911 Call

[DeDee]

When I listen to the call, there are four things that really stand out.

Firstly, the opening "We have a kidnapping" - it sounds like she is directing, not asking for help.

Second, when the operator asks 'did it say who took her?', Patsy's reply of 'what?' sounds majorly p***ed off to me. Then after the operator asks again, Patsy says 'it says S.B.T.C, Victory'...it doesn't sound to me as if she has bent down and read it off the note, it sounds like she is quite familiar with the phrase, despite it being an odd thing to have on a ransom note and if the initials mean nothing, it seems unlikely that someone in such a state would remember them after reading them just once.

Third, immediately after Patsy says "I'm the mother" she suddenly cries "Oh my god!". It's as if she suddenly has 'undistanced' herself from Jonbenet & the things that have gone on overnight, and the horror has just hit her.

Fourth, I find it odd that she never once mentions Jonbenet's name.

And as others have mentioned, I can't understand why Patsy made the call instead of John.

IMMHO, Patsy did not want John to find the ransom note since she was the author of it. She waited until she knew JR was out of the shower to scream for his help.

John begins to read the ransom note. Then, he supposedly runs around upstairs to check on Burke, by the time he returns to the first floor, Patsy is dialing 911. Why?

Patsy could not allow John time to scrutinize the RN because he may well have realized, during those moments, that it was written by her. Perhaps if he had more time to consider the circumstances, he would have bombarded Patsy with questions that she was not willing to answer.

Patsy needed to find the RN.
Patsy needed to call 911.
Patsy needed friends come over to keep John from making any direct accusations he may have felt and asking questions he wanted Patsy to answer.

If this is true, when did John decide to help his wife cloak themselves with excellent and effective legal counsel? Probably as soon as he realized little, clever clues the killer left behind that could possibly point to him since the parents are always the first suspects to be investigated when a child's death occurs while inside their own home.

 

[bettybaby00]

Very interesting thoughts!!

The most significant aspect of the call for me is that once again, the Rs lied about something that occurred that night/morning.

To continue to maintain a lie(s) about seemingly small aspects of that day is telling. When put together these lies all have one common element, that is to put as much distance between themselves and JRB in the hours before her death.

 

[bettybaby00]

IMMHO, Patsy did not want John to find the ransom note since she was the author of it. She waited until she knew JR was out of the shower to scream for his help.

John begins to read the ransom note. Then, he supposedly runs around upstairs to check on Burke, by the time he returns to the first floor, Patsy is dialing 911. Why?

Patsy could not allow John time to scrutinize the RN because he may well have realized, during those moments, that it was written by her. Perhaps if he had more time to consider the circumstances, he would have bombarded Patsy with questions that she was not willing to answer.

Patsy needed to find the RN.
Patsy needed to call 911.
Patsy needed friends come over to keep John from making any direct accusations he may have felt and asking questions he wanted Patsy to answer.

If this is true, when did John decide to help his wife cloak themselves with excellent and effective legal counsel? Probably as soon as he realized little, clever clues the killer left behind that could possibly point to him since the parents are always the first suspects to be investigated when a child's death occurs while inside their own home.

To me, the prior sexual contact is the key. It was the motivator for the paint brush being "used on her." Without someone knowing there was prior sexual contact, the staging could have been very different. In fact, if JRB wasn't being molested, a RN with the body in the house would have been more believable. The argument that " we are the victims of a kidnapping gone wrong" would have seemed plausible. Once you add in the prior sexual contact, however, that story doesn't fly at all.

 

[Venom]

To me, the prior sexual contact is the key. It was the motivator for the paint brush being "used on her." Without someone knowing there was prior sexual contact, the staging could have been very different. In fact, if JRB wasn't being molested, a RN with the body in the house would have been more believable. The argument that " we are the victims of a kidnapping gone wrong" would have seemed plausible. Once you add in the prior sexual contact, however, that story doesn't fly at all.

