John Ramsey's Role

allan · May 10, 2004

Thanks very much to all who responded to my question about the sincerity of Patsy Ramseys 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 daughters 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 Ramseys 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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

(The idea that the mother abused her daughters 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.

Ivy · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

allan said:
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 · May 10, 2004

vicktor said:
... 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...

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?

Click to expand...

Nehemiah · May 10, 2004

BlueCrab said:
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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

Arielle said:
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 · May 10, 2004

I echo your feelings. You said it well.

IMO

vicktor · May 10, 2004

Barbara said:
vicktor said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Shylock · May 10, 2004

BlueCrab said:
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 · May 10, 2004

Shylock said:
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 · May 10, 2004

Shylock said:
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 · May 10, 2004

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 · May 10, 2004

BlueCrab said:
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

John Ramsey's Role

Inactive

New Member

New Member

Member

Former Member

Inactive

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics