M for Murder: The Death of JonBenét Ramsey Reexamined

bugis

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
11
Reaction score
21
Introduction

For the past year I have been following a new line of inquiry into the Ramsey note and the larger crime scene around JonBenét Ramsey’s murder. This has led me to find many pieces of information that I believe are highly relevant for understanding what happened the night of her murder and how her death was covered up by her mother Patsy and how the crime scene was staged. The inquiry also has uncovered what I think is the most damning evidence against John Ramsey with regard to him showing guilty knowledge of Patsy’s involvement and her method of staging. It also (again) points away from Burke being involved in the crime in a significant way, with his involvement likely being at the most that he has some knowledge of what really happened that night.

In my analysis I have put the ransom note central as many people have often pointed out that it is the most important piece of evidence in the case. I agree with that assessment but I believe the note has never been analyzed in a satisfactory manner. Although much focus has rightly been placed on analyzing the handwriting, in my opinion the publicly available information about this analysis (particularly the analysis done by Cina Wong) is already convincing enough, when considered alongside all the other available circumstantial evidence as presented for example by Steve Thomas in his book, to thoroughly implicate Patsy as being involved in the crime. In my opinion Steve Thomas’s analysis of the case has very convincingly shown that Patsy Ramsey should be front and center when trying to understand the murder. Even though I don’t necessarily agree with all of his conclusions or interpretations of some pieces of evidence, I think his arguments for Patsy being the main suspect are far more convincing than any arguments that have been made for Burke’s involvement (or for John or anyone else being the main culprit). In my analysis, I have therefore mostly taken for granted that Patsy was involved in coming up with the words of the note and the staging elements of the crime scene, with only John’s possible involvement being an open question. However, my findings have supported and justified this approach with virtually all new circumstantial evidence pointing back to Patsy again and again and with pretty much all of the evidence making sense if John suspected or found out about Patsy’s involvement in JonBenét’s death only on the morning of the 26th, as Steve Thomas has also credibly argued.

I think the informational value of the content of the note has been relatively neglected or explained away too much. This is probably partly due to the fact that Don Foster’s analysis of the note has never been made public, in addition to his credibility being attacked because of his actions prior to becoming involved in the case. Furthermore, because the full inventory of videos and books present in the Ramsey home that night has never been made public, people seem to believe that no further relevant information about the crime can be gleaned from the content of the note.

People have either dismissed too much of the note’s content because they believe the only important conclusion is that the note was obviously fake and a clear sign of deception or, alternatively, they have (in my opinion wrongly) claimed to understand how the note came about by appealing either to an evident master plan by either parent to get rid of the body or some other plan (taking the note’s message too much at face value) or by appealing to a general and too vague a notion of the note being inspired by movies. In particular, the ‘movie buff’ explanation of the note has never quite explained just how one gets from the suspected movies (most often named are Dirty Harry, Speed, Ransom, Ruthless People and Nick of Time) to the actual words and concepts in the note. The appeal to a person having seen these movies so many times that they could easily recall and borrow key concepts and phrasing on the spot I believe is not a good explanation and overlooks many distinctive features of the note.

The new circumstantial evidence that I present and that I incorporate into my analysis of the Ramsey note and the larger crime scene hint at a particular unfolding of events that led to many of the mysterious elements in the crime scene that have been part of much speculation.

Although my theory admittedly still involves a lot of speculation, it also at least backs up many of the more speculative claims with new circumstantial evidence. For this reason, I hope that even if people disagree with some, or even many, of the smaller points that I make or with some of my interpretations of particular pieces of evidence, they can see the value of my approach for better understanding the crime scene and for explaining some of the more mysterious and infamous parts of the case.

Among the many things that my theory tries to explain (apart from the method of composition for the ransom note) are a motive for the crime, the use of a garrote, the use of a paintbrush for the garrote, JonBenét’s hair being tied into the knot of the garrote, the time between the skull fracture and the strangulation, the physical injuries sustained by JonBenét including the two dotted abrasions on her lower back as well as the abrasions on her face and throat and the genital trauma evidence, her being dressed in the over-sized panties and the long johns, the presence of the blanket and the gown in the wine cellar, the markings on her palm, the markings on the photos in the article about the Esprit awards, the flashlight on the kitchen counter, the binoculars upstairs, the underlining of verses in the Bible, the Christmas card in the trash bin in JonBenét’s room, the kitchen knife being found upstairs close to JonBenét’s bedroom, how the intruder theory came about and why Lou Smit became convinced a stun gun was involved in the crime, the ransom amount being $118,000, the sign-off ‘Victory! S.B.T.C’ and its meaning and origin, Patsy’s 911 call showing guilty knowledge of staging including what was said at the end of the call and why, Patsy’s behavior post-911 call on the 26th showing guilty knowledge, the Ramseys’ behavior in interviews post-crime showing guilty knowledge, as well as several pieces of evidence that I believe are relevant to the crime but that can only be seen to be relevant in light of the theory. On top of it all, I believe I have uncovered a deliberate confession by Patsy Ramsey that hints at the nature of the event leading up to the skull fracture.

A brief overview

There are two main major claims that I make from which I derive my interpretations about all of the more specific pieces of evidence listed above. Therefore, again, I hope that even if you disagree about any number of the more specific interpretations about specific pieces of evidence (and I readily admit that there is a good chance that I am wrong about a number of them, plus I’m certainly not as sure about some of the interpretations as I am about others), that you will see the value of approaching the case and trying to understand and explain the crime scene from these two larger points of view.

The first claim is that, whatever happened to cause the skull fracture that most experts (including coroner John Meyer who performed the official autopsy) agreed came first, Patsy Ramsey was desperate to reverse her daughter’s misfortune and turned to (her knowledge of) the book Healed of Cancer by Dodie Osteen. This is the book which Jeff Shapiro suspected could explain the ransom note’s sign-off ‘S.B.T.C’. I think that his observation on the role this book played in Patsy’s life is absolutely crucial for understanding the case although I don’t think Shapiro took his analysis of this aspect of the crime far enough and I also don’t think he got the interpretation of 118 right (he suspected it may have derived from Patsy’s reportedly being enamored with the number through Psalm 118 that was mentioned in some of her healing books, including Healed of Cancer, and on which she relied during her battle with cancer). In addition, I think he overlooked some crucial aspects of the crime and crime scene in connection with the book. But I agree that 118 was inspired by the Osteen-Bible connection and that it was NOT intended (at least not primarily, if she was even aware of the bonus amount at all) as a reference to John’s bonus. Something similar applies for the outside Seraph report’s profile on Patsy which looked for religious motives in the crime, which is an aspect I agree was important, even if their specific interpretations were not right in my view.

I think Patsy turned to Osteen’s book in sheer desperation to try to apply what she had used in her battle with cancer (which she believed had worked and saved her from cancer) to the predicament her daughter was in after the skull fracture. She tried to interpret the grand claims and promises made in the book to mean that she could save JonBenét through the power of faith healing so that she could avoid having to come clean about what happened. When this didn’t work, and as JonBenét’s condition deteriorated, she turned to the ultimate promise in the book that the Lord and his representative on Earth, Jesus Christ, Patsy’s Savior, could heal ALL sickness, and she interpreted that even the greatest miracle Jesus performed, that of the resurrection of Lazarus, was possible in her own life if she obeyed God’s commandments. But when, after trying to apply all of the advice she found in the book and interpreting all of the commands she believed she encountered through following the book’s references to the Bible, JonBenét still didn’t get better, she began staging a kidnapping-turned-to-murder scene in which a JonBenét left behind to resemble the scene from Lazarus’s resurrection could double as a crime scene left by a kidnapper-killer in case the miracle of her resurrection would not actually come about.

Still being in denial about her daughter’s death, she wrote a ransom note that had dual meaning for her. The note was overtly intended as a message by a mysterious intruder that could possibly mislead police and the outside world if JonBenét really was going to remain dead forever, but she covertly still desperately hoped for and clung to the belief of the possibility of the real-world resurrection of her daughter if she followed the commands she had encountered in Healed of Cancer plus the NIV Study Bible and if she imbued the scene around JonBenét’s death/condition with enough religious meaning that had spiritual potency. The problem was that one of the commands she encountered was to confess her sin. This was something that Patsy, whose observed behavior has been widely interpreted to show signs of narcissism, was not willing or able to do. That’s why she set to writing a note with two meanings. One meaning is that of the strange, not-so-believable kidnapper-killer note we are all familiar with. The other is the religious meaning that many of the lines can be seen to have when compared with the advice given in Osteen’s Healed of Cancer and the Bible books and passages that it references.

This brings us to the second major claim: the Ramsey note was NOT the product of paraphrasing half-remembered/memorized movie lines spontaneously and conveniently recalled at the right time when Patsy needed them. It was a sourced note, the product of actively gathering and using books that could help inspire Patsy to come up with some believable bad guy words, phrases and concepts. Going through these sources, I think she looked for words and concepts that showed some overlap with those that she encountered in her Osteen/Bible readings and which she was trying to leverage for spiritual healing through magical thinking. In other words, as she went through these books trying to come up with a kidnapper narrative, she paid special attention to words and concepts that could simultaneously be used as bad guy talk for the outside world and as a message for her God to show that she had followed His instructions and that the miracle of JonBenét’s healing/resurrection deserved to be brought about by Him. I have identified a number of sources that I hypothesize were present in the Ramsey home that night (used alongside some of the books known to have been present) and that I believe were used by Patsy to come up with most of the words and concepts in the note as well as a number of staging elements in the larger crime scene outside of the note. I have done some intensive reading and comparing of these sources with the Ramsey note and crime scene (as well as later Ramsey interviews and testimony about their behavior) and I have tried to identify as many of the specific passages that I think were used by Patsy that night to stage the crime scene (including the note) and some of which I think were used by both Patsy and John in the weeks, months and even years after the murder to flesh out the intruder theory. The first major breakthrough I experienced while investigating this approach that convinced me this approach could be fruitful was finding a connection between the murder weapon and a piece of evidence (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) that Steve Thomas described in his book and that has been much speculated about.

Another early key result was the realization that the movie Dirty Harry was not only a movie but had a movie novelization as well. In investigating this source I became very much convinced that this book makes a lot more sense as the source for the Dirty Harry elements overlapping with the Ramsey note than a reliance on memories from repeated exposure to the movie.

Once this was clear in my mind, I used the genre of the action-crime-suspense movie novelization to look for other books that might have been owned by people who had the Dirty Harry novelization. This led to some further sources that in my opinion are highly likely to have been used for the note, e.g. the Lethal Weapon novelization. In addition, a comment on a YouTube video by True Crime Rocket Science (investigating the movies that might have been used for inspiration) in which user @ziggypop8106 mentioned that kidnapping movies like Kiss The Girls were big in the 90s but who pointed out that Kiss The Girls was from 1997 made me realize that movies from after 1997 could still have stories based on books from before 1997. When I eventually checked the Kiss The Girls novel (1995) by James Patterson, I was shocked to find just how much the book showed overlap with the JonBenét Ramsey murder and the crime scene. Combing through this book and its detective Alex Cross predecessor Along Came A Spider and follow-up book Jack & Jill very attentively and comparing it with the facts of the case and the Ramseys’ behavior (also paying close attention to the police and media interviews with the Ramseys) made me convinced that the books were consulted that night by Patsy as inspiration for staging the crime scene and that John Ramsey was aware of this as least as early as the CNN interview one week after JonBenét’s body was discovered.

A substantial part of my theory is an attempt at reconstructing what may have gone through Patsy’s mind the night of JonBenét’s death so that some of the more strange aspects of the crime scene may start to make a little more sense when seen in light of her hypothesized actions, state of mind and thinking. It is obviously not possible to actually read a person’s mind exactly or to know for certain exactly what Patsy thought and did that night, but in some places I may write from a perspective that suggests such knowledge of Patsy’s mind and actions. This is not meant to suggest that such claims about what was in her mind or about what she possibly did are facts, but I have tried to interpret the (extended) crime scene on the basis of certain assumptions that I believe can be plausibly argued for and that hold some explanatory power. This is why I sometimes write from the perspective of certain things being taken for granted even if they are not actually facts. The aim of writing in this way is to hopefully make it easier to see the big picture benefit of conceptualizing the crime (scene) in terms of the major claims I make. I hope that the impartial reader can read through such language and keep in mind that I concede that a lot of assumptions and subjective interpretation are built into the theory.

