you know, I hear my scream and I hear his scream WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just --"

Now, without all the padding, let's look at what Patsy DID say.

I remember my voice cracking ... it was JOHN ... I can't even hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement ... it was a horrible thing.

Patsy says her voice is cracking when she calls for John, and she can't even hear her scream ... but SOMEHOW John hears her. And before he even knows what has happened, or why Patsy is yelling for him, HE IS SCREAMING TOO.

Cool, contained, CEO John Ramsey breaks out into screams just because his wife has hollered his name?

If John is screaming, he must have had a reason other than Patsy yelling for him. And this brings up what BlueCrab has pointed out ... Patsy saying "when he came up from the basement." Did John find something in the basement that made him scream?

Some Ramsey defenders have said that Patsy meant to say, "when he came up from the stairs." But that still does not make sense. Why would John start screaming at the bottom of the stairs?

"My what a tangled web we weave ..."



IMO

[Shylock]

"I hear my scream and I hear his scream WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just --"

I think all of you are reading this wrong. Patsy is refering to John's screaming when he brought her body up. She can still hear (in her mind) her own scream when she found the note and in her mind she can still hear John's scream when he found the body.

That's what she is saying, NOT that John was in the basement before the 911 call and came up screaming. What the hell would he have been screaming for at THAT time? If anything, he would have been calling out JonBenet's name.

[Show Me]

Wow Cherokee! Excellent points! I especially like Patsy's answer to Steve Thomas's accusation she wrote the note, on LKL, "When did I write the note? Before or after I killed Jo.." Not 'When do you think I wrote the note?'

Anyway Allan... I don't know if John was involved from the beginning or not. All I know is by the time the cops had been there awhile John goes upstairs, grabs binoculars, sees what he calls a suspicious van. He watches it a few minutes, sees no activity around the van for the few minutes. DECIDES even though his daughter was kidnapped by a foreign faction, and there is a suspicous van in the alleyway, he does NOT tell the police!!!!!

Why? What non activity in a couple of minutes, makes the unknown van harmless? Why not have the cops check it out and make sure his daughter isn't in the van? The note said John was being monitored by the kidnappers....

Also John goes downstairs to the basement to look for clues, sees the broken window raised up. (The same window John entered the house when he forgot his house keys) Shuts the window and leaves and NEVER tells the cops!

Either John was the most idiotic CEO on the face of the earth....OR....he didn't really want to help the cops find his daughter...because he was involved!

[BlueCrab]

I think all of you are reading this wrong. Patsy is refering to John's screaming when he brought her body up. She can still hear (in her mind) her own scream when she found the note and in her mind she can still hear John's scream when he found the body.

That's what she is saying, NOT that John was in the basement before the 911 call and came up screaming. What the hell would he have been screaming for at THAT time? If anything, he would have been calling out JonBenet's name.


Shylock,

I'm afraid YOU are reading it wrong my friend. The conversation in my above posts took place BEFORE the 911 call was made and certainly before John "found" JonBenet at 1:05 that afternoon. John was still in his underwear.

IMO the Ramseys found JonBenet's body 2 to 3 hours before they say they got out of bed that morning. Patsy was lying her head off trying to answer Tom Haney's question about exactly what she said when she informed John that JonBenet was missing. That's when Patsy, stammering and apparently not able to think fast enough, blurted out the truth and replied "I hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement".

Here is Tom Haney's next question:

TOM HANEY: "Where does John first appear, at least in this diagram?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He comes down those stairs there, and so we are both like standing there. I am pacing. I said Oh my God, you know there is a note, she's been kidnapped. She is not in her bed, you know. You know, then everything gets really you know, who's on first kind of thing."

TOM HANEY: "What is John's -- how is he dressed?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He is in his underwear."

Moreover, Patsy didn't scream at 1:05 P.M. when John brought the body up from the basement. She remained quiet and even refused to get off the couch to see what all the commotion was about. She knew.


JMO

[packerdog]

Does anyone still believe that it could have happened this way? John may have been molesting JB and Patsy walked in and saw what he was doing, she then swings an object at John and hits JB in the head instead. This is what I thought way back in 96 but have changed my mind since, believing that it was Patsy that lost it and pushed or shoved JB in her bathroom and she hit her head on a fixture, the rest was a cover up.

[Shylock]

Moreover, Patsy didn't scream at 1:05 P.M. when John brought the body up from the basement. She remained quiet and even refused to get off the couch to see what all the commotion was about. She knew.

I never said Patsy screamed at 1:05 P.M. and she doesn't say that either.

You are DEFINATELY taking what she says out of context.

"I hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement. I mean it was just a horrible thing.

Patsy is saying she has TWO screams that she can still hear in her mind. Her own when she found the note, and John's scream when he brought the body up from the basement.

She is NOT saying John was in the basement screaming BEFORE the 911 call was made. That's strictly "constructive reading" on your Part, BlueCrab. Neither John or Patsy EVER told any of the people involved in this case that John went in the basement before she called 911. And that certainly is not what she means in that sentence.

Haney knew what she meant, and didn't take it that way either. Otherwise he would have been smart enough to say "Hey, wait a minute, John was in the basement before 6 that morning?!!!"

[K777angel]

This is indeed a curious statement by Patsy regarding John's 'scream' as he comes up from the basement. First of all, she was being asked about events from that MORNING - not after JonBenet had been 'found.'
But secondly, according to John himself - there was NO scream as he came up from the basement with JonBenet! He described it as wanting to scream but NOTHING coming out. So what 'scream' is Patsy referring to?
It lends more to a scream from that morning as that is what she was asked about and John says he never did scream when he brought up a dead JonBenet.

[Sprocket]

What an excellent example of Patsy's evasive, beat-around-the-bush, less than truthful answers to investigator's questions.

Let's decode this generalized double-speak, shall we?

Like - Patsy reverts to "Valley Girl" talk three times in order to buy time and "pad" her answer since she can't tell what really happened.

Just - Patsy uses a "throwaway" word three times to pad her evasive non-answer.

You know - Patsy uses another "throwaway" phrase two times to further pad her non-answer.

I mean - Patsy begins three sentences with this useless phrase that is spoken primarily when a person is trying to "sell" or convince another of a certain point.

It was - Patsy uses an impersonal pronoun and a past tense verb three times to describe "what"?

- it was "like John, like that."

- it was "just a horrible thing"

- it was "just ..."

Patsy can't even finish her sentences, and when she does, she tells us nothing. Let's look at the noun of the predicate to which the verb "was" is linked.

It was like that, it was a thing, and it was ....

In four and half sentences, Patsy tells us it was "that" and it was "thing." Lots of information there.

And last, but not least ...

I and my - In four and half sentences, Patsy uses the personal pronoun "I" seven times, and the possessive pronoun "my" twice. Patsy isn't giving information, she's thinking about herself and how she can get out of this question. It's me, me, me and I've got to save, save, save myself.

All Haney asked her was to tell him the exact words she used to call to John when she found JonBenet was missing. He asked for a relatively short answer. He asked, "Was it more than just John or - - "

All Patsy had to say was, "No, I just called (or screamed) 'John.'"

OR

"No, I screamed, 'John, come here! Hurry.'"

OR

something similar ...

Instead, we get the "War and Peace" of run-around answers that tells us nothing except Patsy is lying about what really happened. When you try to tippy-toe around the truth, sometimes you "step in it."



IMO
Brilliant Cherokee, just brilliant.

[Sprocket]

Does anyone still believe that it could have happened this way? John may have been molesting JB and Patsy walked in and saw what he was doing, she then swings an object at John and hits JB in the head instead. This is what I thought way back in 96 but have changed my mind since, believing that it was Patsy that lost it and pushed or shoved JB in her bathroom and she hit her head on a fixture, the rest was a cover up. I would tend to believe that the second scenario you present is more in line with what actually happened.

jmho, of course.

[allan]

I agree that the scenario in which Patsy causes JonBenet's skull fracture in the bathroom is more believable. The question then becomes, why would Patsy concoct this elaborate charade? Would it not make more sense for a parent to spill a lot of water on the floor and scream for the other parent, claiming that the child had had an accident? (The details of this would also be problematic, but the parent could come up with a plausible scenario.) The call to 911 would then be to ask for help as the result of a slip, not a crime. The Ramsey's staus in Boulder would more than likely cause authorities to look the other way if they suspected abuse. Why would Patsy come up with the ransom note, the garotte, etc.?