Good point.

 

[tml]

Very interesting thoughts!!

The most significant aspect of the call for me is that once again, the Rs lied about something that occurred that night/morning.

To continue to maintain a lie(s) about seemingly small aspects of that day is telling. When put together these lies all have one common element, that is to put as much distance between themselves and JRB in the hours before her death.

I am sure others have found and used this research, but I stumbled upon a research study on 911 calls. It was conducted in 2006, focused on 911 calls and homicide. Full text below:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/research/tracy-harpster/


Study Conducted by Lt. Tracy Harpster
By Mark McClish

In 2006, Lt. Tracy Harpster with the Moraine Ohio Police Division conducted a study of 911 homicide calls. The purpose of the study was to examine the linguistic attributes of the 911 calls to see if there were any indicators of guilt or innocence. Lt. Harpster examined 100 homicide calls made by fifty innocent individuals and fifty guilty individuals. An innocent individual was defined as someone who had no involvement with the homicide. A guilty individual was defined as someone who committed the homicide or had direct involvement in the crime. The study revealed several interesting factors that relate to Statement Analysis.


The "Huh Factor"

One area the study focused on was the "Huh Factor." This was defined as the caller responding to a dispatcher's question with the comment "Huh?" "What?" or "Do what?" This would be an indication the caller is not tracking his responses. He is acting as if he has been caught off guard.


"911, what is your emergency?"
"I just came home and my wife has fallen down the stairs, she's hurt bad and she's not breathing!"
"How many stairs did she fall down?"
"Huh?"

Although the caller may not know the exact number of stairs his wife had fallen down he should be able to give the dispatcher an estimate. His response indicates the caller was confused and was not paying attention to the dispatcher's question. The investigation revealed the caller had killed his wife and made up the story about her falling down the stairs. When asked a specific question about his fabricated story the caller was not able to immediately answer the question so he relied on the "huh factor."

It was hypothesized that callers using this tactic would be guilty of being involved in the homicide. This variable appeared in 12% of the 911 calls. Of that percentage, 91 % of the callers were guilty and 9 % were innocent.

In Statement Analysis, we find that when a subject answers a question with any type of question it means he was asked a sensitive question. The subject does this to stall for time so he can think about his answer. The interviewer should recognize this tactic and try to determine why the question is so sensitive. In the 911 study, this was a strong indication of guilt. In Statement Analysis, this sensitivity is an indication of guilt or that the subject is withholding some information.

"Did you launder any money?"
"Did I launder any money? No."

The subject answers the question with "No." However, he first answered the question with a question. He does this by repeating the question asked of him. This is a typical way of stalling for time. In this case, it turned out the subject did not launder any money but he knew money was being laundered. Because he was thinking whether or not he should reveal this information, this caused him to answer the question with a question and not give an immediate "No."


Resistance In Answering

Another variable the 911 study looked at was the "Resistance to Answer Indicator." This was defined as the 911 caller's refusal to answer the dispatcher's relevant question. In one example, the caller reported that his girlfriend needed medical attention.

"Did something happen to her; was this more than just an argument?"
"That's all I'm trying to report."

The caller does not answer the dispatcher's question regarding how the injuries occurred. When the officers arrived the girlfriend was dead. The boyfriend was eventually convicted of causing her death.

It was theorized that a caller who resisted in answering the dispatcher's relevant questions would be guilty of the committing the crime. The study showed that this variable appeared in 26 percent of the 911 calls. Of that number, 100% of the callers were guilty.

In Statement Analysis, if a person does not answer the specific question the person is withholding information. While this may seem to be an obvious conclusion the problem is the use of this tactic often goes unnoticed. The subject will give an answer to the question asked of him but he will not answer the specific question.

"Did you take the money?"
"I would never do that."