A last methodological point I want to make for now is that I used the database of books and other (printed) sources found on archive.org Not only did I use the books it contains to search through the content of sources after I had identified them, some of the hypothesized sources I only managed to identify through its database-wide search function. Although I have tried to refrain from using its function to search through the contents of its entire collection too liberally, as this runs the risk of identifying too many false hits with books that show some odd overlap with the Ramsey note or the crime scene of JonBenét’s murder that aren’t really relevant to the murder, for some parts of the note I did use this methodology and it helped uncover at least two sources that I believe were highly likely used in writing the note and that I would have been unlikely to find without using this tool.

A note on the materials of my theory

My initial plan was to make a video presentation out of my findings in order to create a visually appealing and easily digested form of the theory. However, my rambling writing style and the nature of my analysis through close reading of the various hypothesized sources made the script I tried to write for such a video very dry and unappealing very quickly. Not only that, since I started writing this text/script while I was still actively analyzing the case to uncover more evidence and interpretations and since I’ve been writing it for a period of more than nine months already, some of my earlier analysis is no longer indicative of my current interpretation of some parts of the note and crime scene as I have continued to find new material and connections that I believe explain some parts better. In other words, the main running text with analysis is already in need of much revision. I want to stress that this type of analysis can obviously not be a hard science and is necessarily a matter of much interpretation in which a subjective judgment plays a part and which is hard to communicate or justify completely to others. Having said that, I don’t mean to suggest that all of the analysis is baseless speculation that holds no value or that cannot bring greater objective clarity on many aspects of the case. In fact, I would argue that the analysis overall, as it stands, proves beyond a reasonable doubt Patsy’s involvement in the staging of the crime scene and John’s knowledge of this after the fact.

Two of the documents that I share with you now are the original two documents I worked on while working out my theory. One is the main running text/commentary in which I first started my analysis and explain, in a very long-winded, rambling way, how I approached interpreting much of the note and the overall crime scene. The other document is a sort of index file (‘ANNOTATED TEXT …’) in which I catalogued candidate passages and sources that might explain elements in the Ramsey note and crime scene. This last document, too, needs revision as I have not kept it completely up to date while working on the (newer) diagrams of visual references in recent months during which time I discovered many new connections. Some of the page numbers referenced also still need to be updated because I changed some of the editions of the books that I used.

The diagrams (which can be downloaded from a folder through the link below, along with the Main running text since that file appears to be too big to share directly on Websleuths) are the most recent material I have worked on. They were intended to be a somewhat more visually appealing and more accessible entry into the most important findings and interpretations of the theory. However, as stylish and terse presentation is simply not a strong suit of mine, some of these too will probably appear somewhat chaotic, convoluted and off-putting. I share the files of the diagrams in SVG format (which can be opened with most modern internet browsers) in the hope that it is relatively doable to zoom in on specific parts and follow the visual (colored) lines and connections between various elements. Here I struggled as well with the fact that I encountered new material and developed new interpretations even as I was making them so that much of the ordering of the elements is probably less than efficient let alone optimal. I hope that a close look at the diagrams will make it easier to search for some of the relevant commentary in the running text with analysis that will provide some additional reasoning for some of the interpretations although some of the diagram’s material has not yet been incorporated into the running text. The diagrams contain some copyrighted material that is mostly hosted on archive.org I have tried to make it clear where all the material comes from and who the original authors are. I have tried to limit the screenshots of the copyrighted material as much as possible without making the theory inaccessible and I hope it can be considered a fair use to present the material in this way given the context and nature of the subject and the argument really requiring seeing the visual of the actual pages. As a warning, some of the documents contain graphic images of crime scene photos with parts of JonBenét’s body visible in them which are disturbing. I have kept out the most graphic photos however and I mostly use close-ups of her palm. Some of the passages from the books also contain spoilers for the stories of those books. The pdf document A Smoking Gun is the beginning of an exploration of the overlap between words and concepts used by the Ramseys in their interviews with those found in the hypothesized sources used for staging the crime scene (mostly the Alex Cross stories). I will let people judge for themselves whether they believe such a degree of overlap can be due to coincidence or not.

I have decided to share the material that I have at the moment, including mistakes, inconsistencies, poor formatting and all, to not further delay the possibility for all people with an interest in this case to evaluate the information I provide and to come to their own conclusions about the new circumstantial evidence I provide and the (im)plausibility of the theory around it. In my opinion, the DNA evidence is completely irrelevant in this case and any investigative focus on it is a waste of time and resources and in my opinion it cannot and will not bring justice for JonBenét. It is my hope that this theory will inspire others to consider the general approach I take to understanding the crime scene and its elements and to look more closely at some of the particular aspects of the case from this point of view in order that it can hopefully help bring us closer to the truth about what really happened to JonBenét, who was responsible for it and to what degree.

Although it is very likely that at least some of my interpretations about the material in the hypothesized sources leading to particular features in the Ramsey note and crime scene are wrong, I hope people will not underestimate the explanatory power of the theory in general and some specific parts in particular. I have followed closely the kinds of questions and interpretations that people familiar with the case tend to share online (mostly on Reddit, in YouTube videos and comments, and on Websleuths) about some of the more puzzling aspects of the case and I have found that for many of these elements that appear to be decidedly odd and inexplicable, my theory can provide a fairly natural interpretation and reasonably plausible explanation that can fit together virtually all of the well-known elements in the case. I do disagree with some interpretations of some pieces of evidence by people who are considered experts on them and it is to be expected that people will not be willing to accept to have some of these expert opinions questioned by a layperson. I can only say in my defense that I try to follow the evidence as best I can and that I try to go with the interpretations that to me make the most sense out of all the known evidence in the case taken as a whole and which can give a coherent theory of the crime.

I intend to keep working on the theory and to update the documents that I share today. It is my hope that through people’s feedback on my findings and interpretations that I can work on a more focused, convincing presentation of the theory and that it can be improved upon by removing the weaker material and adding stronger material. Ultimately, I hope this can help us come closer to an understanding of the truth about what happened to JonBenét and why.

I would like to say thank you to Cynic, who is the only person who I have informed of part of this material and who was generous enough to sacrifice his time and effort to give feedback on the theory. The documents I shared with you did not yet include the diagrams and were therefore very inaccessible and unappealing to read yet you were kind enough to take a look at them anyway and give some valuable feedback. Even though we disagree on the D-U-I interpretation and other points, I welcome any and all such criticism of the theory and I look forward to discussing some of the major and finer points of the evidence I present and the interpretations I give them with people who, like Cynic, are knowledgeable about the case. Since the moment I shared those versions of the documents with him, I have made several new, interesting discoveries that can explain more aspects of the case and that have made me even more convinced that the interpretation of 118 and the NIV Study Bible-Osteen connection are correct. Some of the more important new material I recommend (for Cynic) taking a look at is the ‘want to see 1997’/page 1997 NIVSB connection along with the subsequent reconsidering of just about all of the note’s lines having a similar deliberate dual meaning, the Jack and Jill material in relation to the general idea behind the intruder targeting wealthy people, the Copycat material in relation to how JonBenét was found, and the Murder and Mayhem material in relation to some of the earlier hypothesized connections such as the Fritz Lang M / palm / ‘keep your babies close’ connection.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this effort to all the people who have long pursued the truth in this case and who continue to do so. People like Steve Thomas, Jeff Shapiro, Fleet & Priscilla White (and again Cynic as well as Tricia) and many others have all contributed to this pursuit in their own ways and I believe all of them have helped make it possible to keep investigative focus where it really belongs. The efforts of Steve Thomas (through his book and his interpretation of Patsy as the central suspect in the case with John only joining the cover-up the next morning) and Jeff Shapiro (through his pointing to the importance of Healed of Cancer) have particularly influenced my own theory, and like many others, I hold the former’s contributions to the case in especially high regard. Although I don’t know if any of them would ultimately see any merit in the material and speculative interpretations that I present here or approve of my approach, I hope that they and people like them who care about the case and about its true victim, may find at least some new perspectives that can hopefully resolve some of the many lingering questions about what happened to this little girl and why.

I have decided to finally share this theory publicly in the wake of Easter as I think it is an appropriate time (not as an April Fools' joke mind you) since I believe the concept of resurrection and belief in it were so central to what happened that night. JonBenét may not have had the fortune to really be resurrected physically that night or the next morning, but I hope that the chance of more of the truth about her fate coming out can help raise her spiritually.

Rest your soul, JonBenét.


Diagrams + Main running text download
 

Attachments

  • A Smoking Gun.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 56
  • ANNOTATED TEXT OF RANSOM NOTE AND (POST-)CRIME SCENE ELEMENTS WITH POSSIBLE SOURCES OF INSPIRA...txt
    592.5 KB · Views: 49
bugis,

I've read your post and am working my way through the annotated text of the ransom note. There are so many thoughts in my head in response, it's hard to know where to start, but maybe with a few simple observations.

I have said to friends that if the case could be solved or further resolved with the information available, it would have been by now. That is to say, new information of some kind is the only way forward. I don't believe DNA will provide it. Your analysis-in-progress might. This does not at all imply, by the way, that I think ongoing discussions about what is known or otherwise theorized are not valuable; I believe they very much are.

In your text analysis of the ransom note, you trace patterns of dual meanings and intentions. If I'm understanding you correctly so far, it's even more complex than that. These dual meanings and intentions are layered and interconnected. It's hard to describe but, curiously, what comes to mind is those floor plan diagrams of the house that show the expanded overlay, how the rooms/floors align when they are stacked one on top of the other - one coherent plan, but hard to navigate with its multiple connections and dimensions, remodeling eccentricities, and extensions beyond the original foundation.

In your theory, PR was operating in two different realities on the night of and planning for two different futures. In the first one, she seriously injured JBR with a blow to the head and set in motion a plan to justify herself to God so that He would raise JBR from the dead as He had done with Lazarus. In the second reality/plan, unfolding at the same time, she saw her daughter's condition deteriorating and set in motion a plan to cover up her actions and blame JBR's death on a kidnapper-murderer in case God didn't restore JBR to life. It's a fascinating theory, and my question as I kept reading was, Have we ever seen similar behavior in PR? One known theme in PR's life that immediately leapt out at me as having the same sort of duality in meanings and intentions (and actions) was her stated belief that she was miraculously and completely healed of cancer - it would not recur - alongside her intense promotion of JBR's pageant life out of fear that she (PR) might die of cancer and not be around to see JBR in pageants as she grew older. Here, as in your theory of JBR's death, PR was living out of two realities simultaneously and planning for two different and mutually exclusive futures. In both cases, absolute trust in God is at the center of her dilemma, being both asserted and undermined by a Plan B. In both cases, PR has a version of things that relieves her of accountability for her actions.

That's all I can say for now. Thanks for your hard work. Please let me know if and where you think I'm wide of the mark.
 
One further thought --
The ransom note has the phrase "any deviation of my instructions," which is an error. Correct usage would be "any deviation from my instructions." I have sometimes said to friends that if we could find someone who was in Boulder the night of Dec. 25, 1996 who was known to have used the expression "deviation of" instead of "deviation from," we'd have the killer.

I'm going to borrow your "working theory diction" here and say PR thinks or says or does a particular thing, not meaning to state it as fact but as an assumption within the theory - much less cumbersome than a sea of ifs and would haves. So- In your annotated text of the RN, you point out numerous instances where PR appropriates/may have appropriated or been influenced by phrases from books and other printed sources. Sometimes the phrases are exact, sometimes slightly reworded, sometimes misapplied. One surprising source is Jimmy Carter Public Papers, Books 1 and 2 (JCPP), which you cite on numerous occasions, mostly as the language relates to groups, foreign groups, violent factions, and so on. But there is also the sequence of "will withdraw from" followed by "the remaining" (in reference to the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces), and numerous uses of "the remaining" (some, not insignificantly, in relation to the release of the hostages in Iran), language and syntax also seen in the RN in, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills." And then, lo and behold, there is "any deviation of my administration" (BBM). It's the exact same rare usage error found in the ransom note. And I'm pretty sure we can take Jimmy Carter off the suspect list.
 
One further thought --
The ransom note has the phrase "any deviation of my instructions," which is an error. Correct usage would be "any deviation from my instructions." I have sometimes said to friends that if we could find someone who was in Boulder the night of Dec. 25, 1996 who was known to have used the expression "deviation of" instead of "deviation from," we'd have the killer.