[jubie]

What bothers me about Patsy killing JB in a rage is the sexual assault as a cover-up, I mean just leave her at the bottom of the stairs and call 911 for petes sake!!! No need for a ransom note, a quick resolution and my God you don't inflict such horrendous injuries to your child after the fact.



Is this possible? Just maybe...


Is it possible the R's came home, Patsy and John are busy getting ready for the next day, Burke and JonBenet are having a quick snack before bed, Burke starts in on JB for playing doctor at the Whites earlier in the evening and even in the past few weeks and a fight breaks out between the two, Patsy hears this and flips out on JonBenet (she had just been upstairs packing JB's things and was already a little testy finding soiled undergarments and fuming silently about JB's bedwetting) Of course they are all going to say JB went straight to bed... Maybe Burke didn't know JB was killed by mum but went along with what he was told to say... Did they stage it because 'Oh my God she's dead and her privates are going to show something was going on there?' I can see PR freaking out and JR grounding her and thinking it out... he wouldn't want to point the finger at Burke and he would be suspected right away as the molester..... Of course if PR hadn't killed her in rage I don't doubt the R's would have put a stop to the doctor thing... just thinking out loud, I'm saying this is my final opinion...

I know there must be a million holes in this but I'm just trying to fit how Patsy killed her accidentally and the staging is so horrific.... In my very humble opinion amongst many great minds here!!

Thanks for your dedication, knowledge AND amazing willingness to correct over and over again those who are trying to muddy the waters! Thanks to ALL here actually I have come to fully believe the Ramseys are hiding the truth and one of them is guilty of her assault and murder!

[jubie]

Allan,

I rarley post, how ironic that while I was typing my post you had just posted yours and we seem to be thinking alike.

[FULTON]

Unless John Ramsey is a complete idiot, how could he believe JonBenet's death was an accident? Sure, the skull fracture could have happened accidentally, but even if John didn't notice the blood droplets in the crotch of her panties indicating sexual trauma, my God, she had a ligature embedded in her neck!

But maybe you're saying that as part of what John considered as covering up for Patsy accidentally clobbering JonBenet on the head and causing her death, he or Patsy then strangled JonBenet's corpse and inserted something sharp into her vagina post mortem to indicate an intruder had assaulted her. If that's what you're saying, I don't buy that either. I firmly believe that all three traumas--the vaginal injury, the skull fracture, the strangulation-- happened in quick succession, right before JonBenet's death, and that she died from having been strangled with the same device that was found on her neck. I do not believe that any of the trauma found on her body was staging.

The only scenario that makes sense to me is that Burke inadvertently killed JonBenet as the result of sexual play that went horribly wrong, and that John and Patsy did their best to cover it up by wiping the body down (including the genital area) and writing the fake ransom note. I don't believe that John and Patsy defiled JonBenet's dead body in any way. I believe that JonBenet's skull and vaginal injuries were inflicted by Burke, and he is also the one who strangled her. I think it unlikely that John and Patsy were even aware of the skull fracture.

IMO
It has been posted by others that the head injury occured first leaving JB almost dead,barely a pulse. This would account for the small amount of blood found on the brain ( some experts have said that sometimes there is less bleeding than JB had from the same kind of head trauma)and in her underware.It has also been posted before that the cord was tight on JB's neck but due to post mortum swelling the cord became deeper inbeded in her skin.I beleive the genital area was wiped down to clean up any urine or feces that resulted in JB voiding herself when she died as sometimes occurs.Burke, like John, while good suspects,have been given a good many passes for me to say they were responsible.The fibers in the paint tote and those inbeded in the cord were from a jacket matching Patsys,unless you think Burk was playing dress up and wore her jacket??

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Fulton
(snippet) The fibers in the paint tote and those inbeded in the cord were from a jacket matching Patsys,unless you think Burk was playing dress up and wore her jacket??

No, I don't think Burke was playing dressup and wearing Patsy's jacket. I think Patsy's jacket fibers got into the paint tote and in the cord knot during the staging phase, when Patsy and John were wiping down the body, redressing it, wrapping it in the blanket, and so forth. (Speaking of which, I think John's black shirt fibers ended up in the crotch of JonBenet's underpants during the wiping down process.)

Since Patsy was close to the paint tote, it's easy to think of ways Patsy's jacket fibers could have found their way into the tote. It's also easy to imagine her jacket fibers becoming embedded in the knot, if like me, you can picture a shocked and horrified Patsy, upon seeing the body for the first time, frantically trying to untie the ligature knot that was squeezing her dear daughter's throat.

imo

[BlueCrab]

She is NOT saying John was in the basement screaming BEFORE the 911 call was made. That's strictly "constructive reading" on your Part, BlueCrab. Neither John or Patsy EVER told any of the people involved in this case that John went in the basement before she called 911. And that certainly is not what she means in that sentence.


Shylock,

The interview between Haney and Patsy was carried out chronologically. They had progressed step by step to the point where Patsy was informing John that JonBenet was missing. But at that point in the interview Patsy apparently got entwined in her own web of lies and blurted out the truth saying John came up from the basement screaming. That whole morning of events, as told by the Ramseys, IMO is a pack of lies -- starting with the dramatized 911 call. We get snippets of the truth by way of slips of the tongue.

JMO

[Cherokee]

Shylock,
The interview between Haney and Patsy was carried out chronologically. They had progressed step by step to the point where Patsy was informing John that JonBenet was missing. But at that point in the interview Patsy apparently got entwined in her own web of lies and blurted out the truth saying John came up from the basement screaming. That whole morning of events, as told by the Ramseys, IMO is a pack of lies -- starting with the dramatized 911 call. We get snippets of the truth by way of slips of the tongue. JMO

This is another indication that Patsy was having to make up "out of whole cloth" her version of what happened when she discovered "JonBenet was missing."

Haney is taking Patsy through the events of the morning of December 26th.

She has her stock story of finding the ransom note, finding JonBenet missing, screaming for John, calling 911. It's a neat package designed to show the actions of an innocent parent.

The difficulty comes when Patsy is pressed for details of this scenario.

Since events happened in a way other than what Patsy is trying to "sell" to investigators, she has trouble when asked questions such as, "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

She wasn't prepared for this question ... and so she has to ramble around and hunt for things to say that sound plausible.

Patsy is UNABLE to answer a "yes or no" question with a direct answer, and that inability is indicative of lying. Instead of answering Haney's question, she launches into a jumbled answer that includes what she HEARD, not just what she said when she calls for John.

The truth is obvious from a psycholinguistic standpoint that Patsy knew where JonBenet was the morning of December 26th, and that she was never truly missing. In order to make up an answer that fit the "missing" scenario in her head, Patsy had to try to SEARCH in her mind for a credible answer AND stall for time with words and phrases such as "like" "just" "you know" "I mean" "it was".

During that search through the muddle and web of lies, Patsy threw in information that was not asked for, and that is incongruent with the time frame of the question.



IMO

[BlueCrab]

Cherokee,

Your analyses of Patsy Ramsey's remarks are very revealing. I totally agree with what you say.

Do you have specialized training in this field, or does this kind of stuff just come naturally to you? In either event, please keep up the good work.

JMO

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

Your analyses of Patsy Ramsey's remarks are very revealing. I totally agree with what you say.

Do you have specialized training in this field, or does this kind of stuff just come naturally to you? In either event, please keep up the good work.

JMO

Thank you, BC, for the words of encouragement. The answer to both parts of your question is "yes." I have had professional training in the fields of psychology and linguistics, but as you know, we all tend to gravitate towards those areas in which we have an interest and a natural proficiency.

[Spade]

Excellent post.

[allan]

I agree that you have done a fine analysis of Patsy's response, Cherokee. Thanks very much for bringing your skills to bear on it. Perhaps you could help me with something else?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage and then decided, as your psycho-linguistic analysis demonstrates, to cover-up her rage killing. I still do not understand why she would have arranged THIS particular cover-up. Why stage a kidnapping/murder to cover-up an accident? As I've said previously, if the accident occurred in the bathroom, then surely one of the best ways to cover her tracks would be to spill water on the floor and come up with a scenario to show that JonBenet slipped. There would be problems, no doubt. The police might even be extremely suspicious and be disposed to bring charges. But the Ramseys were an influential family, and Patsy would almost certainly be able to ride out the storm. Since the Ramseys were, in fact, able to walk out of their house and stay away from the police after the body of their MURDERED and MOLESTED child had been discovered in their house under -- and this is an understatement, of course -- suspicious circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that they would have had no problem doing the same thing for an accidental death scenario.