The question, "Did you take the money?" requires a "yes" or "no" answer. While the subject did give an answer he did not state "yes" or "no." Therefore, he has not answered the specific question. His resistance in answering the specific question means he is withholding information. In this case, the information is that he did take the money. His answer, "I would never do that" is not a denial.

In the 911 study, not answering a question was a 100% indicator of guilt. In Statement Analysis, this is a 100% indicator the person is withholding information. This information may be that he is guilty or that he has information which would help in the investigation.

Now, let's take a look at the 911 call transcript:

Patsy: “Police.”
911: “What’s going on ma’am?”
Patsy: “755 15th street.”
911: “What’s going on there ma’am”
Patsy: “We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please!”
911: “Explain to me what’s going on. Ok?”
Patsy: “There. We have a, there’s a note left and our daughter’s gone.”
911: “A note was left and your daughter’s gone?”
Patsy: “Yes!”
911: “How old is your daughter?”
Patsy: “She’s 6 years old. She’s blonde, 6 years old.”
911: “How long ago was this?”
Patsy: “I don’t know I just got the note, and my daughter’s gone.”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “What?”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”
911: “It’s a ransom note?”
Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”
911: “Okay, what’s your name? Are you Kath...?”
Patsy: “Patsy Ramsey, I’m the mother. Oh my God! Please!”
911: “Okay, I’m sending an officer over OK?
Patsy: “Please!”
911: “Do you know how long she’s been gone?”
Patsy: “No I don’t! Please we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my god! Please!”
911: “Okay, Cal....”
Patsy: “Please send somebody.”
911: “I am honey.”
Patsy: “Please.”
911: “Take a deep breath and...”
Patsy: “Hurry, hurry, hurry!”
911: “Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?”

I have bolded the parts I find most relevant. Tell me what you think.

 

[andreww]

I've never believed Patsy's 911 "performance". It seems like she is purposely trying to hyperventilate to simulate stress. I believe that she found she could only carry on that charade for so long and purposely hung up. Below is a video of a young woman who paid to have her husband killed. Lucky for him she hired an undercover cop. Police, wanting to see her reaction, faked a crime scene and in the video, tell her that her husband is dead. I found her reaction very similar to Patsy's

[video=youtube;ym2W8gU5XFA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym2W8gU5XFA&spfreload=10[/video]

 

[tml]

I've never believed Patsy's 911 "performance". It seems like she is purposely trying to hyperventilate to simulate stress. I believe that she found she could only carry on that charade for so long and purposely hung up. Below is a video of a young woman who paid to have her husband killed. Lucky for him she hired an undercover cop. Police, wanting to see her reaction, faked a crime scene and in the video, tell her that her husband is dead. I found her reaction very similar to Patsy's

[video=youtube;ym2W8gU5XFA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym2W8gU5XFA&spfreload=10[/video]

Thank you for linking this video andreww! It is fascinating and ITA with you that in that it reminds me of PR as well. What a learning opportunity these cops received by being able to fake this scene and record her reaction.

 

[dodie20]

thanks for linking the 911/statement analysis. I've read quite a bit on this subject and while not an expert, I do recognize some obvious red flags. Like with the recent 'deflate gate'... Tom Brady was asked by an interviewer, 'Is Tom Brady a cheater' and he said, 'I don't believe so. I feel like I've always played within the rules'. hmmm, lol, I love Tom Brady, but really? he couldn't choke out a simple, 'no'? He then went on about how he believes in fair play and respects the league. But 'believing' in fair play isn't the same as practicing it. It's just football, but people are people and when they don't want to tell the whole truth, they can dance around a subject pretty gracefully. moo

 

[dodie20]