I'm going to borrow your "working theory diction" here and say PR thinks or says or does a particular thing, not meaning to state it as fact but as an assumption within the theory - much less cumbersome than a sea of ifs and would haves. So- In your annotated text of the RN, you point out numerous instances where PR appropriates/may have appropriated or been influenced by phrases from books and other printed sources. Sometimes the phrases are exact, sometimes slightly reworded, sometimes misapplied. One surprising source is Jimmy Carter Public Papers, Books 1 and 2 (JCPP), which you cite on numerous occasions, mostly as the language relates to groups, foreign groups, violent factions, and so on. But there is also the sequence of "will withdraw from" followed by "the remaining" (in reference to the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces), and numerous uses of "the remaining" (some, not insignificantly, in relation to the release of the hostages in Iran), language and syntax also seen in the RN in, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills." And then, lo and behold, there is "any deviation of my administration" (BBM). It's the exact same rare usage error found in the ransom note. And I'm pretty sure we can take Jimmy Carter off the suspect list.

Phooey. I was too slow on the edit. The last portion of the post should read:

And then, lo and behold, there is "any deviation of my administration" (BBM). The full phrase is, "[no] need to fear any deviation of my administration in enhancing the production and the use of coal." The awkwardly worded but correct usage would be "any deviation of my administration from enhancing the production and the use of coal." PR misapplied the phrase and repeated the same rare usage error in the ransom note. And I'm pretty sure we can take Jimmy Carter off the suspect list.
 
All of this is very interesting, with some good points being raised. I was unfamiliar with the book by Dodie Osteen, so I did a little poking around on that. While many of the reviews on Amazon are positive ones, the reviews that really caught my eye were the not so positive ones. It really isn't a book per se, and many referred to it as a pamphlet as it is apparently just under 80 pages. One review in particular, was by someone who had bought the pamphlet as a gift for a friend who was battling cancer. This person was struck by the overall negativity that Dodie infuses the pamphlet with, and found it to be not the uplifting, positive and supportive message that any person suffering from life threatening illness wants to have. Apparently rooted in the idea that God heals simply if you believe and that medical treatment / intervention is not needed, although wisely (probably so as not to get sued) advising to pursue treatment if desired.

Belief in God I agree can be very powerful in people's lives, and I do not at all discount that strong faith can be a very positive attribute if placed appropriately. That said, I cannot ignore the shall I say, questionable reputation of the Osteens who have amassed a very impressive personal fortune and promote "prosperity theology".

The apparent duality of PR's belief system seems to be reflected in her behavior. While she readily and grandiosely espouses her faith in God and his ultimate power to heal and to resurrect, she never is without a Plan B, just in case. It is interesting to me that just as appearances were so important to her, she let that permeate into her relationship with God, in that her proclamations of her faith and the very act of church-going became part of the narrative, the public face that the R's wanted to present. Who can forget the Sunday that Pat Korten showed up at the Boulder church out of the blue, having called the press and orchestrated a photo op of the R's surrounded by clergy and church members. The very definition of hypocrisy, asking the church to form a protective barrier around the R's from the media circus that they had instigated themselves.

It also reminds me of her plea to Pam Griffin, "couldn't you fix this for me? We didn't mean for that to happen". Again we see her eerily removed from one of her realities, God having not performed the asked for miracle, she looks to another avenue. And yes, also removed from accountability.
 
Very interesting research and work there. I shall have to read through it more than once to assess t. Thank you for the investigative work.

Two additional things IIRC that have always puzzled me as important: the bowl of pineapple and voices heard on the 911 call. On the former, I think there were some questions as to whose it was and who might have eaten it from the partially filled bowl on the counter? I believe analysis indicated that the son’s DNA was discovered on the bowl of unfinished cut pineapple? (And also IIRC partially digested pineapple was found in the autopsy of JBR?) So that seems to be the intersection of the two children living in the house that evening?

On the latter, I thought there were reports that the son’s voice was also believed to be heard on the initial 911 call? But there were also IIRC early indications from the parents that the son was asleep through the evening? But I am not certain that was the case in all information given? I thought that there might have been different answers from the parents on who was awake in the residence at that time? MOO
 
Very interesting research and work there. I shall have to read through it more than once to assess t. Thank you for the investigative work.

Two additional things IIRC that have always puzzled me as important: the bowl of pineapple and voices heard on the 911 call. On the former, I think there were some questions as to whose it was and who might have eaten it from the partially filled bowl on the counter? I believe analysis indicated that the son’s DNA was discovered on the bowl of unfinished cut pineapple? (And also IIRC partially digested pineapple was found in the autopsy of JBR?) So that seems to be the intersection of the two children living in the house that evening?

On the latter, I thought there were reports that the son’s voice was also believed to be heard on the initial 911 call? But there were also IIRC early indications from the parents that the son was asleep through the evening? But I am not certain that was the case in all information given? I thought that there might have been different answers from the parents on who was awake in the residence at that time? MOO
If I may, you are correct that one of BR’s fingerprints were found on the bowl of pineapple, and also one of PR’s fingerprints. BR’s fingerprints were also found on the clear glass that was present. Partially digested pineapple was found in JBR’s digestive track that was consistent with the fresh pineapple pieces in the bowl. It was determined that she had eaten the pineapple within 1-2 hours before her death, which of course was inconsistent with the R’s tale of her falling asleep in the car, having to be carried into the house and upstairs to be put in bed and never waking up.

BR at one point disputed the parents’ claim and said she was awake and went upstairs herself. He also later admitted to sneaking back downstairs after everyone had supposedly gone to bed, to continue playing with a new toy.

More than one story of that night has been told by the parents. JR at first said he read a story to JBR before bed that night, another admission that she was awake. He later changed his story to the she was asleep in the car and never woke up scenario.

As far as I’m aware, the 911 call and additional voices at the end is still in question. The original enhanced version of the call apparently has never been released publicly, and is still in the possession of the Boulder PD. Versions that have been played on various tv programs and on the internet were made from copies. I've listened to it myself probably a dozen times and it's not clear at all. I think it might be a case of the power of suggestion as to people saying they hear what others have said is there. I have read though, that some who have heard the original enhanced version say the voices are fairly clear. So......is this another instance of holding back evidence that prove the R's were lying because it includes BR, as has been also suggested as a reason this case was never prosecuted even though the Grand Jury voted to indict?
 
Last edited:
n theme in PR's life that immediately leapt out at me as having the same sort of duality in meanings and intentions (and actions) was her stated belief that she was miraculously and completely healed of cancer - it would not recur - alongside her intense promotion of JBR's pageant life out of fear that she (PR) might die of cancer and not be around to see JBR in pageants as she grew older. Here, as in your theory of JBR's death, PR was living out of two realities simultaneously and planning for two different and mutually exclusive futures. In both cases, absolute trust in God is at the center of her dilemma, being both asserted and undermined by a Plan B. In both cases, PR has a version of things that relieves her of accountability for her actions.

That's all I can say for now. Thanks for your hard work. Please let me know if and where you think I'm wide of the mark.
Thank you for the thoughtful feedback, Meara. Your observation around Patsy having shown an earlier pattern of having a plan B in case God doesn't come through for her is interesting to think about indeed, I hadn't thought of it that way. I do think generally it's not uncommon for a person who has gone through cancer to have worries about their future, but Patsy perhaps downplayed her doubts to the outside world due to her preoccupation with image management.

When one reads Osteen, there is also the sense that Osteen is bragging a bit, self-aggrandizing. I can see how a person with narcissistic traits reading that might not want to be outdone and would outwardly brag to convince herself that she had at least as much of a claim to be considered favored by God as the other person. But that overt one-upmanship wouldn't necessarily take away all private doubts about the possible future danger of a disease as scary as cancer. So having a plan B was probably more of her authentic self coming through. Similarly, I think her plan B in staging was her more rational side. I think the magical thinking part, plan A, was mostly due to a (pathological) fear of being reproached and held accountable. So she needed healing/resurrection to be possible that night because taking responsibility for what had happened was not a feasible option in her mind.

In my theory she has done just about the worst possible thing she could have done to John, injuring/killing another one of his daughters in an accident involving a car after he had just barely recovered from the unfair death of his first daughter in a car accident. I think Patsy feared the anger and judgmental behavior John could show (especially if they had had an argument about her driving to the Fernies so late and John had advised against it), the kind of anger that Linda Hoffman Pugh I believe described about him when the house was accidentally flooded and he showed this sort of silent but unmistakable resentment.

But there is also the sequence of "will withdraw from" followed by "the remaining" (in reference to the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces), and numerous uses of "the remaining" (some, not insignificantly, in relation to the release of the hostages in Iran), language and syntax also seen in the RN in, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account.
To be frank, I am not entirely sure about this part of the note coming from that part of the book but I think it's a good candidate. The reason I am not so sure is because I think the NIVSB or The Living Bible has a lot of 'the remaining' occurrences as well and possibly 'withdraw' too (I'd have to check again). But the pattern of those lines in the Jimmy Carter Public Papers source is indeed noteworthy because the book already showed a highly particular overlap with another part of the note ('any deviation of').

In general, when I considered a source highly likely for inspiring some particular part of the note, I have been more willing to see any further overlap between the source and the note as likely not coincidental either (e.g. the 'grow a brain' quote from Speed in The Dictionary of Film Quotations as well as the term 'immediate execution' being found just before the Dirty Harry entry in the same book).

All of this is very interesting, with some good points being raised. I was unfamiliar with the book by Dodie Osteen, so I did a little poking around on that. While many of the reviews on Amazon are positive ones, the reviews that really caught my eye were the not so positive ones. It really isn't a book per se, and many referred to it as a pamphlet as it is apparently just under 80 pages. One review in particular, was by someone who had bought the pamphlet as a gift for a friend who was battling cancer. This person was struck by the overall negativity that Dodie infuses the pamphlet with, and found it to be not the uplifting, positive and supportive message that any person suffering from life threatening illness wants to have. Apparently rooted in the idea that God heals simply if you believe and that medical treatment / intervention is not needed, although wisely (probably so as not to get sued) advising to pursue treatment if desired.

Belief in God I agree can be very powerful in people's lives, and I do not at all discount that strong faith can be a very positive attribute if placed appropriately. That said, I cannot ignore the shall I say, questionable reputation of the Osteens who have amassed a very impressive personal fortune and promote "prosperity theology".

The apparent duality of PR's belief system seems to be reflected in her behavior. While she readily and grandiosely espouses her faith in God and his ultimate power to heal and to resurrect, she never is without a Plan B, just in case. It is interesting to me that just as appearances were so important to her, she let that permeate into her relationship with God, in that her proclamations of her faith and the very act of church-going became part of the narrative, the public face that the R's wanted to present. Who can forget the Sunday that Pat Korten showed up at the Boulder church out of the blue, having called the press and orchestrated a photo op of the R's surrounded by clergy and church members. The very definition of hypocrisy, asking the church to form a protective barrier around the R's from the media circus that they had instigated themselves.

It also reminds me of her plea to Pam Griffin, "couldn't you fix this for me? We didn't mean for that to happen". Again we see her eerily removed from one of her realities, God having not performed the asked for miracle, she looks to another avenue. And yes, also removed from accountability.
The Osteen book is definitely 'out there' in a pretty shocking way when one reads it carefully and it has to be reckoned with that Patsy was known to have been deeply impressed by the book. The relevance of this to the crime was a very important observation and rightly emphasized by Jeff Shapiro. But I think he didn't do a close enough reading of the book to see just how much the book can explain why things unfolded the way they did that night and the following day.

The book is definitely very short and very small and thin too. Patsy could have easily kept it on her somewhere that morning without people even noticing, although she may have put it away after staging too since she was probably very familiar with most of its advice anyway.

Regarding her plea to Pam: it may possibly stem from the same passage in Healed of Cancer that I believe made her call the Fernies (this one and a similar one in NIVSB):

"32. JAMES 5:14,15: Be anointed with oil by a Christian who believes in healing.

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And — the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

I encourage you to call the elders of the church and have them anoint you with oil and pray for you in the name of the Lord. God says the prayer of faith will save the sick.

If you don’t have elders who know how to pray the prayer of faith, then find someone who does know how and have them anoint you with oil. Then believe that God will keep His Word, and the Lord will raise you up."
 