What do you think prompted Patsy to come up with the kidnapping/murder scenario? Has she always been right round the twist and no one ever noticed? Flying into a rage and killing your child is, unfortunately, "normal" -- sometimes people snap and do things they will regret for the rest of their lives. But would you agree that the kidnapping/murder scenario indicates a different kind of personality altogether? This is someone who is wilfully evil, ice-cold, someone who is able to plan a double-bluff, and then demonstates the strength to deny, deny, deny so successfully that her husband, if he weren't involved, would believe her. (If her husband was involved, then new problems emerge that we don't need to get into right now.) There is, in other words, a profound dichotomy between the perception of Patsy prior to and after the murder; there also seems to be a split between the rage killer and the icy planner of the kidnapping/murder scenario.

As I said before, I agree with and applaud your ability to show how Patsy's speech betrays her. Could you apply your psychological training to help with this? I would very much appreciate it!

[TLynn]

I agree, Allan. The only thought I have in that regard - is a cover-up...for what? Sexual molestation. Why else would it not appear to be an accident or 911 called or a scenario such as you discribed.

It would have to be covered-up...why?

[BlueCrab]

I agree, Allan. The only thought I have in that regard - is a cover-up...for what? Sexual molestation. Why else would it not appear to be an accident or 911 called or a scenario such as you discribed.

It would have to be covered-up...why?


IMO Patsy is not covering up for herself or for John. She's covering up for Burke, and perhaps one or two other juveniles. I think the parents stumbled upon this gory and embarassing killing sometime in the morning around 3:00 or 3:30 A.M., children were involved (although one of them could have been a teen), and much of the bizarre staging had already been put in place by the children. The parents, once they decided to coverup the crime, had no choice but to pick up where the children had left off and put the finishing touches on the staging.

The crime scene, including the amateurish erotic asphyxiation device around JonBenet's neck (which likely killed her by accident), the overkill (strangulation and bash in the head), the size 12 panties someone put on her after death, and the silly ransom note, has children written all over it.

JMO

[Cherokee]

I agree that you have done a fine analysis of Patsy's response, Cherokee. Thanks very much for bringing your skills to bear on it. Perhaps you could help me with something else?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage and then decided, as your psycho-linguistic analysis demonstrates, to cover-up her rage killing. I still do not understand why she would have arranged THIS particular cover-up. Why stage a kidnapping/murder to cover-up an accident? As I've said previously, if the accident occurred in the bathroom, then surely one of the best ways to cover her tracks would be to spill water on the floor and come up with a scenario to show that JonBenet slipped. There would be problems, no doubt. The police might even be extremely suspicious and be disposed to bring charges. But the Ramseys were an influential family, and Patsy would almost certainly be able to ride out the storm. Since the Ramseys were, in fact, able to walk out of their house and stay away from the police after the body of their MURDERED and MOLESTED child had been discovered in their house under -- and this is an understatement, of course -- suspicious circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that they would have had no problem doing the same thing for an accidental death scenario.

What do you think prompted Patsy to come up with the kidnapping/murder scenario? Has she always been right round the twist and no one ever noticed? Flying into a rage and killing your child is, unfortunately, "normal" -- sometimes people snap and do things they will regret for the rest of their lives. But would you agree that the kidnapping/murder scenario indicates a different kind of personality altogether? This is someone who is wilfully evil, ice-cold, someone who is able to plan a double-bluff, and then demonstates the strength to deny, deny, deny so successfully that her husband, if he weren't involved, would believe her. (If her husband was involved, then new problems emerge that we don't need to get into right now.) There is, in other words, a profound dichotomy between the perception of Patsy prior to and after the murder; there also seems to be a split between the rage killer and the icy planner of the kidnapping/murder scenario.

As I said before, I agree with and applaud your ability to show how Patsy's speech betrays her. Could you apply your psychological training to help with this? I would very much appreciate it!

There are two things I know about this case:

1. Patsy wrote the ransom note

and

2. Patsy is lying about what happened on the night of December 25th and morning of December 26th.

Therefore, Patsy is involved in the cover-up of really happened to JonBenet.

I do not know that Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage or with premeditated intent. I do not know if Burke was involved, but he may have been. What I DO know is Patsy lied to investigators, and that it is her words and her handwriting in the ransom note.

Let's look at your suggested scenario. It is a valid question. Why would Patsy not call 911 if she flew into a rage while struggling with JBR in the bathroom, and as a result, JBR sustained a fatal head injury?

First of all, we have to look at Patsy's previous behavior and psychological tendencies. Patsy was raised to be image conscious, and to put more emphasis on the "outside" of the person, than the "inside." Apparently, even her home was a testament to that fact. The rooms seen by outsiders were well decorated, but the private family area was unkempt and dirty. Patsy made sure JonBenet had the finest in pageant clothes, and she dyed JBR's hair to make it blonder and put false eyelashes on her toddler in order to "perfect" JBR's image, but Patsy claims she didn't even know the last time JBR had a bath before her death. Everything about Patsy was for show.

An analysis of Patsy's handwriting shows she feels pressure to "perform" in order to be accepted. She craves attention and admiration. She is a perfectionist. She wants to be thought of as the person who has it all. What other people think of her is more important than what she thinks of herself.

Now, WHY would Patsy cover up what really happened to JonBenet? If what happened was an accident, why would she not just call 911 right away? Or take JBR to the hospital?

Obviously, something happened in Patsy's "perfect" world to make it imperfect, and the carefully crafted image of herself and her family was in danger of collapse. At the moment of JBR's death, it seemed more important to Patsy to protect that world than expose the truth.

What was that "imperfection," that truth?

I do not know the answer to that question. It is possible Patsy may have suspected (or known) of previous sexual molestation of JBR, and did not want evidence of that abuse found during a hospital examination.

It is also very possible that Patsy (under stress and alcohol/medication) had some type of psychotic break during a rage event, and made the irrational decision to cover up what happened to JBR, thinking it was necessary to preserve her family and her life. Later, she may have realized it was the wrong decision, but it was too late to turn back.

Obviously, Patsy had motive to cover up what happened to JonBenet if Burke was involved. Not being familiar with Colorado law, Patsy may have thought he could be charged and taken away from them for being involved in the alleged molestation and/or death of JonBenet.

The short answer to your question is I do not know why Patsy (and John) made the decision to cover up what really happened to JonBenet.

It involves some piece of the puzzle we do not have, but it was a decision made in haste and in shock and in fear. The Ramsey family dynamic was one of dysfunction and co-dependency. Patsy's pychological needs were lived out through JonBenet, while Burke was shoved to the perimeter of her attentions. John was a hard-driving businessman who left the details of family life to Patsy. He spent more time with his airplanes than he did with his children.

This alone does not make the Ramseys guilty of anything, but the fact they have tried to portray themselves as a "perfect" family with a "perfect" marriage speaks volumes. They cannot admit there were any faults because in their minds, to admit one imperfection brings their "perfect" image to nothing. Their self worth is based on image, not on substance.

This psychological need helps to explain why Patsy and John decided to cover up the truth of what happened to their daughter. The truth was not as important as maintaining what was left of their lives and their image. In their minds, the deed was done, it could not be undone. They rationalized that JonBenet was in a better place, that she would (as Patsy said) "never know cancer or the death of a child."

As they said less than a week after JonBenet's death, the Ramseys just wanted to "get on with their lives." That statement is a subconscious reference to the reason they covered up what really happened to JonBenet.


IMO

[Barbara]

As ALWAYS Cherokee,

Your posts are superb!

[BrotherMoon]

Cherokee, have you read The Psalms lately?

[Britt]

As ALWAYS Cherokee,

Your posts are superb!
Ditto that. Outstanding, Cherokee.

IMO, additionally, there was a subconscious force at work (in Patsy... a/k/a a mental illness)... and the prior vaginal abuse was also a key motivator in the coverup.

