Patsy Ramsey April 1996

[sandover]

I've been going through old threads to try to catch up since I'm new to the forum.

I saw a post from Tricia where it was indicated that at the beginning of the 911 tape we hear Patsy say "Hon, we need 'em."

I then listened to the 911 tape and it is obvious she says this (in fact I can't believe this wasn't heard initially, it's so clear).

Now I suppose you could stretch and say John had said "Call the police!" and Patsy was merely validating his order, but that's a stretch.

It's pretty clear to me John said something like "Are you sure we should call them?" given the ransom note's demands and Patsy replied, "Hon, we need 'em."

(My theory is that John participated in the cover up in a passive way, having a sense that Patsy killed JonBenet, but that the two never spoke about it -- that she acted the part of the grieving mother all the way to the grave.)

In any event, regardless of one's scenario, I am curious: have people made a big deal of the way the 911 tape actually starts? I imagine I would have read about this or heard about this MUCH more than I have in my 6 or so weeks delving into the case.

This would seem to me to be a profound bit of circumstantial evidence pointing to Patsy as the killer and stager, and John as an accomplice either through passivity or a complicity that only came later.

I'm very curious to know the subsequent history of the "Hon, we need 'em" revelation.

 

[BBB167893]

I think some people are capable of all sorts of things.

Not "some people," Maikai. ALL people. The question is not whether which people are capable and which are not; the question is how well we deal with it. When I look at the Rs, I don't see monsters. I think, "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

The touch DNA exonerates the Ramseys. It was a full profile in places which can only be associated with the perp.

I find both of those assertions to be...well, let's be polite here--lacking.

 

[BBB167893]

Maikai,

Again you make an elementary mistake in your reasoning, they do not even do this on the TV on CSI.

There may be any one of numerous reasons why the touch dna was found on JonBenet, and only one is that of a connection to a homicide. To rule out all the others must suggest you have some kind of agenda or are intellectually challenged?

Or, in Mary Lacy's case, probably both. Only explanation I can see.

It's tough to keep a cool head when I remind myself that this kind of garbage is why criminals like Casey Anthony walk free. That's the point-of-no-return for me. The die has been cast, as it were.

 

[BBB167893]

Can we please, PLEASE eradicate this line of thinking? It's both insulting and detrimental to the victims of sexual abuse.

It will be a pleasure, shotgunhomicide.

When assertions like that arise, it's important to keep a number of things in mind. I once read an FBI statistic that as much as 60% of all rapes go unreported. An investigation by the British Broadcasting Corporation goes even further: About 80% of rapes in the United Kingdom are never reported;

That stat puzzles people. They wonder, "how can that happen?" The answer is rape is among the most traumatic events that can ever occur to a person. It shatters a person's ideas of self-confidence and safety and births an intense shame. And because of that, many of the victims just can't bring themselves to relive the trauma by telling what they know to the police. And they CERTAINLY do not wish to subject themselves to the shame of testifying in court in front of strangers where they could be raked over the coals by the defense attorneys.

So bearing all of that in mind, let's remember that most of these victims of rape are GROWN women, supposedly in full control of their faculties. Just IMAGINE what it must be like for a little child. They don't always know it's wrong, especially if their victimizer is a trusted adult. They are very easy to control through fear or bribery. And most of them wish to please adults, which magnifies the other factors. In many ways, JonBenet would have been an ideal victim because she was specifically TRAINED to act sexually for adults and to be obedient. Patsy and Nedra had very little tolerance for disobedience.

The sad fact is, it's very difficult to tell when a child has been molested. All of the supposed "tell-tale" signs, such as sexual acting out, excessive masturbation, etc., are just not there, because many children accomodate themselves to it. in reality, LITERALLY every single things has to go absolutely right in order to catch a molester.

And THEN, you have to consider what happens all too often when a child DOES report it. Other parents, especially mothers, tend to not believe them or to blame the victim. As happened with Marilyn Van Debur and Stacey Lannert, they are often not believed and will be punished for "telling lies."

There are a myriad of different reasons a child doesn't vocalize their assault. They could be afraid of their attacker, ashamed of what's going on, unaware that there's something wrong with it and sometimes, they even suffer a form of Stockholm syndrome where they feel an intense urge to protect their abuser.