In my theory she has done just about the worst possible thing she could have done to John, injuring/killing another one of his daughters in an accident involving a car after he had just barely recovered from the unfair death of his first daughter in a car accident. I think Patsy feared the anger and judgmental behavior John could show (especially if they had had an argument about her driving to the Fernies so late and John had advised against it), the kind of anger that Linda Hoffman Pugh I believe described about him when the house was accidentally flooded and he showed this sort of silent but unmistakable resentment.
Wait, what?? Would you kindly clarify this statement please?
 
Wait, what?? Would you kindly clarify this statement please?
My theory about Patsy being focused on JonBenét's resurrection comes from carefully considering the first words she said when faced with her daughter's lifeless body. If we assume, for all the well-known reasons that have been pointed out many times, that Patsy is the obvious main suspect, then the question about the crime becomes not who did it but what happened and why. If we want to try to get closer to an answer to those questions, we have to try to look at evidence about Patsy's behavior as close in time to the time of the murder as possible. The best objective sources for this are the 911 call and the police reports that describe what Patsy's behavior was that morning (described by people who were there and some of whom started writing their reports that same day, although Linda Arndt took more than a week to write hers). The additional testimony by some of the people who were there in books such as Perfect Murder, Perfect Town are also valuable.

It is not disputed that Patsy, upon being faced with JonBenét's lifeless body (supposedly for the first time) said something very close to the words reported by Linda Arndt and that she said that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that she asked Jesus to raise her own baby from the dead. If Patsy was the person responsible for JonBenét's death and staging, then obviously she had already been thinking about her daughter's death all night and all morning. So these words are not some random general religious talk that any innocent mother might have uttered moments after learning of their daughter's death. Those words, and the frame they invoke, that of the story of Lazarus and the theme of resurrection, are significant. They tell us something about where her mind was at. Then, discovering that this very notion of Jesus raising Lazarus and that similar miracles can happen to people who have faith and who do the right things with the right attitude, is invoked near the end of the book Healed of Cancer, a faith healing book that Patsy was known to be heavily influenced by during her struggle with cancer, which at that time she believed and proclaimed to have beaten with the help of her faith. This passage about Lazarus in the book occurs in a very specific context and because Patsy invokes it at a very significant moment in the case, it makes sense to closely look at the context of this passage and see why Patsy may have been thinking about it that morning.

When one does that, one finds that the Lazarus passage occurs in the context of thinking, saying and doing the right things in order to raise one's chances of having a miracle brought about by Jesus in one's own life, according to whatever need one may have. It is obvious that Patsy, if unexpectedly faced with the impending death of her daughter, or even right after it, would have had a very obvious need: she wanted JonBenét's injury/death to be undone. So, out of desperation and because she really had a strong sense of faith and a belief in the power of faith healing, she would have good reason to take a very close look at all the specific advice in and near this passage with the hopeful message that she wanted to believe. And it just so happens that many other connections between Osteen's advice (as well as the Bible passages she references) and the Ramsey crime scene and Patsy's observed behavior that morning are found. This means that not only was she making reference to a highly specific story mentioned in Osteen's book at a very significant moment in the case, but much of her earlier behavior before that moment is also tied to the advice that can be found in that book.

And not only is there a cluster of such elements from the book showing up in the crime scene and Patsy's behavior, it is showing up in different important parts that shouldn't all be tied to the same book in so many ways if Patsy really was innocent and unaware of what had happened to her daughter. The connections show up in the 911 call, in the ransom note, in Patsy's behavior that morning after the 911 call but before JonBenét is found, in Patsy's behavior upon discovery of the body, in the Ramseys' book The Death of Innocence several years later, in testimony about Patsy's observed behavior even before the day of the murder. This is much more than some simple coincidences. This is converging evidence that, when taken together and considered as a whole, begin to tell a story of the outline of what may have transpired.

The 'Help me Jesus' at the end of the 911 call are the three words Osteen explicitly advises to use in time of need ('Jesus help me').
The 'want to see 1997' in the ransom note matches the advice to explicitly state what your need is and what you would like to receive. Because Patsy obviously can't explicitly write that she wants her daughter to be resurrected in a note meant to blame her death on a mysterious intruder, she references the page number in the NIVSB where she looked in the index for passages about resurrection, a page that she finds by following another piece of advice from Osteen and some of the Bible verses she references: Jesus is the Word and Jesus is life. And Osteen encourages to look for Jesus and the Lord in scripture. So Patsy interprets this and does so quite literally: she looks under the word 'Life' in the index, which happens to be on page 1997 (only in the later edition of the book) and which happens to have a sub-entry on 'resurrection'. This is how she can secretly ask her Lord for the thing she wants (as Osteen advised) without mentioning resurrection through Jesus explicitly in the note. This is why that particular phrasing in the note sounds so odd but to Patsy, who, as has been pointed out often, quite naturally referred to the coming year explicitly as a normal way of talking as evidenced in her Christmas newsletter, this phrase probably sounded not so awkward.

So that's one problem solved for her. But the problem is that there are several more pieces of advice that Osteen gives and there are some things that the Bible passages referenced seem to demand if someone wants to receive God's blessings. One major one is the mention of the importance to come clean about one's sins and to confess. This is another major problem for Patsy and her intruder-note obviously. This one she solves gradually I think by incorporating various pieces into the letter by which she attempts to secretly come clean about the thing she is feeling guilty about and which she considers to be her sin. The first attempt is to incorporate a general admission of being guilty/sinful regarding her daughter's death. Osteen emphasizes that God answers the prayers of those who keep his commandments and that one can receive whatever one's need is. One of the ways Osteen emphasizes this is by referring to the letter of First John (which is otherwise known as 1 John) in the Bible which quite literally states this same piece of advice. In this short Bible book/letter, however, the importance about confessing one's sins is also emphasized. This is why I think Patsy chose to refer to a verse from this book about being sinful in order to acknowledge that she needed to confess and to secretly admit that she was sinful. This is where the 118 came from, in my opinion, referring to verse 1 John 1:8. Then there is the mention of 'brown paper' in the Ramsey note, which is quite an unnecessary detail that doesn't seem to serve any real purpose in the kidnapper reading of the note. It's again why that line too has always appeared so odd to people. It's because Patsy encountered the term 'brown paper' in one of the kidnapper stories she was drawing inspiration from for her verbiage, and I think that gave her the idea that she could use this kidnapping story element to communicate the nature of her sin as was being demanded of her by her Lord. So 'brown paper bag' for her serves as a covert reference to alcohol, which is associated also with a brown paper bag. This is what I think she was trying to indicate had to do with what her sin was.

But, perhaps worried that this wasn't quite explicit enough for a confession and didn't really cover what her sin had really been and therefore risking not being granted her wish by her Lord by failling to follow his commandments, she comes back to this problem at the end of the note and tries to incorporate a more explicit version of her confession in yet another slick way. She uses an acrostic for the last three lines of the note to place the confession, the climax of her obeying God's commandments and the demands she is interpreting from places in the Bible that Osteen recommends, in a prominent and symbolically significant place. That's why she concludes with the statement of 'Victory!' immediately after because she has successfully found a way to incorporate all the things she thinks she needs to do in order to have a shot at being granted her request by her Lord. It is victory over her sin, a concept explicitly described in these terms in some of the (footnotes of the) Bible passages referenced. This acrostic spells D-U-I, Driving Under (the) Influence.

This is, for the most part, how I arrive at the conclusion that some such accident was likely the cause of the skull fracture and why I then focus on aspects to do with the car in later interviews with the Ramseys and in the way they steer away attention from this part of the story of what happened that night. Taking that conclusion as a working assumption, I then reason about what kind of scenario would've made sense in which Patsy is responsible for such an accident without John knowing about it until the next morning. That's where my interpretation comes from that Patsy wanted to deliver the last remaining gift basket, intended for the Fernies, and that the Ramseys had made a pit stop at home so that Patsy could get JonBenét dressed in a red turtleneck sweater matching her own outfit, which had been her original plan for the Whites' dinner party. Patsy admitted in one of her police interviews that the refusal to wear the matching outfit had caused some tension between her and JonBenét. I think Patsy compromised by going to the Whites not getting her way but I think she made it a point to get her way as per her original plan for the last intended stop. I think John and Patsy probably had a disagreement about whether it was wise to make that last stop at such a late time when they had an early flight. ("we debated" on the decision not to go the Fernies, John claiming they decided on it in agreement but I think the word he chose betrayed what really happened, similar to how he uses "I debated that" when describing the choice for the 25th as the date on JonBenét's tombstone). I think this pit stop to change outfits is also why Patsy initially told police that morning that JonBenét had worn the red turtleneck to bed. I think she said that because that's what JonBenét really had been wearing at the time of the accident and it's possible that after they came back home she at first put JonBenét on her bed in her bedroom wearing that outfit as Patsy contemplated what to do and started reaching for her faith healing attempts.

I hope this clarified my statement a bit. There is more to say about the car interpretation but there is of course also the other side of it that people may question, as Cynic does, whether any type of accident involving a car could have (physically) caused the skull fracture. The comment about the flooding incident in my previous post refers to an anecdote that I think is described in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I want to say it was the former nanny who told it but I'd have to check. John was mad at her for accidentally flooding the house but it was a silent sort of rage.
 
Last edited:
My theory about Patsy being focused on JonBenét's resurrection comes from carefully considering the first words she said when faced with her daughter's lifeless body. If we assume, for all the well-known reasons that have been pointed out many times, that Patsy is the obvious main suspect, then the question about the crime becomes not who did it but what happened and why. If we want to try to get closer to an answer to those questions, we have to try to look at evidence about Patsy's behavior as close in time to the time of the murder as possible. The best objective sources for this are the 911 call and the police reports that describe what Patsy's behavior was that morning (described by people who were there and some of whom started writing their reports that same day, although Linda Arndt took more than a week to write hers). The additional testimony by some of the people who were there in books such as Perfect Murder, Perfect Town are also valuable.

It is not disputed that Patsy, upon being faced with JonBenét's lifeless body (supposedly for the first time) said something very close to the words reported by Linda Arndt and that she said that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that she asked Jesus to raise her own baby from the dead. If Patsy was the person responsible for JonBenét's death and staging, then obviously she had already been thinking about her daughter's death all night and all morning. So these words are not some random general religious talk that any innocent mother might have uttered moments after learning of their daughter's death. Those words, and the frame they invoke, that of the story of Lazarus and the theme of resurrection, are significant. They tell us something about where her mind was at. Then, discovering that this very notion of Jesus raising Lazarus and that similar miracles can happen to people who have faith and who do the right things with the right attitude, is invoked near the end of the book Healed of Cancer, a faith healing book that Patsy was known to be heavily influenced by during her struggle with cancer, which at that time she believed and proclaimed to have beaten with the help of her faith. This passage about Lazarus in the book occurs in a very specific context and because Patsy invokes it at a very significant moment in the case, it makes sense to closely look at the context of this passage and see why Patsy may have been thinking about it that morning.

When one does that, one finds that the Lazarus passage occurs in the context of thinking, saying and doing the right things in order to raise one's chances of having a miracle brought about by Jesus in one's own life, according to whatever need one may have. It is obvious that Patsy, if unexpectedly faced with the impending death of her daughter, or even right after it, would have had a very obvious need: she wanted JonBenét's injury/death to be undone. So, out of desperation and because she really had a strong sense of faith and a belief in the power of faith healing, she would have good reason to take a very close look at all the specific advice in and near this passage with the hopeful message that she wanted to believe. And it just so happens that many other connections between Osteen's advice (as well as the Bible passages she references) and the Ramsey crime scene and Patsy's observed behavior that morning are found. This means that not only was she making reference to a highly specific story mentioned in Osteen's book at a very significant moment in the case, but much of her earlier behavior before that moment is also tied to the advice that can be found in that book.

And not only is there a cluster of such elements from the book showing up in the crime scene and Patsy's behavior, it is showing up in different important parts that shouldn't all be tied to the same book in so many ways if Patsy really was innocent and unaware of what had happened to her daughter. The connections show up in the 911 call, in the ransom note, in Patsy's behavior that morning after the 911 call but before JonBenét is found, in Patsy's behavior upon discovery of the body, in the Ramseys' book The Death of Innocence several years later, in testimony about Patsy's observed behavior even before the day of the murder. This is much more than some simple coincidences. This is converging evidence that, when taken together and considered as a whole, begin to tell a story of the outline of what may have transpired.