One of the things that stands out in this 911, (to me), is how PR slurs a lot of words. In some instances, I can't even make out what she said. She doesn't necessarily sound like a woman who just woke up early in the morning, after little sleep, Imo, she sounds like a woman who has been up all night. And how would she know to call the note a ransom note? especially if she barely skimmed it? Wouldn't she have just called it a note? Idk, but that's what makes the 911 seem rehearsed to me...just her automatic acceptance that her daughter was kidnapped! (gone for sure, not hiding somewhere), and this was a real ransom note! (not some bad joke). I'd be scared in that situation, but I can't imagine not searching the house from top to bottom and then reading the whole note again before calling 911. Not necessarily because that's the right thing to do, but I don't see any parent absorbing that kind of news without going through some immediate denial... unless the parents had been previously threatened with kidnap. or if a parent did decide to call before checking the house, I wouldn't expect so much hyperventilating type panic...more like an explanation that there is another child in the house, they're going to wake him up and check with him, but they need help going through the whole house and yard and neighbors. all moo.

 

[887sMtreme]

And wouldn't it be normal to hesitate about calling the police, given the warnings against such contact contained in the RN? Wouldn't PR have said something about being afraid about calling for that reason, and to beg for discretion?

 

[DeeDee249]

And wouldn't it be normal to hesitate about calling the police, given the warnings against such contact contained in the RN? Wouldn't PR have said something about being afraid about calling for that reason, and to beg for discretion?

Not only that, but she called all their friends over too- and they parked near the house. Guess they knew no one would be watching anyway.

 

[tml]

Not only that, but she called all their friends over too- and they parked near the house. Guess they knew no one would be watching anyway.

The fact that there wasn't even a cursory MENTION of the "kidnappers" instructions NOT to call the police is a huge red flag to me. Any realistic scenario in which PR was totally innocent would have led to her alluding to this. She was no dummy, and if the R's trusted in the police so much as to completely disregard the ransom instructions, why not give them all the PERTINENT information? Like, oh yea, they say if they see police they will kill JBR...

Nope. PR told them what she wanted them to know: "JBR is blonde, she is not here, WE WERE SLEEPING, it says SBTC, victory!"

On the off chance that PR was innocent, you tell me how she didn't devour that note in seconds and know everything contained in it, including the part about not calling anyone? Either she didn't know because she didn't read it OR write it - which I can't believe because an innocent mother would have read it - or she did, because she wrote it, but she wanted to act as though everything was so crazy and chaotic and she couldn't possibly have had the ability to read the note in her fragile state.

 

[andreww]

It was so long! If she had read it we'd still be waiting for the 911 call

 

[887sMtreme]

crazy and chaotic

These two words are key to the murder. I think sometimes we miss important evidence by trying to find evidence, trying to find out what makes sense. If we can see that what happened to JBR was the result of insanity -- I mean irrational homicidal rage -- then, ironically, it make sense.

 

[ninaskids]

..... There were three family members living with JB, four if you count half-brother JAR who was there on weekends.

Everyone has forgotten or dismissed the older brother.
Why I don't know. But in Beckner's interview on Reddit he actually MENTIONED an older neighbor mentioning that he actually saw John Andrew in the alley sometime that night! Not sure at what time of night.

Beckner then says that so much abuse was heaped on the poor man, that he retracted his statement because JAR said he was at his mother's house on Christmas nite. And something like that would be easy to check...meaning did the cops check to see if JAR actually caught a flight for his mom's? Was he actually ON the flight and even tho he was at the airport the next day, did he really ARRIVE on the plane or was he just suddenly there with his sister?

Making it look as if he took the flight back to Boulder?

Occam's Razor means you have to stop overthinking at some point. After you have eliminated what yu think is improbable/impossible; whatever theory remains is usually the right one even it if it is incredible to you!!

So what if JAR was the one doing the molesting of JB and Burke and this was why Burke's med records had to be sealed for all time! I find that sealing those records is really weird.

If it is true that JAR stayed with the family at all during the school year, he had access to not only both children but he knew the whole house. He was quoted as saying "you had to know the basement really well to find that little room."

Now that does not mean HE himself staged the coverup or put her there tho.