I forget who, but someone on these boards expressed disbelief that a child could ever get to "like" being molested, even by a parent. As my friend Rashomon, a kindergarten teacher, told me, she had one student who confessed that she DID get to like it.

By believing JB (or any victim) couldn't have been abused because she had a big mouth that surely would have led her to tattle on him/her, you're basically spitting in her face and downplaying what happened to her. I know, because i've been there and witnessed the lasting affects of being molested and having people accuse me of lying simply because they didn't think I would have been able to keep it a secret. Unless you've been there, please refrain from acting as if you know how this little girl was thinking by not revealing her prior abuse, and there was prior abuse. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Hymens don't spontaneously erode by themselves. Nor does a vaginal opening stretch to such an unusual length after one molestation that occurred shortly before death. This has been covered so many times on this forum, I can't believe people still contest it. :banghead:

I can believe it! Sadly.

As for the rest of it, no one has said it HAD to have been JR that was doing the molesting. You're projecting your subconscious thoughts on the rest of us.

That's a fair point. It's one thing to say that JB WAS molested. It's another thing altogether to say WHO did it.

 

[BBB167893]

There were specific references to movies in the note.....especially Dirty Harry. That was an old movie. Neither Ramsey was known to have an interest in extortion movies, let alone quote lines from them.

That's probably why those lines were MISquoted!

Neither one knew how to make the garrotte---

Neither did whomever killed JB, as I've often pointed out!

and JBR was garrotted first---

News to me. The autopsy report establishes that she suffered the head injury BEFORE the garrote was applied. A fair deal of time, actually.

doesn't make any sense that either parent would murder her in such a manner.....

And there it is. WHY doesn't it make sense, Maikai? Truth be told, it doesn't make sense to me when a parent murders their child in ANY manner.

More specifically, you're right about one thing: I DON'T think they would have strangled her first. But the forensics speak for themselves.

nor leave the pad of paper in plain view.

On the contrary, it DOES make sense. The pad of paper being in plain sight is VITAL to the whole staging construct. It depends on finding the note BEFORE they knew anything was wrong.

Patsy did not have the emotional temperament to stage a crime---her first response if JBR had been hurt would have been to call 911.

It's useless to try and argue with that.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[BBB167893]

There's been people released from prison based on touch DNA.

I'd like to take a HARD look at the circumstances of those cases! Because if they're anything like the usual DNA "exonerations" the Innocence Project foists on us, I wouldn't get happy about it yet.

48 hours had someone--can't remember his name, from Fort Collins that was in prison due to an overzealous prosecutor. They found skin cells in pertinent places on the victim's clothing--under her arms (when she was dragged)...in her panties. Apparently it matched an ex-boyfriend. The guy charged did 8 years in prison....he was released, and made a settlement with the City for $2M. They showed the touch DNA being run in I believe Belgium....and they explained it's the second level of cells from the skin, and it's found in places where the perp had to exert pressure--like under the arms, when the victim was dragged. At the time of the crime they didn't have touch DNA...that's not to say that there couldn't be touch DNA on other items taken in evidence. On the other hand it's more pertinent I would think if found on places of JBR's clothing where it shouldn't be found.

Well, that's kind of the point I'm trying to make here, Maikai. Like everything else, the worth of DNA evidence varies between cases. Henry Lee himself said publically that in cases where DNA was found, it was irrelevant in HALF of them. And bear in mind: that was BEFORE we had touch DNA, when you actually needed a sizeable sample to get a reading. Back then, the notion of "being where it shouldn't be" MEANT something. I'm not sure it does now, with super-sensitive touch DNA technologies. The world is COVERED--BRISTLING with human DNA.

No, we didn't have touch DNA at the time of JB's murder, and I contend that it would have made no difference if we HAD. Because we know from other evidence that it's irrelevant to the case. That's what we SHOULD be focused on, and what the morons in the Boulder DA's office SHOULD be focused on. Sadly, their understanding of DNA science seems to be LESS than that of the average CSI viewer.

 

[BBB167893]

No evidence that the Ramseys even knew what a garrotte was let alone how to tie the knots.

That's what the investigators said about the killer, too.