[Cherokee]

Cherokee, have you read The Psalms lately?

Yes, I have.

If you are referring to the religious iconography in Patsy's speech and the ransom note, there are several instances of psychological transference and imitation.


IMO

[VespaElf]

There are two things I know about this case:

1. Patsy wrote the ransom note

and

2. Patsy is lying about what happened on the night of December 25th and morning of December 26th.




I think those are the only two "facts"(IMO)that I'm 100% on.
It's the "why?" as well as the "who?" that remains a mystery ,

WHY did Patsy write the note and why has she,since the morning of the 26th, been "untruthful" about the events of that morning and the evening of the 25th and then WHO in the household killed JBR???(I belive it was a Ramsey family member and that all the other family members know who the murderer is).........................I also think that,unfortunately,this case,barring a miracle(i.e a confession!)will ,in our lifetimes,remain unsolved................

[Cherokee]

BrotherMoon -

I'm afraid there is no "thrilling" acumen. Perhaps another poster can fill your request.

My previous statement needs no further clarification as everyone here is capable of understanding its implications.

[Cherokee]

I think those are the only two "facts"(IMO)that I'm 100% on.
It's the "why?" as well as the "who?" that remains a mystery ,

WHY did Patsy write the note and why has she,since the morning of the 26th, been "untruthful" about the events of that morning and the evening of the 25th and then WHO in the household killed JBR???(I belive it was a Ramsey family member and that all the other family members know who the murderer is).........................I also think that,unfortunately,this case,barring a miracle(i.e a confession!)will ,in our lifetimes,remain unsolved................

I agree. Those missing ingredients are what makes this case so compelling.

I used think Patsy might "tell all" before she died, but I now believe her level of denial and rationalization is so great, it will never happen. Perhaps Burke, or some other family member, will tell the truth of what happened after John and Patsy are gone.


IMO

[allan]

I'm just curious about something. Please don't think that I think that I think better than any other thinker here thinks. Here goes ...

Why is John Ramsey essentially getting a free ride?

It seems to me that opinion on this forum is divided along these lines:

1) An Intruder (or Intruders) did it
2) Patsy did it alone
3) Patsy did it and John conspired with her to cover it up
4) Burke (or Burke and some friends) did it alone
5) Burke (or Burke and some friends) did it and then Patsy (sometimes Patsy and John) conspired to cover it up

No one seems to suggest that John did it and that Patsy then helped him cover it up. Patsy could still have written the ransom note and lied on the 911 call. She could have helped to stage the crime scene and done the other things that people believe she did. John, however, would have been both the abuser and the killer.

Why don't people think John committed the murder? Americans have a wonderful expression: "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." Vaginal abuse probably indicates sexual abuse. Sexual abuse, whether it be a one-time event or chronic, is "normally" committed by male perpetrators. Most male perpetrators are adolescents or adults. On the face of it, therefore, a very hard look should have been taken at John, and he should still be a prime suspect. But he isn't. Burke and Patsy seem to be the prime suspects. Why is that?

It seems to me that if Patsy had abused JonBenet's vagina in a bizarre form of corporal punishment, she would have been smart enough to recognize that when the police discovered the abuse they also would immediately think of horses, not zebras. In other words, she could have invented the accident scenario and counted on the probability that, after discovering the abuse, the police would have focused on John. Attention would have been diverted from the accident (and hence Patsy) to an investigation of the abuse and John as the probable abuser. John would be in the frame. Patsy would be perceived not only as the grieving mother but as a surviving, quasi "victim" -- particularly if she spoke out against John. This would have protected her and buttressed her public image.

But if, as seems likely, Patsy is involved in the cover-up, why is it still assumed that she killed JonBenet? Why has the belief that John abused and killed JonBenet and Patsy then helped cover it up fallen by the wayside? I really would like to know.

[K777angel]

Why don't people think John committed the murder?

John Ramsey was, of course, the first logical suspect for me. Of the 3 other people in the house that night other than JonBenet, her father would be the most likely suspect. When a little girl is sexually molested and there is an adult woman in the house, a young boy in the house and an adult male in the house at the time of the molestation - the obvious suspect is going to be the adult male.

But when more facts started to come out that pointed most strongly at Patsy Ramsey (the note, her fibers in the knot on the cord around the neck & in the paint tote where part of the murder weapon came from, her wearing the same clothing she had on the night before when the police arrived, her time-line of when she 'awoke' and what she claimed to have accomplished in that 22 minute time frame NOT being reaslistic or believable, her trouble with passing their paid-for polygraphs, her lies about Burke being asleep that morning...) - I had a hard time believing that she would completely defend and stand by her husband if he had done such horrible things to her beloved JonBenet.
I did NOT however, have a hard time at all believing that not only SHE - but John would have done anything and everything in their power to hide the truth of what happened if their young son Burke had molested his sister and accidentally killed her.
It is the ONLY scenario IMO that makes sense with everything we know and have watch unfold in the past 7 years.

If it were not for the note that has Patsy's signature ALL OVER it - I would probably give more thought to John Ramsey having committed this crime.
And I suppose it still is a possibility - but remote in my opinion.

There is one piece of evidence though that makes me wonder about John - his black shirt fibers found in JonBenet's crotch according to Mike Kane.
How did those get there? And why?

[Wrangler]

I believe John was looked at very carefully in the initial days of the investigation for just those reasons.
Then Steve Thomas came on the scene and the entire focus shifted to Patsy. ST also gave JR a "pass" on being involved in any way with this crime.

Too many people followed Steve Thomas's theory of what happened and who did it, even if they didn't agree on why it happened (bed wetting).
Everyone thought he was the lead detective and should know since he saw the evidence first hand. Personally I think ST saw only what he wanted to see, fixated on Patsy because of her demeanor and way of questioning their questions.

Too many people dismissed that Patsy said she would gladly take a polygraph, as many as they needed, yet John said he would be "insulted" if asked to take one. ST dismissed that completely as well. If Patsy killed her daughter I don't believe she would have instantly said "Yes! I'll take one. I'll take a hundred if that's what you need to move on and look at someone else" (paraphrased).

Only someone with something to hide would refuse to take one or be "insulted" if asked to take one.

John even refused to take one to keep his CEO job with Lockheed Martin. What does that tell us?

[BlueCrab]

Very good points re' John being the possible molester and killer.

However, one of the things that eliminated both John and Patsy for me was the childish sounding wording in the ransom note, which to me pointed to Burke.

Probably the second thing that tended to eliminate the parents for me was the circling of the wagons by the entire Ramsey family, including the Paughs. I don't think they would have shielded John -- but would have shielded Burke.

There are many other items of evidence that, IMO, tend to incriminate Burke -- including the behavior of the GJ, the Boulder authorities, and the court following the 13-month investigation by the jurors. I think they solved the case.

JMO

[BrotherMoon]

However, one of the things that eliminated both John and Patsy for me was the childish sounding wording in the ransom note, which to me pointed to Burke.

Ya, words like adequate, attache', exhausting, deviation, monitor, hence, particularly, provoke, situation, tampered, devices, scanned, deceive, countermeasures, scrutiny, underestimate, all typical of a nine year old's lexicon. Not to mention the punctuation, especially the commas, only nine year olds can be as accurate as that. And the sentence structure and math such as; "You will withdraw $118,000 from your account, $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,ooo in $20 bills." - Pure nine year old there!

Brrrriiiillliiiaaaannntttt!!!!! as usual BC.

[BlueCrab]

Ya, words like adequate, attache', exhausting, deviation, monitor, hence, particularly, provoke, situation, tampered, devices, scanned, deceive, countermeasures, scrutiny, underestimate, all typical of a nine year old's lexicon. Not to mention the punctuation, especially the commas, only nine year olds can be as accurate as that. And the sentence structure and math such as; "You will withdraw $118,000 from your account, $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,ooo in $20 bills." - Pure nine year old there!

Brrrriiiillliiiaaaannntttt!!!!! as usual BC.


Six professional handwriting examiners were unable to eliminate Burke Ramsey as the writer of the ransom note.

JMO

[nanandjim]

I...John said he would be "insulted" if asked to take one.... .Only someone with something to hide would refuse to take one or be "insulted" if asked to take one.

