1136 users online (172 members and 964 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    33

    What Narrative Did The Ramseys Have In Mind Initially?

    I apologize in advance for starting a new thread as a very infrequent poster, but I have been reading here since I picked up Kolar's book a few months ago and have not seen my specific question addressed in any of the first several pages of posts.

    My question is, I wonder what story the Ramseys were seeking to get investigators to believe initially?

    Why I ask this is, at the very beginning of the investigation, it seemed like John Ramsey went out of his way to establish that there was no way for an intruder to enter the house. He asserted that he had checked all the locks himself on the night of the murder. Also, according to Kolar (as well as Thomas and Schiller) (yeah, I've read them all over the past months), JR never bothered to mention, until several months after the murder, any of the things he supposedly had observed that would have indicated an intruder. And JR was quick to point out that he had been the one to break the basement window...

    Despite what they went on to emphasize later (the intruder theory), it seems to me that when it first happened, the Ramseys really wanted to point investigators in the direction of one of the people who had had a key to their home - perhaps Linda Hoffman Pugh and/or her husband?

    I'm curious if anyone else has thought the same thing or wondered about it. I am one who has swung from believing (after reading "Death of Innocence") that there was no way the Ramseys could have done it to becoming convinced that Patsy wrote the ransom note and that they obviously were covering up something. I think the R's were fairly intelligent people, and it seems odd to me that they would have been so unnecessarily focused on selling the police on such a specific (and potentially disprovable) narrative so early on in the case.

    If JR had not, for instance, been so adamant about having locked all the doors, there wouldn't have been such a need to prove an intruder squeezed in through the basement window without disturbing cobwebs.

    Thanks for reading my comment.
    --my constitutionally protected opinion--

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,731
    Maybe John Ramsey wasn't aware of what actually happened until later. Perhaps when he figured out what had happened (or Patsy told him what happened) then he realized he'd said too much at the beginning and started back-peddling.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    160
    I'm curious to know if there is any possibility that LHP did it??

    Anyway, you prove a good point- the intruder theory would have been much more believable if John had looked stricken and wailed "oh my god I forgot to lock the door when we came in last night-it was late-we were all tired-I was carrying Jonbenet so my arms were full-I meant to go back and lock the door after I put her down but-but I forgot!oh my god what have I done!!"
    Wayyy more believable if you want people to think someone came into uour house, right?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,229
    Great thread topic JoanRanger.

    Also, I think the best bet in the interest of Ramsey protection would have been to be confused and vague in each statement to LE. Essentially that is what ended up happening given all the different versions JR and PR have given over the years, but you would think that from the get-go they would have been doing this. (For example: "I don't remember if I checked the doors or not" instead of JR being sure that he did)


    If JR was emphasizing no intruder and "inside job" that day, why the foreign faction ransom note? The ransom note would have been better off if it sounded like a vague acquaintance of theirs- something along the lines of: I have watched your family for a long time- or something emphasizing groups the Ramsey's might attend (church pageants, golf). Then it makes sense that the "perp" might have had access to their schedule, habits, etc.

    I don't think this crime was premeditated and I think the staging and story they created where all done in a panic and with a time crunch so I am guessing that is why everything is wonky.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    230
    I think that at the time JR felt it best to not tell police what he wanted them to believe so much as to let them "figure out for themselves" what he wanted them to believe.
    Seems to have worked well enough.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Suffolk, England
    Posts
    350
    It seems strange that he remembers checking the doors and windows with such certainty when he and Patsy couldn't remember much else about the other events of that day!
    Patsy made a comment about the writing on the RN looking like LHP's that morning, and that also she had a pad of paper like that in the house (even though she was shown a photocopy of the note rather than the original, that must have been some distinctive paper!), and I think the intentionally misspelled words at the beginning of the note were meant to point towards the under-educated Hoffman-Pughs (the words 'attache' etc being spelled correctly to me shows that she loses her way with this thought and her journalism degree shows through).
    The memory LPH asking to borrow money must have been fresh in Patsy's mind, and they made the ideal fall-guys. And hey, if all else fails blame the Whites or a former employee, it's enough to create reasonable doubt!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by JoanRanger View Post
    I apologize in advance for starting a new thread as a very infrequent poster, but I have been reading here since I picked up Kolar's book a few months ago and have not seen my specific question addressed in any of the first several pages of posts.

    My question is, I wonder what story the Ramseys were seeking to get investigators to believe initially?

    Why I ask this is, at the very beginning of the investigation, it seemed like John Ramsey went out of his way to establish that there was no way for an intruder to enter the house. He asserted that he had checked all the locks himself on the night of the murder. Also, according to Kolar (as well as Thomas and Schiller) (yeah, I've read them all over the past months), JR never bothered to mention, until several months after the murder, any of the things he supposedly had observed that would have indicated an intruder. And JR was quick to point out that he had been the one to break the basement window...