 

[ukrberserker23]

Were you aware that Ted Bundy used to volunteer to answer phones for the rape crisis hotline in Florida? They speculate he found some of his victims that way. He also used to work beside Ann Rule. That is why she wrote the book " The Stranger Beside Me."

 

[UKGuy]

Were you aware that Ted Bundy used to volunteer to answer phones for the rape crisis hotline in Florida? They speculate he found some of his victims that way. He also used to work beside Ann Rule. That is why she wrote the book " The Stranger Beside Me."

ukrberserker23,Ted Bundy is a case I follow with interest. So many theories to eliminate, I wonder if one, e.g. he focussed on college girls, is sexist, since it explains his motive as one of social jealousy. Quite a calculated serial killer, never knew about him volunteering to answer phones. I reckon he killed more women than he was ever charged with!

 

[THE BUNK]

No evidence that the Ramseys even knew what a garrotte was let alone how to tie the knots.

Isn't their a picture and a instructions on garrote in one of the encyclopedias or dictionaries in the Ramsey home?

Burke and John both had boyscout training, no?

 

[bettybaby00]

No evidence that the Ramseys even knew what a garrotte was let alone how to tie the knots.

Isn't their a picture and a instructions on garrote in one of the encyclopedias or dictionaries in the Ramsey home?

Burke and John both had boyscout training, no?

Pfffftttt. One does not need to know what a garrote is in order to make a strangulation device. IIRC it isn't even considered a garrote in the technical sense, and the whole "complicated knot" rhetoric was spin.

And yes, Burke was a Boy Scout, not sure about John, but hey, he had that sailing experience thing going for him.

 

[Tawny]

Anyone here ever tried to figure out how their kid managed to tie up their shoelaces in such a completely unrelenting knot? "Complicated" indeed. More like "really effed up and hard to untie" which means anyone could have fumbled their way into tying that "garrote".

 

[GoBrewers]

Interesting. Honestly, and this is a stretch, what I pull from the article is how together she was and how much she contributed before the accident. It seemed like she had a few Twin Peaks Leland Palmer moments. That could go either way though, as losing a child is pretty traumatic.

 

[ukrberserker23]

Knot tying also varies from culture to culture. A shoestring knot seems the easiest thing to us, but I had to teach my wife how to tie one. She was 37 at the time. She tied hers without crossing the laces first. It fell apart every time. Her kids learned it fast, but she still ties it wrong 9 years later. As has already been pointed out, the garotte wasn't functional. Jr was a sailor, and BR a Boy Scout. Plenty of people who knew how to tie stuff. I'll even bet PR had some weird knots for package wrapping too.

 

[Chrishope]

Knot tying also varies from culture to culture. A shoestring knot seems the easiest thing to us, but I had to teach my wife how to tie one. She was 37 at the time. She tied hers without crossing the laces first. It fell apart every time. Her kids learned it fast, but she still ties it wrong 9 years later. As has already been pointed out, the garotte wasn't functional. Jr was a sailor, and BR a Boy Scout. Plenty of people who knew how to tie stuff. I'll even bet PR had some weird knots for package wrapping too.

"...garrotte wasn't functional. ..." Are you joking? It had to be cut off. It was tightly around her neck and deep in a grove. We can debate whether or not the garrotte that the coroner saw was what caused the strangulation, but to say it wasn't function is absurd.

 

[DeeDee249]

"...garrotte wasn't functional. ..." Are you joking? It had to be cut off. It was tightly around her neck and deep in a grove. We can debate whether or not the garrotte that the coroner saw was what caused the strangulation, but to say it wasn't function is absurd.

I think you are misunderstanding the "not functional" part. It did not function as a true garrote, but it certainly DID function as a strangulation device. It did strangle her- that is not in dispute. But a true garrote is not tied or knotted around the throat. It is a long cord, wire, etc where the killer holds an end in each hand and wraps it around the neck of the victim, crossing one end over the other and pulling hard. In that sense the cord around JB's neck did not function like a true garrote because it was knotted- even though the end with the handle was wrapped around her throat. A true garrote does not need a handle anyway- it is the criss-cross action that strangles. A true garrote would not need to be cut off- it would simply slip off after the victim collapsed and the killer released the ends.