John even refused to take one to keep his CEO job with Lockheed Martin. What does that tell us?
Interesting. Anyone with half a brain knows that police need to eliminate the inner circle first. This includes taking polygraph tests. If John refused to take the test, he apparently didn't care that this kept LE from focusing on looking for the "real" killers. This, combined with carrying JB's body upstairs, looks pretty darned suspicious to me. Again, anyone with half a brain, would know not to disturb the body or crimescene. My main thought would be to leave everything intact, so any clue that the killer may have left might be found.

[Cain]

If Patsy killed her daughter I don't believe she would have instantly said "Yes! I'll take one. I'll take a hundred if that's what you need to move on and look at someone else" (paraphrased).

Only someone with something to hide would refuse to take one or be "insulted" if asked to take one.

John even refused to take one to keep his CEO job with Lockheed Martin. What does that tell us?

It's not the same to say that you will do something and doing it. You can even brag "yes, I'll do it", while you think "I won't in a biliion years".

Patsy (and John) also told in TV that the would took FBI polygraphs.... and when the moment came, they didn't, making out some excuses. At last, they took private polygraphs, done by an "entertainer" polygrapher with a fake curriculum and a partner who "could chat with vegetables through his polygraph". Well, we all know that.

Otherwise, I dind't know that John refused a polygraph to keep his CEO job. Can you give me sources to that?

---------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion

[halycon]

Blue Crab, in all this time why haven't you been able to get a sample of Burke's handwriting to conclude your point? If you had one and found it was in no way similar to the ransom note, would you stop blaming this boy? Or would we ever hear that from you?

[Ivy]

I think that most BDIers, myself included, believe that although Burke is responsible for JonBenet's death, John and Patsy staged the coverup, and Patsy wrote the note.

imo

[Spade]

You might both be sort-of right. IMO it is possible that Burke may have participated in the drafting of the note during the weeks prior to JonBenet's death. That rough draft could have then be used by Patsy as the basis for the note she wrote and then "found" on the stairs.

I find it hard to believe that Patsy was smart/centered enough to write that 3 page piece of nonsense off the top of her head AFTER she knew her daughter was dead.

[BlueCrab]

I think that most BDIers, myself included, believe that although Burke is responsible for JonBenet's death, John and Patsy staged the coverup, and Patsy wrote the note.


Ivy,

Yes, that's a neat little BDI package and you're probably right, but I prefer to hang loose on who wrote the ransom note. There appears to be too much juvenile male jargon in the naive note for Patsy to have written it. One of my BDI theories has a male teen as the author and Burke as the scribe. Another possibility is Burke wrote it and Patsy rewrote it (the nine missing pages from the notepad).

JMO

[BrotherMoon]

Six professional handwriting examiners were unable to eliminate Burke Ramsey as the writer of the ransom note.JMO

And what does that have to do with the choice of words, punctuation and sentence structure all well beyond the scope of a nine year old? Sheese, build a case.

The note does sound juvenile but adults can sound juvenile while juveniles really can't pull off sounding like an adult. It's called regression. ST comments on that nature of Patsy's. The reason the note sounds juvenile is Patsy was in a regression when she wrote it, emotionally juvenile but still with the technical grasp of an adult.

[Britt]

The note does sound juvenile but adults can sound juvenile while juveniles really can't pull off sounding like an adult. It's called regression.
And as must be pointed out every time BlueCrab mentions the juvenile-sounding note:

From the NE hugs-and-cookies interview re Burke and the 911 call:

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." - Patsy Ramsey

And she wasn't even in a temporary psychotic state or shock or anything (that we know of).

[BrotherMoon]

And as must be pointed out every time BlueCrab mentions the juvenile-sounding note:

From the NE hugs-and-cookies interview re Burke and the 911 call:

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." - Patsy Ramsey

And she wasn't even in a temporary psychotic state or shock or anything (that we know of).

Children are innocent, ergo, if I act childish I'm innocent. Works for me!

[scandi]

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." - Patsy Ramsey

Bizarre statement for a mother to make whose daughter has just been murdered. When was this statement made by her? If it was soon after the murder it would tell me the death was not a surprise to her.

And somehow I can't see the mother writing this note ahead of the murder for anyone. This would mean she knew Jon Bennet was going to die before she was killed.


Scandi

[solosamtheman]

Ivy,

Yes, that's a neat little BDI package and you're probably right, but I prefer to hang loose on who wrote the ransom note. There appears to be too much juvenile male jargon in the naive note for Patsy to have written it. One of my BDI theories has a male teen as the author and Burke as the scribe. Another possibility is Burke wrote it and Patsy rewrote it (the nine missing pages from the notepad).

JMO
Has anyone ever considered the possiblity that the perp wanted to give the impression that he or she was a bungling idiot to throw folks off course? After all, people get very careless around someone whom they percieve as stupid and it makes it much easier to keep tabs on anyone who might be a threat to you, including those investigating the crime. Police will question suspects in a much different fashion when they percieve them as "stupid" thereby exposing the intentions of their questions and allowing the person to keep a reasonable asumption about their progress in solving the crime. But then what do I know? Sometimes I'm not too bright myself :doh: :doh: :doh:

[Wrangler]

Has anyone ever considered the possiblity that the perp wanted to give the impression that he or she was a bungling idiot to throw folks off course?

Do you mean like John's 1998 deposition where he kept saying things like, "shucks", "ah gee", "ask Fleet White, he knows about knots" (as if John didn't). The depo used to be online, I don't know if it is anymore.

[Ivy]

John may not be a "bungling idiot," but he has a big memory lapse in the Oct. 20, 1998 depo when it comes to remembering to mention the Stines as friends. He goes so far as to mention a neighbor whose last name he can't even recall, but he still doesn't mention the Stines. How strange.

16 Q. I'm looking for, you know, as best you can, a


17 comprehensive list of your friend and associates.


18 A. Friends -- they typically revolved around


19 children. John and Barbara Fernie, Fleet and Priscilla


20 White, Larry and Pinky Barber. I think those are probably


21 our three --


22 Q. The top of the list?


23 A. Yeah.


24 Q. How about any others that you would consider to


25 have been social acquaintances on a friendly basis?


Page 39


1 A. There were lots of people that would fall in


2 that category by the end of five years.


3 Q. I know it's daunting, but as best you can, if we


4 can get a list of as many of those as you recall today, it


5 would be very helpful, please.


6 MR. CRAVER: Social acquaintances on a friendly


7 basis?


8 MR. HILL: Right.


9 MR. CRAVER: People that you knew through the


10 church, activities through the church, things of that


11 nature, through work?


12 Q. Who would be invited to your house for dinner,


13 for example?


14 A. Well, our neighbors across the street, Betty and


15 Joe Barnhill. We had Betsy -- I can't think of their last


16 names. Roxy and Stewart Walker. We knew lots of people,


17 but then that's kind of the people we socialized with.


18 Q. Is that pretty much the complete list of people


19 that you would want to spend time with?


20 A. I don't know if it's a complete list. It's all


21 that comes to mind. Penny and Dr. Buff.


22 Q. If more names do come to mind between now and


23 when you review the transcript, if you don't mind just


24 inking that in so we have the best, most complete list we


25 can get, I would appreciate that.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html

imo

[Seeker]

Yeah, Susan Stine was just an "aquaintance" that flew with Patsy to New York City for some shopping and answered the Ramsey's door and made that excuse about the 911 call, right before JonBenet was murdered. But hey! They were just aqauintances. :rolleyes:

I have my "aquaintances" answer my door and make my excuses for me too....TIC.

[Show Me]

It's not the same to say that you will do something and doing it. You can even brag "yes, I'll do it", while you think "I won't in a biliion years".

Patsy (and John) also told in TV that the would took FBI polygraphs.... and when the moment came, they didn't, making out some excuses. At last, they took private polygraphs, done by an "entertainer" polygrapher with a fake curriculum and a partner who "could chat with vegetables through his polygraph". Well, we all know that.

Otherwise, I dind't know that John refused a polygraph to keep his CEO job. Can you give me sources to that?

---------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion

Just like the Ramseys.....talk the big talk on tv and in reality do nothing.

John and Patsy...will take a hundred polygraphs, FBI sponsored polys, police, ask us questions round the clock. BUT when the time comes to produce action for the big words...ahhh, noooo, we'll go get our own polygraphs proving our innocence. Might need a week to pass one.