    Despite what they went on to emphasize later (the intruder theory), it seems to me that when it first happened, the Ramseys really wanted to point investigators in the direction of one of the people who had had a key to their home - perhaps Linda Hoffman Pugh and/or her husband?

    I'm curious if anyone else has thought the same thing or wondered about it. I am one who has swung from believing (after reading "Death of Innocence") that there was no way the Ramseys could have done it to becoming convinced that Patsy wrote the ransom note and that they obviously were covering up something. I think the R's were fairly intelligent people, and it seems odd to me that they would have been so unnecessarily focused on selling the police on such a specific (and potentially disprovable) narrative so early on in the case.

    If JR had not, for instance, been so adamant about having locked all the doors, there wouldn't have been such a need to prove an intruder squeezed in through the basement window without disturbing cobwebs.

    Thanks for reading my comment.
    JoanRanger,
    I do not think they had any reasoned narrative, other than they all went to bed the previous night and woke up to find a ransom note and JonBenet gone!

    They expected to be arrested, so they staged JonBenet's abduction which is simply an explanation for all the forensic evidence including JonBenet ending up in the basement.

    When there were no arrests and JonBenet lay undiscovered, it was left to JR to find JonBenet. Shortly after which he wanted to leave Colorado minus JonBenet.

    .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Maybe John Ramsey wasn't aware of what actually happened until later. Perhaps when he figured out what had happened (or Patsy told him what happened) then he realized he'd said too much at the beginning and started back-peddling.
    This is the most logical explanation: that the Rs didn't have a "single story" at the outset because JR wasn't up to speed yet.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Suffolk, England
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    This is the most logical explanation: that the Rs didn't have a "single story" at the outset because JR wasn't up to speed yet.
    Do you think that Patsy wrote the RN (complete with the 'foreign faction' references) and JR read it later - at a time when it was too late for a re-write or went along with it as plausible? It's something I wonder about often.
    Thinking of the time Jonbenet and Burke woke them on Christmas morning, and then not sleeping that night, maybe the tiredness got to them?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South
    Posts
    3,835

    Impressions

    Thank you for starting this thread.

    I get "impressions" about this case from what others post, and from all the random sources on this case. I have gotten the impression that John and Patsy wanted to point blame at an inside job.

    Specifically, the housekeeper Linda. Patsy brought her up when asked. The blanket from the dryer, the knife in the hall closet, the ransom amount(the housekeeper would/might know that amount).

    The ransom note could be read as if Patsy was writing it to seem like Linda wrote it, that's why she used a pad and pen from the house...the pineapple(Linda would know Jonbenet liked pineapple). Was the idea to say that Jonbenet's death was the cause of a "botched" kidnapping done by the housekeeper?

    I have an impression that Patsy connected another person/man to Linda re: finding the Christmas decorations, they had been the only ones to go in the basement to find the Christmas decorations. Patsy makes it sound like no one goes in the basement and John says he broke glass, Linda cleaned it up and that "the kids" played down there all the time. Patsy distancing herself from the basement...

    My biggest and most unprovable impression is that Patsy is the one who killed Jonbenet. In a recent thread folks were talking about Patsy saying she was in the laundry room across from Jonbenet (that morning) and "had the light on"( I have read that is unconscious code for sexual abuse/molestation/incest) and in one version she says Jonbenet's door was just a little open like she leaves it but then later says the door was closed and she found that odd.

    I could see Patsy as a woman blaming it on another woman. IIRC, it has been said that Patsy would lose her temper with Jonbenet. Sometimes I get the impression that Patsy took Jonbenet's shirt and twisted the collar(choking her)maybe lifting her up and then banging her head back on something?

    Dr.'s are not going to automatically look at Jonbenet's vagina to check for any abuse so why the paintbrush? I cannot see a way where sex was not involved that night, seems the only reason it was a part of how she was found. Patsy(or John or Burke)would not have hit her in the head/choked her and then violate Jonbenet sexually when that had nothing to do with it...

    The paintbrush is scribbles over a picture, if you like the picture you drew you would not scribble on it-if you want others to see your handiwork you would not scribble. You scribble because you are upset at what you created and you want to cover it up.

    I feel like it is Patsy doing something to Jonbenet to "teach" her, something having to do with Patsy knowing John was molesting Jonbenet?

    Was Burke molesting Jonbenet and Patsy blames John for "making" Burke like that too, (the anger in the ransom note). Why they had to cover even though (if it was Burke that made the hit) Burke was a minor and all...because John had been molesting Jonbenet. If they called for help it might come out, not just that Burke had "played dr" with his sister and they had a physical accident but that John had been molesting Jobenet and had taught that behavior to his son(s).