If JaR was indeed in the house and harmed JB and panicked, I can see PR and JR telling JAR to LEAVE town immediately and they then staged a cover up.
To have it revealed that it was the half brother would be as bad as it being Burke, or Patsy!

Incredibly no one would have even thought of this seriously except for the eye witness. And Beckner managed to bring that out in the interview. yes he sure did.

I think this one bit of new info is why Beckner panicked and wanted his remarks removed. He both wants the info out there and yet doesn't want to get sued.

Am I just "whistling Dixie" here or is this possible?

 

[andreww]

As I recall JAR spent Christmas evening with a buddy at a movie. This was confirmed when he visited a bank machine after the movie and was captured on a security camera doing so. The friend ended up spending the night and the mother witnessed him being there early on the 26th, as they were catching a flight together. Police deduced there wasn't enough time for him to fly to Boulder and back between the time he was seen at the bank machine and the time his mother saw him in the morning.

Its kid of funny with all the money John spen spreading propaganda about this case, how very few people know the truth about John Andrew. Almost like John didn't want people know when suspect were eliminated, even his own son. What a piece of .......work.

 

[UKGuy]

Everyone has forgotten or dismissed the older brother.
Why I don't know. But in Beckner's interview on Reddit he actually MENTIONED an older neighbor mentioning that he actually saw John Andrew in the alley sometime that night! Not sure at what time of night.

Beckner then says that so much abuse was heaped on the poor man, that he retracted his statement because JAR said he was at his mother's house on Christmas nite. And something like that would be easy to check...meaning did the cops check to see if JAR actually caught a flight for his mom's? Was he actually ON the flight and even tho he was at the airport the next day, did he really ARRIVE on the plane or was he just suddenly there with his sister?

Making it look as if he took the flight back to Boulder?

Occam's Razor means you have to stop overthinking at some point. After you have eliminated what yu think is improbable/impossible; whatever theory remains is usually the right one even it if it is incredible to you!!

So what if JAR was the one doing the molesting of JB and Burke and this was why Burke's med records had to be sealed for all time! I find that sealing those records is really weird.

If it is true that JAR stayed with the family at all during the school year, he had access to not only both children but he knew the whole house. He was quoted as saying "you had to know the basement really well to find that little room."

Now that does not mean HE himself staged the coverup or put her there tho.

If JaR was indeed in the house and harmed JB and panicked, I can see PR and JR telling JAR to LEAVE town immediately and they then staged a cover up.
To have it revealed that it was the half brother would be as bad as it being Burke, or Patsy!

Incredibly no one would have even thought of this seriously except for the eye witness. And Beckner managed to bring that out in the interview. yes he sure did.

I think this one bit of new info is why Beckner panicked and wanted his remarks removed. He both wants the info out there and yet doesn't want to get sued.

Am I just "whistling Dixie" here or is this possible?

ninaskids,
Much of Beckner's remarks were already well known as facts. New is his confirmation regarding the use of the paintbrush. IMO, this elevates the wine-cellar to a staged crime-scene.

Looks to me as if the parents staged a crime scene to hide their childs involvement!

.

 

[DeeDee249]

As I recall JAR spent Christmas evening with a buddy at a movie. This was confirmed when he visited a bank machine after the movie and was captured on a security camera doing so. The friend ended up spending the night and the mother witnessed him being there early on the 26th, as they were catching a flight together. Police deduced there wasn't enough time for him to fly to Boulder and back between the time he was seen at the bank machine and the time his mother saw him in the morning.




Its kid of funny with all the money John spen spreading propaganda about this case, how very few people know the truth about John Andrew. Almost like John didn't want people know when suspect were eliminated, even his own son. What a piece of .......work.