The 'Help me Jesus' at the end of the 911 call are the three words Osteen explicitly advises to use in time of need ('Jesus help me').
The 'want to see 1997' in the ransom note matches the advice to explicitly state what your need is and what you would like to receive. Because Patsy obviously can't explicitly write that she wants her daughter to be resurrected in a note meant to blame her death on a mysterious intruder, she references the page number in the NIVSB where she looked in the index for passages about resurrection, a page that she finds by following another piece of advice from Osteen and some of the Bible verses she references: Jesus is the Word and Jesus is life. And Osteen encourages to look for Jesus and the Lord in scripture. So Patsy interprets this and does so quite literally: she looks under the word 'Life' in the index, which happens to be on page 1997 (only in the later edition of the book) and which happens to have a sub-entry on 'resurrection'. This is how she can secretly ask her Lord for the thing she wants (as Osteen advised) without mentioning resurrection through Jesus explicitly in the note. This is why that particular phrasing in the note sounds so odd but to Patsy, who, as has been pointed out often, quite naturally referred to the coming year explicitly as a normal way of talking as evidenced in her Christmas newsletter, this phrase probably sounded not so awkward.

So that's one problem solved for her. But the problem is that there are several more pieces of advice that Osteen gives and there are some things that the Bible passages referenced seem to demand if someone wants to receive God's blessings. One major one is the mention of the importance to come clean about one's sins and to confess. This is another major problem for Patsy and her intruder-note obviously. This one she solves gradually I think by incorporating various pieces into the letter by which she attempts to secretly come clean about the thing she is feeling guilty about and which she considers to be her sin. The first attempt is to incorporate a general admission of being guilty/sinful regarding her daughter's death. Osteen emphasizes that God answers the prayers of those who keep his commandments and that one can receive whatever one's need is. One of the ways Osteen emphasizes this is by referring to the letter of First John (which is otherwise known as 1 John) in the Bible which quite literally states this same piece of advice. In this short Bible book/letter, however, the importance about confessing one's sins is also emphasized. This is why I think Patsy chose to refer to a verse from this book about being sinful in order to acknowledge that she needed to confess and to secretly admit that she was sinful. This is where the 118 came from, in my opinion, referring to verse 1 John 1:8. Then there is the mention of 'brown paper' in the Ramsey note, which is quite an unnecessary detail that doesn't seem to serve any real purpose in the kidnapper reading of the note. It's again why that line too has always appeared so odd to people. It's because Patsy encountered the term 'brown paper' in one of the kidnapper stories she was drawing inspiration from for her verbiage, and I think that gave her the idea that she could use this kidnapping story element to communicate the nature of her sin as was being demanded of her by her Lord. So 'brown paper bag' for her serves as a covert reference to alcohol, which is associated also with a brown paper bag. This is what I think she was trying to indicate had to do with what her sin was.

But, perhaps worried that this wasn't quite explicit enough for a confession and didn't really cover what her sin had really been and therefore risking not being granted her wish by her Lord by failling to follow his commandments, she comes back to this problem at the end of the note and tries to incorporate a more explicit version of her confession in yet another slick way. She uses an acrostic for the last three lines of the note to place the confession, the climax of her obeying God's commandments and the demands she is interpreting from places in the Bible that Osteen recommends, in a prominent and symbolically significant place. That's why she concludes with the statement of 'Victory!' immediately after because she has successfully found a way to incorporate all the things she thinks she needs to do in order to have a shot at being granted her request by her Lord. It is victory over her sin, a concept explicitly described in these terms in some of the (footnotes of the) Bible passages referenced. This acrostic spells D-U-I, Driving Under (the) Influence.

This is, for the most part, how I arrive at the conclusion that some such accident was likely the cause of the skull fracture and why I then focus on aspects to do with the car in later interviews with the Ramseys and in the way they steer away attention from this part of the story of what happened that night. Taking that conclusion as a working assumption, I then reason about what kind of scenario would've made sense in which Patsy is responsible for such an accident without John knowing about it until the next morning. That's where my interpretation comes from that Patsy wanted to deliver the last remaining gift basket, intended for the Fernies, and that the Ramseys had made a pit stop at home so that Patsy could get JonBenét dressed in a red turtleneck sweater matching her own outfit, which had been her original plan for the Whites' dinner party. Patsy admitted in one of her police interviews that the refusal to wear the matching outfit had caused some tension between her and JonBenét. I think Patsy compromised by going to the Whites not getting her way but I think she made it a point to get her way as per her original plan for the last intended stop. I think John and Patsy probably had a disagreement about whether it was wise to make that last stop at such a late time when they had an early flight. ("we debated" on the decision not to go the Fernies, John claiming they decided on it in agreement but I think the word he chose betrayed what really happened, similar to how he uses "I debated that" when describing the choice for the 25th as the date on JonBenét's tombstone). I think this pit stop to change outfits is also why Patsy initially told police that morning that JonBenét had worn the red turtleneck to bed. I think she said that because that's what JonBenét really had been wearing at the time of the accident and it's possible that after they came back home she at first put JonBenét on her bed in her bedroom wearing that outfit as Patsy contemplated what to do and started reaching for her faith healing attempts.

I hope this clarified my statement a bit. There is more to say about the car interpretation but there is of course also the other side of it that people may question, as Cynic does, whether any type of accident involving a car could have (physically) caused the skull fracture. The comment about the flooding incident in my previous post refers to an anecdote that I think is described in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I want to say it was the former nanny who told it but I'd have to check. John was mad at her for accidentally flooding the house but it was a silent sort of rage.
Quite intensive research and background there! That would be a good read as a story on a true crime video narrated by…… your choice……. and combined with the earlier theories that you had provided. Very encompassing and thorough.

On the possible premise of an accident, I have also pondered that. And I wonder if IMO perhaps there was an argument or some other ensuing disagreement over the cut pineapple desert? I found it interesting that it seems both children seem to have consumed it. But only one bowl? And it had the son’s DNA on it IIRC. And JBR’s autopsy showed that she had consumed pineapple sometime prior to her death. MOO
 
Thank you for the thoughtful feedback, Meara. Your observation around Patsy having shown an earlier pattern of having a plan B in case God doesn't come through for her is interesting to think about indeed, I hadn't thought of it that way. I do think generally it's not uncommon for a person who has gone through cancer to have worries about their future, but Patsy perhaps downplayed her doubts to the outside world due to her preoccupation with image management.

When one reads Osteen, there is also the sense that Osteen is bragging a bit, self-aggrandizing. I can see how a person with narcissistic traits reading that might not want to be outdone and would outwardly brag to convince herself that she had at least as much of a claim to be considered favored by God as the other person. But that overt one-upmanship wouldn't necessarily take away all private doubts about the possible future danger of a disease as scary as cancer. So having a plan B was probably more of her authentic self coming through. Similarly, I think her plan B in staging was her more rational side. I think the magical thinking part, plan A, was mostly due to a (pathological) fear of being reproached and held accountable. So she needed healing/resurrection to be possible that night because taking responsibility for what had happened was not a feasible option in her mind.

In my theory she has done just about the worst possible thing she could have done to John, injuring/killing another one of his daughters in an accident involving a car after he had just barely recovered from the unfair death of his first daughter in a car accident. I think Patsy feared the anger and judgmental behavior John could show (especially if they had had an argument about her driving to the Fernies so late and John had advised against it), the kind of anger that Linda Hoffman Pugh I believe described about him when the house was accidentally flooded and he showed this sort of silent but unmistakable resentment.


To be frank, I am not entirely sure about this part of the note coming from that part of the book but I think it's a good candidate. The reason I am not so sure is because I think the NIVSB or The Living Bible has a lot of 'the remaining' occurrences as well and possibly 'withdraw' too (I'd have to check again). But the pattern of those lines in the Jimmy Carter Public Papers source is indeed noteworthy because the book already showed a highly particular overlap with another part of the note ('any deviation of').

This isn't a full reply, more a footnote. It's what I can do at the moment.

Here's a description of JR's intense anger when a painter left his bathroom window open, which led to the tap's being opened while the family was away and a lot of water damage. The statement was made by housekeeper Linda Wilcox and is reported in PMPT (Kindle, p. 692). I think it's helpful to an understanding of PR to review what that anger was like.

He slammed the window shut. Then he realized his socks were wet. That made him furious. He was more mad about his socks being wet than about the house being ruined. I looked into his eyes and they’d almost changed color. He was so angry. Really angry. I don’t know how to explain it. It was like this light switch had come on behind his eyes. It was the last straw.

He didn’t freak out, didn’t throw things. It wasn’t even in his voice. But you could see the rage. You could feel it. I mean, it was powerful. I wanted to get out of the room, but Patsy was standing between me and the door. I’m not saying he didn’t have a right to be angry. I’m just saying I saw him angry. I saw the coldest eyes. He never said a word, but it was right there in his face. It was palpable. You could cut it with a knife.



I came across this detail recently in Steve Thomas's book to which your theory gives a different context.

A handwritten ledger reflected his increasing wealth over the years. Later I would find records showing that as of May 1, 1996, Ramsey had assets of $7,348,628, and a total net worth of $6,230,628. Total liabilities were an even $1,118,000, and the similarity of that figure to the ransom demand of $118,000 jumped out at me. I noted it as a possible source. (ITRI, Kindle p. 66)

Not at all discounting the reference to 1 John 1:18 - and at the risk of spinning things a little too fine - could there also have been a correlation in PR's mind between her spiritual liability (sin) and the financial one? Perhaps the similar figures in 1 John 1:18 and the financial liabilities seemed to reinforce each other, influencing her sense of guilt? Just a thought. It's a very strange coincidence.
 
My theory about Patsy being focused on JonBenét's resurrection comes from carefully considering the first words she said when faced with her daughter's lifeless body. If we assume, for all the well-known reasons that have been pointed out many times, that Patsy is the obvious main suspect, then the question about the crime becomes not who did it but what happened and why. If we want to try to get closer to an answer to those questions, we have to try to look at evidence about Patsy's behavior as close in time to the time of the murder as possible. The best objective sources for this are the 911 call and the police reports that describe what Patsy's behavior was that morning (described by people who were there and some of whom started writing their reports that same day, although Linda Arndt took more than a week to write hers). The additional testimony by some of the people who were there in books such as Perfect Murder, Perfect Town are also valuable.

It is not disputed that Patsy, upon being faced with JonBenét's lifeless body (supposedly for the first time) said something very close to the words reported by Linda Arndt and that she said that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that she asked Jesus to raise her own baby from the dead. If Patsy was the person responsible for JonBenét's death and staging, then obviously she had already been thinking about her daughter's death all night and all morning. So these words are not some random general religious talk that any innocent mother might have uttered moments after learning of their daughter's death. Those words, and the frame they invoke, that of the story of Lazarus and the theme of resurrection, are significant. They tell us something about where her mind was at. Then, discovering that this very notion of Jesus raising Lazarus and that similar miracles can happen to people who have faith and who do the right things with the right attitude, is invoked near the end of the book Healed of Cancer, a faith healing book that Patsy was known to be heavily influenced by during her struggle with cancer, which at that time she believed and proclaimed to have beaten with the help of her faith. This passage about Lazarus in the book occurs in a very specific context and because Patsy invokes it at a very significant moment in the case, it makes sense to closely look at the context of this passage and see why Patsy may have been thinking about it that morning.

When one does that, one finds that the Lazarus passage occurs in the context of thinking, saying and doing the right things in order to raise one's chances of having a miracle brought about by Jesus in one's own life, according to whatever need one may have. It is obvious that Patsy, if unexpectedly faced with the impending death of her daughter, or even right after it, would have had a very obvious need: she wanted JonBenét's injury/death to be undone. So, out of desperation and because she really had a strong sense of faith and a belief in the power of faith healing, she would have good reason to take a very close look at all the specific advice in and near this passage with the hopeful message that she wanted to believe. And it just so happens that many other connections between Osteen's advice (as well as the Bible passages she references) and the Ramsey crime scene and Patsy's observed behavior that morning are found. This means that not only was she making reference to a highly specific story mentioned in Osteen's book at a very significant moment in the case, but much of her earlier behavior before that moment is also tied to the advice that can be found in that book.