    It almost seems like Pasty was going to try to blame John's older son? The suitcase with the stuff they said(right, they said it was from JARs room?) Now, who are they trying to frame? Maybe Patsy felt "her" son was not going to "go down" for the sins of his father and Patsy wanted to blame John's son? (Dictionary open to 'incest')

    Who didn't they implicate? (Makes me think of the Anthony's) They threw everyone and anyone out as a suspect if I understand correctly. Many of the friends who were there(due to recent threads I now can have the impression these folks were at the Ramsey's "early" i.e. 3.00 a.m. According to a statement made by John himself) was implicated at one time or another iirc.

    Only hours before, the Ramseys were at the homes of several of these folks(dropping of packages, we assume they answered the door to receive)and now they had arrived early to the Ramsey's. In emergencies people do rush over, I can see that but it seems so odd that in the early morning hours all these folks converged on the Ramsey house. I am dancing around the impression that people were over there before that...

    Burke differing with his parents regarding Jonbenet being asleep...but the dabble here is "pedo ring" type thing but I would think they would have been better at covering it up? Again from recent threads I have the impression the friends at the house were lying about when they got there if we believe what John says. And, if I imagine them there doing the worst I still figure if that "organized' then why everything so botched? I would figure they would have a "cleaner." IYKWIM?

    Maybe "that" kind of stuff doesn't usually happen? Accident. "We didn't mean for this to happen." Patsy said that to another friend. Everyone panicked and came up with the "kidnapping" by a foreign faction? But, I don't feel that impression any more strongly than the others. It is when certain information is given that I get different impressions.

    What I am always left with, as an impression was nothing "normal" was happening to Jonbenet to have her end up as she did. Any accident could be understood but there had to have been "much" sexual abuse going on with Jonbenet, imho. My husband's family has multi generation incest abuse. Even though I know this goes on in more families than we would like to think and I have the proof of my husband and his sisters, mother, etc...when I think that is what was going on with Jonbenet it is hard to believe that but there is so much that gives me that impression.

    Jonbenet's bathroom/bedwetting problems. The chocolates, the way she was sexualized for competition, the size 12 panties(that is just an impression I have nothing to back up why I include that with sexual abuse). Could Patsy have worn a size 12?

    Stuff was missing from the house, speaking of days of the week underwear. Impression of aunt?, friend?, Patsy's mother/sister? taking evidence out of the house. More impressions of family willing to cover, why because several people had reason to want to cover sexual abuse. Impression that Burke was acting out what he had seen, Jonbenet gets hurt in process, and Patsy is bitter and upset that she must cover for the behavior that John and (even her father?) had taught Burke.

    If I believe the information that Patsy and John had a "political marriage" like Bill and Hillary, then I get the impression of the elite upbringing Patsy had and impressions of her being trained to be a compliant wife to the behaviors(any scandal exposed regarding supposed to be upstanding business men/politicians) her husband. The wife stands back while the husband cheats and even molests their daughter.

    Now that I have gone far off of the topic: my impression is that at first they did want to make it seem like an inside job. As you can see, I do not know why. But, I did and do get that impression. Trouble is I get a lot of other impressions too...

    John 14:6


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    33
    Thanks for the responses.

    The idea that the Ramseys hadn't actually worked out a narrative between them - that John was just telling the truth when he talked about having checked all the locks the night before - would seem to fit.

    However, like Chiquita above, I think it's almost too coincidental that everything both JR and PR told investigators early on would seem to point toward Linda Hoffman Pugh. I mean, is there anything either of them said that would go with their (and Lou Smit's) later interpretations of events?

    Something else that struck me as I did all my recent reading on the Ramsey story is how quick they were to completely disregard the instructions in the ransom note. According to their stories, Patsy was on the phone with the cops just moments after finding the note, despite its multiple commands not to call the police or anyone else, not even "a stray dog." After she called the police, she then rang up two sets of friends and asked them to come over.