Not so fast. A movie ticket stub proves NOTHING, nor does the word of the "buddy" who claimed to be with him. I have seen that ATM photo- it was here on this forum a while back. Proves NOTHING because you cannot see the face of the man at the ATM. He is wearing a baseball cap and the brim of the cap obscures his face, as the camera is slightly above him. It could be anyone. I believe he wasn't in Georgia at all.
What I am going to say next is only heresay. My daughter dated a kid who was a Junior at U of C Boulder in December 96. She went out there to visit him on her Christmas break from her own college. The case was all over the news there, just as it was all over the country. Her friend didn't know JAR personally but knew who he was. He was known to be weirdly obsessed with his little sister. The FIRST thing her friend said when this case hit the news was "OMG he (JAR) did it. ".

 

[andreww]

Not so fast. A movie ticket stub proves NOTHING, nor does the word of the "buddy" who claimed to be with him. I have seen that ATM photo- it was here on this forum a while back. Proves NOTHING because you cannot see the face of the man at the ATM. He is wearing a baseball cap and the brim of the cap obscures his face, as the camera is slightly above him. It could be anyone. I believe he wasn't in Georgia at all.
What I am going to say next is only heresay. My daughter dated a kid who was a Junior at U of C Boulder in December 96. She went out there to visit him on her Christmas break from her own college. The case was all over the news there, just as it was all over the country. Her friend didn't know JAR personally but knew who he was. He was known to be weirdly obsessed with his little sister. The FIRST thing her friend said when this case hit the news was "OMG he (JAR) did it. ".

You forget that JAR actually went to the movie with two friends, Brad Millard and Chris Stanley. Think about it, if you were going to concoct an alibi so you could fly across the country and back so you could rape your little sister, why would you enlist two people to be in on the lie? How does that conversation even go?, "Hey Brad, I need you to say you were at the movies with me all night, and I need you to dress in my clothes and go to the bank machine and use my bank card". Then the next day these two guys see what happened and decide to stay quite about for the next 20 years? Just doesn't make any sense.

 

[questfortrue]

DeeDee249’s post reveals an important clue about this family. If one digests the statement of a college buddy who knew JAR, the fact that he could make such an accusation says something very relevant, though I agree JAR being in Colorado isn’t a top theory of mine either. Consider this was a huge accusation. So the statement suggests JAR was very taken/impressed by his little sister. That’s not an innuendo for anything in particular. But most college age kids will talk about “hot” women on campus, not their little six year old sister.

So PR molded JB into something very seductive, for a variety of reasons which have been discussed before. JAR was taken by her, so was Nedra in that JB could realize the family dream of Miss America. Here’s what one of the housekeepers said about PR: “ I’m afraid that after JonBenét became Patsy’s focus, she also became her obsession.” Remember that PR’s friends wanted to discuss the “Mega JonBenet thing” with her before JB’s death.

As for JR, it’s been noted that he was a devoted Dad to Beth, to his second daughter ML and JAR, phoning them regularly after his divorce. Later on, it became evident that JR was mostly into his career and left the child-rearing to Patsy. Allegedly he was not much involved with small kids, but according to family friend JP, he was wa-a-a y into JB.

Like others I’ve asked myself why the whole family (leaving BR out of the discussion for now), so “taken” by JB, hasn’t witnessed for her in her death. JAR, DP, no one speaks about finding that intruder. Mentioned up-thread is that the whole family sticks like glue together on this.

PR led the public relations charge with her 911 performance, moo. But it’s long been my belief that the stance on this homicide was set by the family patriarch. JR was, after all, the son of a man referred to by friends and colleagues as “The Czar” for his iron control. And everyone has followed the patriarch’s lead throughout the years. His lead and, of course, a script developed by many lawyers.

One last comment about JR and why I look at him for taking charge of how this was going to be handled. It's always been my impression that JR knows how to project a "passive" demeanor, someone just caught up in things, as though it's others who are controlling decisions. E.g., it was the fatal attraction woman who seduced him, it was.his lawyer friend's suggestion to hire lawyers. This passivity seems to me to be a façade, and it may just mask the opposite. My impression only.

And all this JMHO