And not only is there a cluster of such elements from the book showing up in the crime scene and Patsy's behavior, it is showing up in different important parts that shouldn't all be tied to the same book in so many ways if Patsy really was innocent and unaware of what had happened to her daughter. The connections show up in the 911 call, in the ransom note, in Patsy's behavior that morning after the 911 call but before JonBenét is found, in Patsy's behavior upon discovery of the body, in the Ramseys' book The Death of Innocence several years later, in testimony about Patsy's observed behavior even before the day of the murder. This is much more than some simple coincidences. This is converging evidence that, when taken together and considered as a whole, begin to tell a story of the outline of what may have transpired.

The 'Help me Jesus' at the end of the 911 call are the three words Osteen explicitly advises to use in time of need ('Jesus help me').
The 'want to see 1997' in the ransom note matches the advice to explicitly state what your need is and what you would like to receive. Because Patsy obviously can't explicitly write that she wants her daughter to be resurrected in a note meant to blame her death on a mysterious intruder, she references the page number in the NIVSB where she looked in the index for passages about resurrection, a page that she finds by following another piece of advice from Osteen and some of the Bible verses she references: Jesus is the Word and Jesus is life. And Osteen encourages to look for Jesus and the Lord in scripture. So Patsy interprets this and does so quite literally: she looks under the word 'Life' in the index, which happens to be on page 1997 (only in the later edition of the book) and which happens to have a sub-entry on 'resurrection'. This is how she can secretly ask her Lord for the thing she wants (as Osteen advised) without mentioning resurrection through Jesus explicitly in the note. This is why that particular phrasing in the note sounds so odd but to Patsy, who, as has been pointed out often, quite naturally referred to the coming year explicitly as a normal way of talking as evidenced in her Christmas newsletter, this phrase probably sounded not so awkward.

So that's one problem solved for her. But the problem is that there are several more pieces of advice that Osteen gives and there are some things that the Bible passages referenced seem to demand if someone wants to receive God's blessings. One major one is the mention of the importance to come clean about one's sins and to confess. This is another major problem for Patsy and her intruder-note obviously. This one she solves gradually I think by incorporating various pieces into the letter by which she attempts to secretly come clean about the thing she is feeling guilty about and which she considers to be her sin. The first attempt is to incorporate a general admission of being guilty/sinful regarding her daughter's death. Osteen emphasizes that God answers the prayers of those who keep his commandments and that one can receive whatever one's need is. One of the ways Osteen emphasizes this is by referring to the letter of First John (which is otherwise known as 1 John) in the Bible which quite literally states this same piece of advice. In this short Bible book/letter, however, the importance about confessing one's sins is also emphasized. This is why I think Patsy chose to refer to a verse from this book about being sinful in order to acknowledge that she needed to confess and to secretly admit that she was sinful. This is where the 118 came from, in my opinion, referring to verse 1 John 1:8. Then there is the mention of 'brown paper' in the Ramsey note, which is quite an unnecessary detail that doesn't seem to serve any real purpose in the kidnapper reading of the note. It's again why that line too has always appeared so odd to people. It's because Patsy encountered the term 'brown paper' in one of the kidnapper stories she was drawing inspiration from for her verbiage, and I think that gave her the idea that she could use this kidnapping story element to communicate the nature of her sin as was being demanded of her by her Lord. So 'brown paper bag' for her serves as a covert reference to alcohol, which is associated also with a brown paper bag. This is what I think she was trying to indicate had to do with what her sin was.

But, perhaps worried that this wasn't quite explicit enough for a confession and didn't really cover what her sin had really been and therefore risking not being granted her wish by her Lord by failling to follow his commandments, she comes back to this problem at the end of the note and tries to incorporate a more explicit version of her confession in yet another slick way. She uses an acrostic for the last three lines of the note to place the confession, the climax of her obeying God's commandments and the demands she is interpreting from places in the Bible that Osteen recommends, in a prominent and symbolically significant place. That's why she concludes with the statement of 'Victory!' immediately after because she has successfully found a way to incorporate all the things she thinks she needs to do in order to have a shot at being granted her request by her Lord. It is victory over her sin, a concept explicitly described in these terms in some of the (footnotes of the) Bible passages referenced. This acrostic spells D-U-I, Driving Under (the) Influence.

This is, for the most part, how I arrive at the conclusion that some such accident was likely the cause of the skull fracture and why I then focus on aspects to do with the car in later interviews with the Ramseys and in the way they steer away attention from this part of the story of what happened that night. Taking that conclusion as a working assumption, I then reason about what kind of scenario would've made sense in which Patsy is responsible for such an accident without John knowing about it until the next morning. That's where my interpretation comes from that Patsy wanted to deliver the last remaining gift basket, intended for the Fernies, and that the Ramseys had made a pit stop at home so that Patsy could get JonBenét dressed in a red turtleneck sweater matching her own outfit, which had been her original plan for the Whites' dinner party. Patsy admitted in one of her police interviews that the refusal to wear the matching outfit had caused some tension between her and JonBenét. I think Patsy compromised by going to the Whites not getting her way but I think she made it a point to get her way as per her original plan for the last intended stop. I think John and Patsy probably had a disagreement about whether it was wise to make that last stop at such a late time when they had an early flight. ("we debated" on the decision not to go the Fernies, John claiming they decided on it in agreement but I think the word he chose betrayed what really happened, similar to how he uses "I debated that" when describing the choice for the 25th as the date on JonBenét's tombstone). I think this pit stop to change outfits is also why Patsy initially told police that morning that JonBenét had worn the red turtleneck to bed. I think she said that because that's what JonBenét really had been wearing at the time of the accident and it's possible that after they came back home she at first put JonBenét on her bed in her bedroom wearing that outfit as Patsy contemplated what to do and started reaching for her faith healing attempts.

I hope this clarified my statement a bit. There is more to say about the car interpretation but there is of course also the other side of it that people may question, as Cynic does, whether any type of accident involving a car could have (physically) caused the skull fracture. The comment about the flooding incident in my previous post refers to an anecdote that I think is described in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I want to say it was the former nanny who told it but I'd have to check. John was mad at her for accidentally flooding the house but it was a silent sort of rage.
Thank you. The point I wanted clarification on was the car accident. I had not been aware at all of this theory. I do know that the cars were examined under search warrant by the police. I am unaware of there ever being any reference to damage as would have been caused by an accident, which I think would have become a point of discussion / possibility had that been discovered.

Just my opinion of course, but that scenario seems unlikely to me, although it is interesting in the aspect of that being the worst possible thing she could have done to JR. In that context, I find it hard to believe that he would have stayed with her, let alone cover for her, which he has continued to do until this day. How would he even be able to look at her without obvious signs of contempt and disgust? And yet they were steadfastly a united front to the world looking in.

I am also unaware of interviews where they shy away from the mention of the car, or for that matter mention of the car at all, other than to ask what car was driven that night and associated pertinent details relevant to that. What they have shied away from was the pineapple, which of course is because it puts their timeline of the events of that night after returning home into question. And we see an attempt to ignore the pineapple from BR in his interview, at which the mention of made him obviously uncomfortable. The R's have also told more than one story about the timing and what happened when they did arrive home that night.

Revisiting the pineapple, the car accident theory would mean that she would've ingested the pineapple after they got home from the White's, as we know from the medical experts that the blow to the head rendered her unconscious and that it was extremely unlikely that she ever regained consciousness. So that would've made the pit stop at home before going out again a longer period of time. We also know that JR and BR played with one of his new toys for awhile before going to bed. If PR was sneaking out with JBR so as to not let JR know what she was doing, she would've had to wait until everyone went to bed. And while I can agree that PR liked to have her way with certain things, it just seems kind of silly that after having agreed they should go home because it was getting late and the Fernie's lived the farthest away from them, and they had to be up early in the morning for their trip, that she would decide that defying JR and going out again with JBR was something she just had to do. I also question how that would've looked coming home, with the garage door opening and closing, having to carry her mortally wounded child into the house, ensuring the door to the garage was locked behind her and remaining quiet as if nothing had happened.

I cannot speak to whether any of the medical experts have considered the possibility of the head wound being caused by a car accident, although I am not aware of any mention having been made, other than it being referred to as "a blow to the head". Given the location of the wound, it would suggest that she would've had to have her head thrown to the left and then back to the right hitting the window or some other hard surface in the interior, which suggests the car would have had to been hit from the side, and yet again we have no reported damage to the car.

The red turtleneck issue I think probably would've persisted with JBR. IMO, her resistance was about her starting to assert herself with PR.....not wanting to dress alike, not wanting to be just mommy's little doll or mini-me. There is evidence that she was growing tired of some of the aspects of the pageant stuff, and her comments about the trophies & ribbons really belonging to PR and not herself. I think it's more likely that PR is remembering things as they relate to the last interactions with her daughter, and perhaps some regret on her part that there was tension between them about something that in the scheme of things is rather trivial. It was important to PR though, so it remained stuck in her head.

Just my thoughts......
 
This isn't a full reply, more a footnote. It's what I can do at the moment.

Here's a description of JR's intense anger when a painter left his bathroom window open, which led to the tap's being opened while the family was away and a lot of water damage. The statement was made by housekeeper Linda Wilcox and is reported in PMPT (Kindle, p. 692). I think it's helpful to an understanding of PR to review what that anger was like.

He slammed the window shut. Then he realized his socks were wet. That made him furious. He was more mad about his socks being wet than about the house being ruined. I looked into his eyes and they’d almost changed color. He was so angry. Really angry. I don’t know how to explain it. It was like this light switch had come on behind his eyes. It was the last straw.

He didn’t freak out, didn’t throw things. It wasn’t even in his voice. But you could see the rage. You could feel it. I mean, it was powerful. I wanted to get out of the room, but Patsy was standing between me and the door. I’m not saying he didn’t have a right to be angry. I’m just saying I saw him angry. I saw the coldest eyes. He never said a word, but it was right there in his face. It was palpable. You could cut it with a knife.



I came across this detail recently in Steve Thomas's book to which your theory gives a different context.

A handwritten ledger reflected his increasing wealth over the years. Later I would find records showing that as of May 1, 1996, Ramsey had assets of $7,348,628, and a total net worth of $6,230,628. Total liabilities were an even $1,118,000, and the similarity of that figure to the ransom demand of $118,000 jumped out at me. I noted it as a possible source. (ITRI, Kindle p. 66)

Not at all discounting the reference to 1 John 1:18 - and at the risk of spinning things a little too fine - could there also have been a correlation in PR's mind between her spiritual liability (sin) and the financial one? Perhaps the similar figures in 1 John 1:18 and the financial liabilities seemed to reinforce each other, influencing her sense of guilt? Just a thought. It's a very strange coincidence.
Very interesting information about the financials. The similarity of the liability amount with the asked for ransom is notably an eye opener.

With regard to JR's temper, I also recall the housekeeper speaking about the incident where he came home and she was vacuuming. He just walked up to her and shut it off, but she could tell by the look in his eyes that he was angry. This seems to be a recurring theme with JR, his ability to maintain control outwardly, not display obvious signs of anger, but it was always seen in his eyes. Although there is an account attributed to JR's old friend Jim Marino, who said the only time he had ever seen JR lose his temper was about PR and money. This was apparently after they had remodeled the Boulder house and PR was then redecorating the Charlevoix house. "He would throw the credit cards on his desk and say, 'she's gonna spend every last penny I make'".

Correlation of spiritual and financial liability by PR is an interesting subject to explore I think. Another quote that sticks in my mind is when Nedra said something to the effect of how much they loved to spend JR's money. I think it was in relation to the pageants and associated costs, but not 100% sure about that. But it is interesting that there was an intervention of sorts being planned by PR's friends in relation to the pageant stuff, as PR, encouraged by her sisters and Nedra was so obsessed by it. She had to have everything done on such a grand scale for appearances. Did the death of her daughter bring about somewhat of a realization that her obsessions rooted in what money could buy were a flaw?
 
Very interesting information about the financials. The similarity of the liability amount with the asked for ransom is notably an eye opener.

With regard to JR's temper, I also recall the housekeeper speaking about the incident where he came home and she was vacuuming. He just walked up to her and shut it off, but she could tell by the look in his eyes that he was angry. This seems to be a recurring theme with JR, his ability to maintain control outwardly, not display obvious signs of anger, but it was always seen in his eyes. Although there is an account attributed to JR's old friend Jim Marino, who said the only time he had ever seen JR lose his temper was about PR and money. This was apparently after they had remodeled the Boulder house and PR was then redecorating the Charlevoix house. "He would throw the credit cards on his desk and say, 'she's gonna spend every last penny I make'".