-------
Foundation: Gonna change the laws to protect children, going to do great things, will make a difference. Result...a few token donations.

It's my opinion the voters in Michigan, wheither they believe John's innocence or not, simply won't vote John into office because of his track record of saying BIG things and doing nothing.

[Misty]

Your post is very well thought out and intelligent.

This is one of the main reasons there are many of the Burke did it belief. It is hard to understand why any parent would cover for another parent, especially with sexual assault that has been called chronic. But some can in fact, imagine a scenario where both parents would cover for a family member, especially their own child.


I don't find that hard to believe at all. It happens on a daily basis from covering incest in the household to incest that involves murder. Denial comes to mind along with guilt and blackmail.

Look, a situational molester -- not a pedophile -- a situational molester: what trigger them? Usually it is traumatic events that occur in their lives that become the catalyst for incest. What had John experienced recently in his life? Death -- death of his daughter and mother and Patsy's fight with cancer. I'm sure there was a point when they weren't sure if Patsy was going to go into remission and death was a possibility. There are no two ways about it -- that's fertile ground for incest.

How many women, even today, will lie for their husband when confronted with abuse issues? How many women will turn their heads and deny the abuse exists? Sad to say, but this is still a very strong response to abuse.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Barbara
This is one of the main reasons there are many of the Burke did it belief. It is hard to understand why any parent would cover for another parent, especially with sexual assault that has been called chronic.
I'm a BDIer, but I didn't arrive there by eliminating John and Patsy, thinking they were too fine and upstanding to have molested and killed JonBenet or that they wouldn't have covered for each other. I arrived at the Burke-did-it scenario because certain aspects of the crime (just for starters, the "gentle" vaginal penetration with a finger or an object, as well as the broken art brush handle tied onto the end of the ligature cord, both of which I know are typical of something boys would do) and the lies John and Patsy told to try to disassociate Burke from any of the events of that night, strongly suggest to me that Burke killed JonBenet, although perhaps unintentionally.

imo

[Misty]

I'm a BDIer, but I didn't arrive there by eliminating John and Patsy, thinking they were too fine and upstanding to have molested and killed JonBenet or that they wouldn't have covered for each other. I arrived at the Burke-did-it scenario because certain aspects of the crime (just for starters, the "gentle" vaginal penetration with a finger or an object, as well as the broken art brush handle tied onto the end of the ligature cord, both of which I know are typical of something boys would do) and the lies John and Patsy told to try to disassociate Burke from any of the events of that night, strongly suggest to me that Burke killed JonBenet, although perhaps unintentionally.

imo

I have to admit I've considered Burke. To me, only one of two scenarios are plausible to merit John and Patsy having elaborately covered up this crime as they did.
1. Burke did it accidentally; or,
2. John was molesting JonBenet; Patsy walks in, sees John and JonBenet and bam! she goes to strick John, missing and hits JonBenet instead.

If you substitue the "gentle molestation" that occurred that night with "gentle molestation as part of staging to cover prior abuse" it's not all that difficult to put Patsy and John as the murderers.

Forgot to add: Another reason I discount Burke is because Limpy is to ready to sue on John's behalf -- way back when -- he's not as likely to sue when it's John and Patsy killed JonBenet.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Misty
If you substitute the "gentle molestation" that occurred that night with "gentle molestation as part of staging to cover prior abuse" it's not all that difficult to put Patsy and John as the murderers.
Why would John and/or Patsy, to hide evidence of prior sexual abuse, injure JonBenet's vagina postmortem, and then try to hide evidence of that injury by wiping her body down and changing her panties?

Anyway, regarding internal physical indications of prior sexual abuse, how would John or Patsy know there were any?

As for the Ramseys and Wood filing the lawsuits on behalf of Burke, Wood, threatening to file suit against the city of Boulder, had coerced Hunter into signing an affidavit which, although it didn't exonerate Burke or clear him, stated that no evidence had been developed that would elevate Burke from the "witness" level to the "suspect" level. That was all the ammunition the Rs and Wood needed to begin their lawsuit frenzy.

imo

[Britt]

I don't find that hard to believe at all. It happens on a daily basis from covering incest in the household to incest that involves murder. Denial comes to mind along with guilt and blackmail.

Look, a situational molester -- not a pedophile -- a situational molester: what trigger them? Usually it is traumatic events that occur in their lives that become the catalyst for incest. What had John experienced recently in his life? Death -- death of his daughter and mother and Patsy's fight with cancer. I'm sure there was a point when they weren't sure if Patsy was going to go into remission and death was a possibility. There are no two ways about it -- that's fertile ground for incest.

How many women, even today, will lie for their husband when confronted with abuse issues? How many women will turn their heads and deny the abuse exists? Sad to say, but this is still a very strong response to abuse.
Excellent post, Misty. I completely agree with you.

It's also possible John and/or Patsy lied and spun big stories to each other about the crime... maybe one of them really doesn't know the whole true story. Maybe the crime was presented as much more of an "accident" than it really was. Or maybe the guilty party implicated Burke so the other party would help with the coverup.

Another possibility: mental illness. I think it's possible Patsy had/has a mental illness and if she did the crime alone, IMO John protected her and got her private help rather than turn her over to police. But IMO, whether or not she did the crime alone, John was involved somehow in the whole tragedy (e.g. as molester).

[Misty]

Why would John and/or Patsy, to hide evidence of prior sexual abuse, injure JonBenet's vagina postmortem, and then try to hide evidence of that injury by wiping her body down and changing her panties?

Anyway, regarding internal physical indications of prior sexual abuse, how would John or Patsy know there were any?

As for the Ramseys and Wood filing the lawsuits on behalf of Burke, Wood, threatening to file suit against the city of Boulder, had coerced Hunter into signing an affidavit which, although it didn't exonerate Burke or clear him, stated that no evidence had been developed that would elevate Burke from the "witness" level to the "suspect" level. That was all the ammunition the Rs and Wood needed to begin their lawsuit frenzy.

imo


Wiping her body down and changing her panties would eliminate some external evidence. In their guilt-ridden, frenzied state, they may have even hoped no autopsy would be performed -- who knows. As far as how did they knew there would be internal damage -- wouldn't one just assume there would be damage? More importantly, how could they take the chance that there would be? Given Patsy's "perfect" world, there's no way in hell she could take that chance.

That's true that Hunter issued that affidavit regarding Burke in 10/00, which fueled the fires for lawsuits on Burke's behalf.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Misty
In their guilt-ridden, frenzied state, they may have even hoped no autopsy would be performed -- who knows.
I think John and Patsy knew the body would be examined to some degree, but maybe they were hoping that if there were no outward signs of sexual abuse, the vagina wouldn't be. In case it was, however, they couldn't try to pass JonBenet's death off as an accident, because an accident wouldn't explain the vaginal trauma. Had it not been for that, they might have been able to stage the scene to make it appear as if JonBenet had accidentally been hanged or strangled by a cord when she fell down some stairs. (I doubt that John and Patsy knew she'd been struck on the head and that her skull was fractured.)

I don't believe John or Patsy defiled JonBenet's body in any way during the staging, nor at any other time. I believe all the injuries on JonBenet's body were caused by Burke, who, in my opinion, unintentionally took JonBenet's life as the result of sexual play (maybe erotic asphixiation) that took a wrong turn when he inserted the broken paint stick into her vagina to "explore," and without meaning to, hurt her.

imo

[Britt]

I think John and Patsy knew the body would be examined to some degree, but maybe they were hoping that if there were no outward signs of sexual abuse, the vagina wouldn't be. In case it was, however, they couldn't try to pass JonBenet's death off as an accident, because an accident wouldn't explain the vaginal trauma.
I agree, Ivy. I also agree that the vaginal abuse wasn't staged.

Yet the staging wasn't intended to present a sexual attack IMO, because that aspect of it was hidden -- wiped up, covered up. The ransom note clearly presented the crime as a kidnapping for ransom by terrorists (foreign faction)... not a pedophile or sex killer.

The stager(s) wanted her/their audience to look at the ransom note and the thing around JB's neck -- a simple cord transformed into a "garrote" for dramatic effect. The stager(s) did not want the audience to notice the head injury and the vaginal abuse. This means the head injury and the vaginal abuse are the clues to what really happened.