    It seems to me they were trying to set things up to provide a reason for why JonBenet would be found murdered...and then were both offering the cops someone they thought might be a convenient suspect - LHP. At the beginning, John seemed suspiciously quick to try to establish that there was no possible vulnerable point of entry in their home. Patsy made her many remarks pointing to LHP.
    --my constitutionally protected opinion--

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    I also believe that the Rs had originally decided that the housekeeper LHP would make a perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). She had a key to the house, she had intimate knowledge of the family. She was in financial stress (and had asked Patsy for a $2000 loan). She was uneducated and likely wouldn't have the financial or educational means to fight back.
    But because LHP did NOT commit this crime, the Rs could only HINT at her involvement. JR's "this is an inside job" comment within SECONDS of laying his dead daughter on he floor upstairs defies logic because it isn't the comment you'd make AT THAT MOMENT if this was a true kidnapping/murder. It's the kind of statement that you make when you have had time to think about it. Not the moment you discover the dead, strangled body of your child in your own home.
    Later, when the RN was written, it deliberately threw blame in several different directions. A SFF- foreigners bent on punishing America by killing a child that was known NOWHERE outside her own circles at that time? Just plain silly, IMO. She was not a world name until after her death. They also added the bonus amount for good measure- something a SFF would not know, but something a disgruntled employee might know. So right there we have THREE possible perps- the housekeeper with a key and financial need- a disgruntled employee with a grudge against JR- and a SFF who hates America and decides to hide out in Boulder, break into a locked house leaving no evidence, kidnap, sexually assault and kill a child in her own home WHILE HER FAMILY IS HOME, feeding her pineapple before they do (which she ate willingly with a bunch of strangers).
    See? It offends reason. All of it. What DOES make sense? Their desperate attempt to throw all the %^*#$ out there and see where it stuck.
    Unfortunately, there was nothing at the crime scene to link wither LHP, any access employee nor any SFF to the crime scene. There WAS, however, DNA, hair and fiber evidence linking the Rs (including BR) to the crime scene directly.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    33
    DeeDee said,

    JR's "this is an inside job" comment within SECONDS of laying his dead daughter on he floor upstairs defies logic because it isn't the comment you'd make AT THAT MOMENT if this was a true kidnapping/murder. It's the kind of statement that you make when you have had time to think about it. Not the moment you discover the dead, strangled body of your child in your own home.
    I'd forgotten about that weird statement. You're right, it does not fit.

    For me, Kolar's theory truly is the only one that fits both the evidence and the Ramseys' behavior after the fact. It was always very difficult for me to believe the R's had anything to do with causing JB's death. Also, their body language toward each other in all their TV appearances indicated a couple who were very united - as did the fact that they remained together until Patsy's death, always unified in their story. I can't imagine someone like JR being OK, long-term, with remaining so loyal to a woman who had killed his daughter, no matter what his own involvement in any cover-up might have been. Likewise - actually, even more so - I can't imagine Patsy sticking with John and helping him cover up such a thing, if he had been the killer. Yet in interviews, they always leaned in toward each other and seemed incredibly "together" in everything. If one or the other of them had actually been the cause of JB's death, I can't imagine such unity for years after the fact. It defies what we know about human nature, guilt, and even what typically happens to marriages when there's been such a trauma.

    But at the same time, it also seems obvious to me that Patsy wrote the ransom note and that neither parent was ever forthcoming and "normal" in much of anything they did after the fact. So what would explain their involvement in this crime...but would also account for their unwavering unity with one another for years after the fact?

    It almost has to be that they covered things up for the sake of someone who meant just as much to them both as JonBenet did.

    That also would explain why they lied about the fact that Burke was awake during the 911 call...why they didn't - as normal parents would have - immediately wake up their son, who had been just feet away from where his sister had supposedly been abducted out of her bed, and ask him what he might have heard or what he might have seen...why they allowed Burke to be taken over to the Whites' home with apparently no concern that he might also be a target of kidnappers supposedly watching their every move...why Burke himself told the social services psychologist just days after the murder that he was not afraid about anything happening to him...

    Just about everything that did not make sense before suddenly fits together with Kolar's theory.
    --my constitutionally protected opinion--

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    In a police interview, when PR was retelling, step by step all of the events, she mentioned that a lot of focus was put on LHP, the housekeeper. imo, for LE to hone in on her, the Rs must have given them reason. So, I think this was the original plan...blame it on LHP, who had a key and could have known about the bonus. In other words, 'an inside job'. That poor woman was almost framed. We knew that LHP was an early suspect, but for PR to mention the flurry of activity surrounding her, it must have been intense. moo

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    33
    I can't remember if it was in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town or Steve Thomas' book, but the investigation of LHP sounded pretty immediate and quite intense.

    The rather telling thing was how cooperative she and her husband and daughter all were. They were not part of JonBenet's family, and yet it sounds like they were more concerned about helping with the investigation than JB's own parents were. Just another of those things that make you go hmmm...
    --my constitutionally protected opinion--

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. PA - Initially Undetermined Death of 5 M/O Baby - 26 Sep 2015
    By Richrd in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-04-2016, 05:22 PM
  2. How I know the Ramseys did it....
    By calus_3 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-16-2015, 05:23 PM
  3. Ramseys on LKL
    By Jay78 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-01-2008, 10:46 PM
  4. Where are the Ramseys?
    By mjak in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-09-2006, 08:55 PM