Correlation of spiritual and financial liability by PR is an interesting subject to explore I think. Another quote that sticks in my mind is when Nedra said something to the effect of how much they loved to spend JR's money. I think it was in relation to the pageants and associated costs, but not 100% sure about that. But it is interesting that there was an intervention of sorts being planned by PR's friends in relation to the pageant stuff, as PR, encouraged by her sisters and Nedra was so obsessed by it. She had to have everything done on such a grand scale for appearances. Did the death of her daughter bring about somewhat of a realization that her obsessions rooted in what money could buy were a flaw?

I appreciate your willingness to work with my ideas and look for the good in PR. If JBR’s death brought about any awakening of conscience, the uncomfortable thoughts probably didn't stay clear or present for long. Sadly, PR had been drawn into the belief that prosperity was a sign of divine favor. Guilt would have been held to the periphery of awareness because it threatened her belief system, her sense of safety from cancer, self-image, and wealth. Also, I think PR was narcissistic, and narcissistic people tend not to gain self-awareness from their mistakes. And there’s evidence of a lack of sobering realization. Early on in the case, I was startled to observe grandiose behavior in PR in TV interviews - suddenly making the leap from JBR's death to lamenting from some imagined podium about "the American family," inventing a cringey equation between the deaths of JonBenet and Princess Diana; saying “If I lived in Boulder” and giving oracular advice, as though she hadn’t just been living there herself. It was disturbing to see this truly bereaved mother, who was already receiving a huge outpouring of sympathy, inflate her situation and not simply appear before a national audience but play to it without any hint that she realized she was doing so or that her behavior was bizarrely inappropriate.

I think you are partly correct in saying, “She had to have everything done on such a grand scale for appearances.” No doubt, PR enjoyed using her gifts for creativity and dramatization, having money to lavish on her projects, and gaining social status and admiration. However, I think projecting an image to others was secondary. Whether she had narcissistic traits or a personality disorder, I don’t know. Either way, narcissism is, and would have been for PR, a compensation for a profound inner deficit, a loss of essence or connection to her authentic self. I believe PR's "grand scale" (along with the too busy schedule) was primarily to maintain her self-image. It was the inflatable that kept her from going down the inner whirlpool.
 
This isn't a full reply, more a footnote. It's what I can do at the moment.

Here's a description of JR's intense anger when a painter left his bathroom window open, which led to the tap's being opened while the family was away and a lot of water damage. The statement was made by housekeeper Linda Wilcox and is reported in PMPT (Kindle, p. 692). I think it's helpful to an understanding of PR to review what that anger was like.

He slammed the window shut. Then he realized his socks were wet. That made him furious. He was more mad about his socks being wet than about the house being ruined. I looked into his eyes and they’d almost changed color. He was so angry. Really angry. I don’t know how to explain it. It was like this light switch had come on behind his eyes. It was the last straw.

He didn’t freak out, didn’t throw things. It wasn’t even in his voice. But you could see the rage. You could feel it. I mean, it was powerful. I wanted to get out of the room, but Patsy was standing between me and the door. I’m not saying he didn’t have a right to be angry. I’m just saying I saw him angry. I saw the coldest eyes. He never said a word, but it was right there in his face. It was palpable. You could cut it with a knife.



I came across this detail recently in Steve Thomas's book to which your theory gives a different context.

A handwritten ledger reflected his increasing wealth over the years. Later I would find records showing that as of May 1, 1996, Ramsey had assets of $7,348,628, and a total net worth of $6,230,628. Total liabilities were an even $1,118,000, and the similarity of that figure to the ransom demand of $118,000 jumped out at me. I noted it as a possible source. (ITRI, Kindle p. 66)

Not at all discounting the reference to 1 John 1:18 - and at the risk of spinning things a little too fine - could there also have been a correlation in PR's mind between her spiritual liability (sin) and the financial one? Perhaps the similar figures in 1 John 1:18 and the financial liabilities seemed to reinforce each other, influencing her sense of guilt? Just a thought. It's a very strange coincidence.
In my opinion it is very unlikely that Patsy would have been at all aware of the liability amount cited by Thomas. I think it is unlikely she would’ve even been aware of the bonus amount, even if it was present on some slips lying around the house. There is no evidence that Patsy was much involved in the minutiae of the financial affairs of the Ramsey home. John was the one (making and) managing the money, Patsy was mostly spending it (she worked for the company previously but was no longer actively doing so at the time of the murder).

The liability amount I believe was a number that wasn’t just lying around the home either. I think it was a number that would pop up if one did some math on some of the records that were on the Ramseys’ computer. Of course, shortly after the murder it would make sense for investigators to explore all avenues regarding any possible connection between John Ramsey and his business and the amount of $118,000. Since the ransom note mentions it, police would have to look into whether the amount may have had some special significance that might be relevant to the murder. This doesn’t mean any such connection they found was relevant to the murder in any way.

As I mention somewhere in the running text document, it is hardly surprising that some kind of link to the amount of $118,000 could be made when going through both the Ramseys’ personal finance records as well as those of a company with over a billion dollars in revenue. I suspect that for many other round figure numbers between, say, $10,000 and $500,000 a similar link could be found. Such is the nature of numbers, they are applicable to and used for a very wide range of things and therefore it is easy to assign many kinds of meaning to them. That’s why for my interpretation of the amount I have tried to interpret it on the basis of other facts that are part of the case (Patsy’s own words upon discovering the body, her words on the 911 call, testimony about her behavior that morning before discovery of the body, John’s testimony about how he claims the body was left with the blanket, testimony about the significance of Healed of Cancer in Patsy’s life prior to the murder and her belief in the power of faith healing of some sort, Patsy’s own admissions in The Death of Innocence about how she sometimes used the Bible, etc.) along with other facts that I believe can connect some of these first facts (the specific words that are actually used in Healed of Cancer and the context they are used in, the specific words used in some of the passages of the NIVSB that Healed of Cancer references) some of which are certainly close in proximity to the actual murder/crime scene, rather than trying to link it to some more peripheral fact relating to the Ramseys’ lives through John’s or Access Graphics’ financial records.

As John has said in interviews, even in some fairly recent ones, both 118,000 and S.B.T.C meant something to the ‘intruder/killer’ and the ‘mystery’ is figuring out these clues. I think he is just covering his own *advertiser censored* (and Patsy’s posthumous one) because he knows a link between them both can be made on the basis of religious references and meaning. I think he wants preempt precisely such an accusation as mine that these connections point to Patsy by claiming that the killer might be someone who purposely makes biblical allusions for some reason. This is in fact what is also described as being true for the killer in Copycat, which in my theory Patsy used to come up with the manner of staging JonBenét’s body with her hands above her head, a cord around her neck and ducttape on her mouth. I think the written description in Copycat is a better explanation for how Patsy came up with this manner of staging than the claim that is sometimes made that it was based on something she saw in the movie Ransom, which doesn’t match the description as closely and which is obviously more difficult to access from memory than a book in front of one’s nose is. Se7en, another possible source containing "proper burial" in the context of denial of a body, also has a killer using such biblical references to make a point with his murders.

In short, many of the other suggested sources for the $118,000 figure don’t explain exactly why the amount would be chosen by Patsy (and I am assuming here, on the basis of other reasons, that Patsy is the only person who can be seriously defended as the author of the ransom note) and what it would have meant to her.

For example, people repeating that the ransom amount was “obviously” in reference to John’s bonus earlier in 1996 and that the amount was easily found within the Ramsey home, never give a good reason for why the bonus amount would be rounded down then to a round figure and what it would mean. If the point of selecting the bonus amount was to send a particular message with it, then why would the precise amount not have been used to show off just how familiar the kidnapper is with the amount of John’s bonus? This should have been especially easy if the amount was indeed found all over the home. People tend to explain away such inconsistencies with ad hoc scenarios. The more reasonable explanation for the difference, I think, is that the bonus amount was not the source for the amount.

I do agree with what you suggested with your comment about liability/sin that, as for all parts of the note in light of the theory, it is worth pondering whether or not the part may have had some sort of additional religious connection/meaning for Patsy, but I think for this particular part of the note it isn’t necessary to postulate a further religious meaning that would require additional complicated effort on Patsy’s part (going through financial records and calculating a liability amount for an arbitrary month earlier in the year), because the 1 John 1:8 is already a clear religious interpretation that can fit into a scenario in which Patsy was responsible for causing JonBenét’s death. And the fact that this religious meaning was incorporated into a ransom amount can be explained by the fact that she borrowed inspiration for the note from stories that talk about kidnapping, ransom money and businessmen working for the government being punished for their actions through targeted murders. In addition, some of the NIVSB passages also explicitly talk about the relation between business and sin, in a somewhat metaphorical way, so the fact that the 1 John 1:8 reference (which is about sin/being sinful) is used in the context of business also makes sense from that perspective.

Thank you. The point I wanted clarification on was the car accident. I had not been aware at all of this theory. I do know that the cars were examined under search warrant by the police. I am unaware of there ever being any reference to damage as would have been caused by an accident, which I think would have become a point of discussion / possibility had that been discovered.

Just my opinion of course, but that scenario seems unlikely to me, although it is interesting in the aspect of that being the worst possible thing she could have done to JR. In that context, I find it hard to believe that he would have stayed with her, let alone cover for her, which he has continued to do until this day. How would he even be able to look at her without obvious signs of contempt and disgust? And yet they were steadfastly a united front to the world looking in.

You are of course correct that there was no reported evidence that the Ramsey car (either of the two) had been involved in a collision. But my hypothesis is not that such a serious collision occurred but that some type of accident with a vehicle that can be operated (most likely a car), that did not seriously damage the car, caused the skull fracture that JonBenét suffered. Although car collisions obviously generate a much stronger force than accidents not involving collisions, and is a more likely cause of a skull fracture than a non-collision accident, this does not mean that a skull fracture cannot be the result of a non-collision accident involving a car. Unspecified car accidents, most likely the majority of which do involve collisions, actually are reported in the literature for some countries as the leading cause of traumatic head injuries, being responsible for more such injuries than assault. But the scientific literature on this topic is uneven and anything but conclusive regarding the type of question we would need an answer to with regard to this case. Skull fractures and what can be deduced about their unknown causes through scientific analysis has actually been a pretty controversial and hotly-debated topic for some years now, and I still have to do more research and will have to owe you a more detailed argument around this relevant to my theory until I get more time to write it up. For now, I will admit that most experts who look at JonBenét’s skull fracture would probably conclude (as experts have done so far) that blunt force trauma was the cause of it and that most of them would probably suggest that this trauma was most likely caused by the use of some blunt instrument.

I do want to emphasize that it was never my intention to come up with an alternative hypothesis about the cause of the skull fracture until my analysis of the note made me consider the D-U-I interpretation. I was very much content assuming that some version of a PDIA scenario was what caused the head trauma, and I believed that Steve Thomas’s theory was/is a perfectly plausible scenario when taken at face value. That’s because it is in essence a simple and straightforward theory that doesn’t elevate the Ramsey case into some sort of special mystery but treats JonBenét’s murder as being similar to many other sad cases of child murder by the hands of a parent that unfortunately happen fairly often and are not as rare as people make them out to be. There was nothing about Patsy Ramsey that would make her incapable of killing her child in a moment of anger. And the flip side of that is, that just because she would have been capable of it like many other mothers are, it doesn’t mean that she did do it.

My purpose was to explain the ransom note as thoroughly as possible in relation to the other known facts of the case. This is what made me reconsider the possible cause of the skull fracture and why I believe some of the expert opinions on the cause of it might have been wrong. I don’t want to challenge people’s status as an expert, or proclaim myself to be an expert in interpreting skull fractures. I just want to (re)assert that the ransom note is an absolutely crucial piece of evidence in this case and that perhaps it makes more sense to start from there and interpret other findings in the case on the basis of the best possible interpretation of the note, rather than read the note on the basis of conclusions/expert opinions about physical evidence that people take to be infallible. Although we could have a long discussion about the nature of science and the role that scientific experts (should) play in criminal law, for now I just want to say that even world-renowned scientific experts in all sorts of fields can sometimes get something wrong about some things relating to their expertise (in fact it is the nature of the scientific enterprise that this must happen all the time), and that if such a thing happened in this case, it shouldn’t be all that surprising given that there was an element of deception involved in this case that could have swayed even a trained expert’s opinion in favor of a particular interpretation. Put another way, cases where deaths were staged in the particular way JonBenét’s was were reported to have never happened before or since so no expert could have been familiar with such a possibility through experience and no expert would have been inclined to even consider the possibility of a car accident being the cause for such a death.