[Tricia]

But, it didn't seem outlandish to the detectives, or the CASKU unit of the FBI that investigates child abduction and serial killers, on a daily basis. I would tend to think that this would be agroup of investigators who have "seen it all."

There's been a lot of specualtion, whether or not Patsy had a touch of one of the "Cluster B" disorders... and I think there is a strong possibility of that. Several of the Cluster B disorders abuse/use sex as a means to control, or, have some kind of problem with it, (such as sexual addiction). (What comes to mind is Sante & Kenny Kimes.)

To me, John is full blown narcissist. But that's

jmho, of course. :D

My friends you need to listen to sproket. Sproket has Patsy and John nailed psychologically.

Sproket can you identify more of the "Cluster B's" and who falls into that category? That way we can identify Patsy easier when you talk about Cluster B types.

[Ivy]

Britt, though I don't think we agree on who killed JonBenet, I believe your post is soooo right (well, except about the head wound, which I'm not sure John or Patsy knew about). In their staging, the Rs tried desperately to deflect attention away from the truth of what happened. JonBenet's pubic area was wiped down and her panties changed. The phony ransom note contained no sexual overtones, no disgusting sexual threats toward JonBenet, even though the "intruder," who obviously knew quite a bit about the Ramseys, would have known that JonBenet was a pedophile's dream come true...so it would have been natural for the Rs to have created a pedophile intruder. But they didn't. Why? I think, like you do, that they didn't want the true, sexual aspect of what happened to become known (maybe they weren't sure if they'd wiped her down well enough), and were trying to direct attention away from JonBenet's genital area. I think that's one reason the attention-grabbing "garrote" was left in place, even though Patsy's fibers entwined in the knot suggest she may have initially tried to remove the thing.

imo

[trixie]

In the 2000 interviews John was being asked about when he carried Jonbenet upstairs and put her to bed. He said he removed her shoes and coat, or just the coat and couldn't remember shoes or visa versa. (I don't have it in front of me to read.) Anyway I thought it was odd that when he was asked if he noticed if Jonbenet had underwear on he said "I think I would have noticed if she didn't." I'm not quoting but you get the gist. Why would he have noticed something like that if he only removed her shoes and/or coat? How would anyone even know unless her pants were pulled down? Am I reading this incorrectly in the transcripts?

[BrotherMoon]

Another possibility: mental illness.

Moral illness. Moral illness first, then mental illness.

It's not in the brain, it's in the decision making.

[newtv]

you guys are very convincing- I have never really believed the ramseys were/are guilty- but the more i read I certainly see why so many here do- if these things are true or proveable they would be guilty for sure..

I take one issue with the above post on moral=mental illness
Mental illness is not a decision - a poor decision - a morally corrupt one- it is as real as cancer - and noone would treat a person with cancer the way they would and do treat the mentally ill.
noone would accuse the cancer patient of creating their own cancer- of relapsing on purpose- or of not fighting for their lives..
Chemo therapy or radiation for cancer is no different than electric shock treatment or medication cocktails that the mentally ill take- they lose their hair, their memories, their ability to enjoy sex, and on an on - most people desert them- insurance companies dont pay for their treatment and so on- It is unadulterated ignorance to equate moral coruptness with mental illness - its irresponsible and just plain over the line- There is no relationship between morals and mental illness as a cause of it-its 99 percent biological- and it kills more people than cancer does..please think about what you are saying before you lump some of the most vulnerable in society in with those who may chose to kill or who operate from some other morality than most- If you had mental illness for one day you would weep for those inflicted.

[BrotherMoon]

newt, the fact that you have looked at this case and see the Ramseys innocent disqualifies you as a logician.

Your post is an great example of the failure of scientific materialism.

It is a common discussion in the annals of depth psychology as to how the lack of moral development and the subsequent social impairment and decision making impairment leads to brain pathway "cementing", behavior that is so difficult to correct that any attempt to do so leads to disociation of some sort. The question of an organic or psychic cause of mental illness is not clearly answered.

The mind is not just in the brain and we are not just a bunch of chemicals as you adherents of scientific materialism would like to think. Most myth systems regard people as spiritual beings in a material body. Your weltenschaung is a PHILOSOPHY, not the entire truth. I equate spirit with psyche.

The equation of mental illness with cancer as having one and only one type of pathogenesis is idiotic. The psyche is affected by it's own behavior with irreversible consequences to the body.

Clearly brain and chemical process abnormalities cause behavior problems, but to limit the human experience to the function of matter is a PHILOSOPHY. Your way of thinking is limited, arrogant and self congratulatory and doomed for the historical junk heap.

But! Congratulations on your Little Bo Peep diploma, what ever it is.

[newtv]

brothermoon- the fact that you disqualify anyone for anything speaks to your ignorance on all levels- I wont argue with you about it- if you had read past your nose you would see that I am saying- I have always thot them innocent until proven guilty but the info on htis thread is very convincing-however- nice try- the real issue is that you judged an entire group of vulnerable people in society and are not even big enough to take responsibility for the poor taste you are showing-

I dont get sidetracked by the innocence or guilt of the ramseys on htis matter- I challenge you to get your facts straight about mental illness- and leave the vulnerable out of your riteous judging..you need the help with your logic not me..
One thing is to think the ramseys are morally corrupt- please dont make the entire population inflicted with mental illness morally currupt - there is no relationship and you have no idea what you are talking about when u think u do
I wont respond again- my post is to those who know mental illness is not a choice-not to persuade the ignorant..argue with your own myopia I dont care to engage further and anyone informed knows that there is no relationship between the variables spewed forth in your post - wrecklessly so at that.

[BrotherMoon]

I didn't say mental illness was a choice.

I said lack of moral development leads to difficulty in decision making and the repeating loop this creates can lead to irreversible constitutional effects on the brain resulting in behavior patterns that are termed pathological.

Editted for personal attacks.

[newtv]

my unwillingness to dialogue has to do with your judgements before a dialogue can begin- remember - I am disqualified as a logician..so think about how you create an environment where u cant be supported for anything- cuz name calling is a good place to stop a dialogue before it gets going- look at yourself not at me..creating a climate where one can dialogue is as much your responsibility as mine-and what I wont get caught up in is the innocence or guilt of the ramseys as it relates to your comment about mental illness and what comes first..if you meant something else so be it- but its your words- I didnt make them up and all u had to say is what you just did- not disqualify another poster from having anything useful to add.
There is a real interplay between the two- (meaning - how you talk to another poster and whether they want to "dialogue" with you in the future..I dont need to prove anything to you- I just wouldnt want anyone with mental illness or with it in their families to read your post and feel the shame that such carelessness creates..thats my issue- not the ramseys and I made that very clear..my mind is changing about their innocence..because of what I am reading here- and if it were true (which isnt a statement about anyone-but a statement about-if these are the facts, then they are looking very bad)..and this is my last post..I dont find it a useful way to spend my time- whatever u think is yours to think- I simply don't think your reasoning was as innocuous as you are saying now- but if that was the intention then fine- I can accept it at face value.

[Britt]

The equation of mental illness with cancer as having one and only one type of pathogenesis is idiotic. The psyche is affected by it's own behavior with irreversible consequences to the body.
What I wonder is this: how much conscious control did Patsy (IMO) have over the deeper forces at work?

IMO the "mental" vs. "moral" question (in this case) has to do with powerlessness vs. deliberate acts.

[BrotherMoon]

What I wonder is this: how much conscious control did Patsy (IMO) have over the deeper forces at work?

IMO the "mental" vs. "moral" question (in this case) has to do with powerlessness vs. deliberate acts.

Whew! Britt to the rescue, great question.

According to depth psychology, there can be a moral aspect to the descent into psychosis, a preference for fantasy over consciousness. Also the deliberateness of the actions is in question as segments of the behavior patterns can be pre-existing in the mythic fantasy and the sufferer only participates in them without thinking them up on their own.

I say Patsy's crime was just one part in a mythic fantasy that came about as a compensation for lack of identity development. Patsy acted the part of wife, mother, daughter, southern belle, etc, while internally her moral development remained juvenile along with her natural identity. This is well described in books on borderline personality disorder.

