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?