[newtv]

I truly have never believed the ramseys had anything to do with this murder, but the more I read all the threads here the more I question them too- you guys are very thorough and I have lots of respect for the posts here- I guess I might have to move to sitting on the fence which I dont do very well- usually I take a look at it and seem to get an impression by instinct-I did not realize some of the nuances of the case-anyhow- thanks for all the hard work done by all of you - not just this thread- its a pleasure to learn new things- I think it must be the same as being in a jury room and hearing stuff you did not know and then forming a new opinion as it unfolds..

[newtv]

I think John and Patsy knew the body would be examined to some degree, but maybe they were hoping that if there were no outward signs of sexual abuse, the vagina wouldn't be. In case it was, however, they couldn't try to pass JonBenet's death off as an accident, because an accident wouldn't explain the vaginal trauma. Had it not been for that, they might have been able to stage the scene to make it appear as if JonBenet had accidentally been hanged or strangled by a cord when she fell down some stairs. (I doubt that John and Patsy knew she'd been struck on the head and that her skull was fractured.)

I don't believe John or Patsy defiled JonBenet's body in any way during the staging, nor at any other time. I believe all the injuries on JonBenet's body were caused by Burke, who, in my opinion, unintentionally took JonBenet's life as the result of sexual play (maybe erotic asphixiation) that took a wrong turn when he inserted the broken paint stick into her vagina to "explore," and without meaning to, hurt her.

imo
Ivy- thanks for this info- interesting to me who has never considered burke as being big enough to do this kind of thing- can u help me out on that - I ask this respectfully- he seemed like a scrawny-fine boned little boy and I wondered how it could result in a murder..did they take his dna do you know?
Much appreciation:):clap:

[Ivy]

Hi, newtv...Burke, though slender, wasn't scrawny. He was in Little League baseball and also liked to rollerblade, so he wasn't a weakling either. At the time of JonBenet's death, Burke was almost as tall as Patsy. Here's a photo (http://www.maketoast.com/noframes/JBRamsey/familyfriendspic/burkewithjonbenet.jpg) taken of Burke and JonBenet a few years or so before she died. As you can see, there was a remarkable difference in height between them, even then.

I'm quite sure Burke gave a DNA sample. With all the hoopla about how his DNA doesn't match the DNA in the CODIS sample, he better have!

imo

[newtv]

if he gave a sample and it didnt match-how is it that you think he may be the killer?/ just asking not arguing- I really do not see him as being big enough-but I do not know what he is like up close or was at that time..

[Ivy]

newtv... Many of us here at WS don't believe the DNA that was entered into the databank was connected to the crime. The DNA, which had to be artificially amplified in order to obtain enough markers to qualify for the database, came from the panties found on JonBenet's body--new panties that had never been worn before, or at least never laundered. Investigators agree that if the DNA is real and not "stutter," a false positive resulting from the amplification process, among other innocent possibilities it could have come from a store customer who might have opened the package to look at the panties, or from a worker in the Asian factory that manufactured them. (WS poster Shylock dubbed the Asian factory worker "Sum Yung Gai." When you see the name, you'll now know whom we're referring to. :cool: )

I don't understand what you think Burke might not have been big enough to do. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cyril Wecht said there was nothing about what was done to JonBenet that someone Burke's age at the time couldn't have done, and Michael Baden said he thought Burke "needs to be looked at." Both men are top forensic experts.

imo

[Brefie]

Brother Moon....

You need a hand off that VERY high horse of yours?

[Shylock]

if he gave a sample and it didnt match-how is it that you think he may be the killer?
newtv,
Click on this link, read this article for your answer:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html

[BrotherMoon]

Brother Moon....

You need a hand off that VERY high horse of yours?

No thanks, the view is too good.

[newtv]

newtv... Many of us here at WS don't believe the DNA that was entered into the databank was connected to the crime. The DNA, which had to be artificially amplified in order to obtain enough markers to qualify for the database, came from the panties found on JonBenet's body--new panties that had never been worn before, or at least never laundered. Investigators agree that if the DNA is real and not "stutter," a false positive resulting from the amplification process, among other innocent possibilities it could have come from a store customer who might have opened the package to look at the panties, or from a worker in the Asian factory that manufactured them. (WS poster Shylock dubbed the Asian factory worker "Sum Yung Gai." When you see the name, you'll now know whom we're referring to. :cool: )

I don't understand what you think Burke might not have been big enough to do. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cyril Wecht said there was nothing about what was done to JonBenet that someone Burke's age at the time couldn't have done, and Michael Baden said he thought Burke "needs to be looked at." Both men are top forensic experts.

imo
ok I knew about the dna sample from the undies- I thot maybe there was other dna around her that would identify a family member- though i suppose its all too hard given the transfer factor-so I was wondering if they found any of burkes dna in a semen sample or whatever ..I just see him as too small to do it- it doesnt seem like he would be big enough - strong enough to kill her (I dont have an answer beyond that-it just didnt seem like he would be able to carry this out and be such a small kid-)..he seems frail to me- fine bones- not particularily boyish even-not capable of all the stuff that took place-like strangling her etc..I dont have any other reason except my gut reaction to him at the time and his size, age, etc..
I thot maybe the other ramsey kids but they had gone home on the plane before this occured so they did not do it..seems like an adult crime to me..(meaning someone in their 20'-50's)..i think older not younger actually..
I do not say I am right-I somehow see it being someone other than patsy and john is what I have contended-and eliminated burke for the reasons given and the reports that he wasnt a suspect..etc..

[Ivy]

newtv, there was no semen found at the crime scene...including no semen on the body or in its orifices. The autopsy revealed slight vaginal trauma and minor bleeding. One area of trauma is thought to have been evidence of prior sexual abuse. In the other area, the trauma was acute and suggested digital penetration or "gentle" penetration with an object. Some of us WSers believe the art brush (the "paint stick") was that object. The finger/object scenarios both sound very kidlike to me. Some posters consider it outlandish to think Burke could be the killer. Based on the evidence, I don't. I agree with Drs. Wecht and Baden that there was nothing done to JonBenet that Burke couldn't have done, and that he needs to be looked at.

Burke was never looked at as a suspect, only as a witness. He was treated with kid gloves in his interviews, and any peculiar behavior or responses of his were attributed to the likelihood he was covering for his parents, whom he might be afraid of, and/or that he was traumatized over JonBenet's death, so his reluctance to talk about it was "understandable...poor kid." Despite the Rs' lawyer Lin Wood's insistence, DA Hunter refused to sign an affidavit Wood drew up declaring Burke was cleared. Hunter did sign the revision, however, which stated only that no evidence had been developed to support naming Burke a suspect.

imo

[solosamtheman]

But, it didn't seem outlandish to the detectives, or the CASKU unit of the FBI that investigates child abduction and serial killers, on a daily basis. I would tend to think that this would be agroup of investigators who have "seen it all."

There's been a lot of specualtion, whether or not Patsy had a touch of one of the "Cluster B" disorders... and I think there is a strong possibility of that. Several of the Cluster B disorders abuse/use sex as a means to control, or, have some kind of problem with it, (such as sexual addiction). (What comes to mind is Sante & Kenny Kimes.)

To me, John is full blown narcissist. But that's

jmho, of course. :DA friend of mine has been working with sex offenders for some time now and as far as a mother abusing her daughter in that way is nothing new to him and as far as an older brother abusing his little sister in that way is surely nothing new to him. When I consider his job, it makes me think I might prefer being a test dummy.

[solosamtheman]

Does anyone still believe that it could have happened this way? John may have been molesting JB and Patsy walked in and saw what he was doing, she then swings an object at John and hits JB in the head instead. This is what I thought way back in 96 but have changed my mind since, believing that it was Patsy that lost it and pushed or shoved JB in her bathroom and she hit her head on a fixture, the rest was a cover up.
I don't particularly believe that happened but let me throw this one at you since I have a freind who works with offenders. While he never discusses any one person in particular he does share alot about the profiles. motives, actions and factors involved in that kind of activity. One item of interest in relation to what you've suggested is that in the cases where a father has molested his own daughter they almost always mention a striking likeness of the daughter to her mother. In other words they look alike. And interestingly they never seem to connect it to the reason why they did it but they almost always mention it. Ever notice how much JonBenet looked like Patsy?