Again, I admit that my theory still owes an argument for how the skull fracture could (physically) have been caused by a non-collision car accident.

I am also unaware of interviews where they shy away from the mention of the car, or for that matter mention of the car at all, other than to ask what car was driven that night and associated pertinent details relevant to that. What they have shied away from was the pineapple, which of course is because it puts their timeline of the events of that night after returning home into question. And we see an attempt to ignore the pineapple from BR in his interview, at which the mention of made him obviously uncomfortable. The R's have also told more than one story about the timing and what happened when they did arrive home that night.

Revisiting the pineapple, the car accident theory would mean that she would've ingested the pineapple after they got home from the White's, as we know from the medical experts that the blow to the head rendered her unconscious and that it was extremely unlikely that she ever regained consciousness. So that would've made the pit stop at home before going out again a longer period of time. We also know that JR and BR played with one of his new toys for awhile before going to bed. If PR was sneaking out with JBR so as to not let JR know what she was doing, she would've had to wait until everyone went to bed. And while I can agree that PR liked to have her way with certain things, it just seems kind of silly that after having agreed they should go home because it was getting late and the Fernie's lived the farthest away from them, and they had to be up early in the morning for their trip, that she would decide that defying JR and going out again with JBR was something she just had to do. I also question how that would've looked coming home, with the garage door opening and closing, having to carry her mortally wounded child into the house, ensuring the door to the garage was locked behind her and remaining quiet as if nothing had happened.

I cannot speak to whether any of the medical experts have considered the possibility of the head wound being caused by a car accident, although I am not aware of any mention having been made, other than it being referred to as "a blow to the head". Given the location of the wound, it would suggest that she would've had to have her head thrown to the left and then back to the right hitting the window or some other hard surface in the interior, which suggests the car would have had to been hit from the side, and yet again we have no reported damage to the car.

The red turtleneck issue I think probably would've persisted with JBR. IMO, her resistance was about her starting to assert herself with PR.....not wanting to dress alike, not wanting to be just mommy's little doll or mini-me. There is evidence that she was growing tired of some of the aspects of the pageant stuff, and her comments about the trophies & ribbons really belonging to PR and not herself. I think it's more likely that PR is remembering things as they relate to the last interactions with her daughter, and perhaps some regret on her part that there was tension between them about something that in the scheme of things is rather trivial. It was important to PR though, so it remained stuck in her head.

Just my thoughts......

The part in my previous post where I say “steer away attention from this part of the story of what happened that night” didn’t necessarily refer to the interviews that I mention earlier in the sentence. What I meant with this part was that the Ramseys generally have steered the story of their alibi away from the car by making the car part that inevitably had to be part of their story (their return from the Whites’ home and the stops along the way) as uneventful as possible and offering as little details as they could about what was going on for the duration of it.

I think the reason for their avoidance of this topic was not that the car ride really was uneventful but because it held a key to the crux of the whole story. As I mentioned, I think John and Patsy disagreed whether or not they should make the final intended stop to drop off the last gift basket. I think to John this stop wasn’t so important and he probably wanted to go to bed early to be ready for the next day’s trip, a trip that he had arranged and that Patsy admitted she hadn’t really been looking forward to.

So in order to not raise suspicion about why this last stop was never made, the Ramseys’ story after the murder (months later) becomes that they were in agreement that they shouldn’t make the last stop. They also now claim JonBenét had been asleep in the car so as to have a reason for returning home and deciding not to make the stop. This also conveniently lets them avoid having to come up with a story about what JonBenét had been doing after they got home: she was just carried straight to bed. I think the real story was that after the disagreement, Patsy insisted that she and JonBenét (and possibly Burke) go to the Fernies to deliver the last gift basket because it was an important part of what Christmas was all about to Patsy. And because she was also accustomed to a tradition of matching Christmas outfits (as evidenced by several photos from previous years), she wanted JonBenét to change clothes and put on the red turtleneck as per her original plan.

Where this story by the Ramseys fell apart, of course, was that at that time they did not yet realize that investigators had learned (through the autopsy) that JonBenét had eaten pineapple shortly before her death so that she couldn’t have been asleep the whole time after she got back to the house. That is the significance of the pineapple. I don’t think that the actual circumstances surrounding her (and Burke) having pineapple was very relevant to the murder other than that. In my scenario, Patsy has to get JonBenét upstairs for about five to ten minutes and persuade/force her to put on the turtleneck. Possibly she was being uncooperative and Burke may have been nagging her that he was still hungry and that he wanted his favorite snack and that it was Christmas after all. So Patsy in a rush grabs a bowl and gives him some pineapple before she takes JonBenét upstairs to put on the turtleneck. She may have forgotten to even put a spoon in the bowl so Burke grabs one (the supposedly oversized one that Patsy wouldn’t have selected). Either at that moment when she prepares it or a few minutes later when Patsy comes back down with JonBenét, either she or JonBenét herself grabs a piece of pineapple for JonBenét. Burke meanwhile prepares a glass of tea for himself. Perhaps he starts putting together the toy as well, possibly with John’s help for a moment. This is where this part of their alibi comes from. It was probably based on something that really did happen but they left out the important details surrounding it. I think all of this could have happened within a 10-15 minute window from when the Ramseys arrived home.

Patsy and JonBenét come back down and head for the car, either taking Burke with them or not. The reason for Burke not finishing the bowl is either that Patsy takes him with them for the trip to the Fernies or because he does not go along with them but is sent upstairs shortly after when Patsy returns with JonBenét after the accident (possibly another 10-20 minutes later). Either way, she sends Burke upstairs to bed, pretending everything is fine, so that she can figure out what to do. In the scenario where Burke doesn’t go along for the trip, he eats relatively little from the bowl because he is preoccupied with putting together his toy.

John meanwhile doesn’t want to go along with the whole thing, thinking it unwise, and just goes to bed. In the scenario that Burke doesn’t go on the trip, he is just told/assumed to not stay up too long. In either scenario (Burke staying home or going along), John figures or agrees that Patsy will make sure both the kids go to bed after she comes back home from making the trip as fast as she can.

I do not claim that Patsy sneaked out of the house with JonBenét against their agreement or without John knowing. I claim that they were not in agreement about whether to make the trip and that John decided not to go along but went to bed instead, perhaps even before JonBenét had finished changing her clothes. This leaves a good 20-30 minutes of time for him to fall fast asleep and to not be disturbed by any of the events that transpire in the house later that night. It’s also possible that he was awake for a bit even after Patsy returned with an injured JonBenét (perhaps while Patsy grabbed the NIVSB from upstairs at the back of their bedroom where John’s study was) but that she pretended everything was fine and that she was still finishing putting the kids to bed and finishing the final preparations for the trip. She may indeed have acted out some of this last minute packing one floor down (as evidence of this was found I believe in either John Andrew’s room next to JonBenét’s room or in the back of her bedroom on the third floor) so as to have an excuse for what she was doing still up so late if John happened to come downstairs from bed while she was still busy staging.

The “I then focus on aspects to do with the car in later interviews” in my previous post refers to some of the comments made in later interviews that somehow relate to the car trip being involved in the lead-up to JonBenét’s death. Some examples follow below.

First of all, there is Patsy bringing up “the lady who drove her kids into the water” (referring to a case in which a mother had actually killed her children and came up with a false scenario) in the CNN interview, as well as bringing up the OJ case in which tiny blood evidence found in his car was an important part of suspecting him of the murders and in which a car chase was also infamously involved. Patsy comparing herself to princess Diana, that Meara brings up in her post, is also interesting since she also famously died in a car accident. Princess Diana is also mentioned as a possible target for the killers in Jack & Jill, a book I hypothesize for different reasons to have been a source for Patsy’s staging.

Next, there are John’s comments about how they “debated” not to go to the Fernies, as I described in my previous post.

Another example is Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil. There are two moments that I think are telling in light of my theory where Burke brings up the car himself:

one is when he is asked when he last saw his sister alive. He answers, in 2016, that it was “probably” in the car. Of course, what he wants us to believe he means is that he last saw her alive on the trip home from the Whites. This conflicts with what he said shortly after the murder where he says he saw her walk upstairs herself, without John carrying her. Although I think even in that earlier account he was also being deceptive because there he’s trying to suggest that JonBenét was going upstairs to go to bed, I think that earlier account did reflect a kernel of truth since in my theory JonBenét did go upstairs shortly before they left a second time to put on the red turtleneck. What this suggests to me, is that Burke, like most people who want to get away with a lie tend to do, uses pieces of truly recalled events and incorporates them into the lie to come up with a more convincing story. This is also psychologically convenient because it causes less stress about having to come up with made-up scenarios and keeping them consistent.

I think in the 2016 interview he also incorporates such a truthful kernel to relieve himself of some psychological stress. Only here he is no longer a child and he is smarter about his lie, as well as being more aware of what is required of him to point suspicions away from his mother: he says he last saw his sister alive/well in the car (which was true) but he leaves out that this was during the second trip they made to go to the Fernies. He’s directing attention away from questions about what was going on with JonBenét after they got home from the Whites but at the same time he’s saying something that he knows is true so that he has to worry less about coming off as deceptive. The use of “probably” also makes sense because technically he would’ve seen JonBenét at least for a short moment after returning home from the second trip with the accident before Patsy sent him to bed. He now (in 2016) knows that JonBenét was still alive at that moment but he probably only saw her being unconscious at that point, looking not very much alive at all, but based on what he has heard from experts he assumes she "probably" was. By saying “probably” he also gives a truthful answer to the implied question of when he last saw his sister unscathed (in the car) but he acknowledges to himself that interpreting the question that way is a little misleading: you, Dr. Phil, “probably” mean to ask me what I can tell you about when I actually last saw her alive literally, but I choose to interpret your question, for my own convenience, as asking me when I last saw her conscious and unscathed before the skull fracture which was in the car before the accident.

The second interesting moment when he brings up the car is when he is asked how he remembers JonBenét. Burke’s very first answer to this open-ended question is a memory about his sister and him fighting/teasing each other in the backseat of the car, as children tend to do. Of all the memories one can have about shared moments with a sibling, Burke’s first memory about her, how he remembers her, is in the backseat of a car. I think this is again truthful but in a misleading way. He does have this memory and does remember her that way but, in my opinion, it is because it is his last memory of her alive and well and it was a very traumatizing memory that must have haunted him for years, most likely up to this very day. It also hints at what may have been a contributing factor to the accident: if the kids were teasing each other this way, as kids indeed do, it may have been a distracting factor for Patsy and diminished the attention she paid to the road. It would also likely have made Burke feel guilty/responsible for causing the accident, even if this was not at all the case. This would explain why the memory would be so prominent in his mind and why he remembers her that way, because it haunts him, especially since events unfolded in a way that he never got a chance to be open and truthful about those feelings in public. His hand was forced to go along with his mother’s (and father’s) lies.

Also note that my scenario can explain how Burke could have had knowledge of JonBenét having suffered an injury to her head before this was common knowledge. BDI defenders tend to treat this as something pointing to Burke as the responsible party, but my theory shows that, as with just about all BDI evidence, there is no good reason to interpret specific, unquestionably relevant evidence in the case as pointing more to Burke than to Patsy. The reverse is not true.

Something similar can be said for interpreting Burke’s response to the pineapple questions in the interviews shortly after the murder. His apparent (slow) realization that the pineapple is in some way significant does not at all necessarily show guilt about him being responsible for the murder. He may have remembered/realized in those moments that the pineapple they had shortly before they left to go on the second trip, contradicts the story his parents have come up with for the three of them. He may be worrying that police somehow know about the pineapple being part of the real events of that night and that they are onto the real story of what happened.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion it is very unlikely that Patsy would have been at all aware of the liability amount cited by Thomas. I think it is unlikely she would’ve even been aware of the bonus amount, even if it was present on some slips lying around the house. There is no evidence that Patsy was much involved in the minutiae of the financial affairs of the Ramsey home. John was the one (making and) managing the money, Patsy was mostly spending it (she worked for the company previously but was no longer actively doing so at the time of the murder).

The liability amount I believe was a number that wasn’t just lying around the home either. I think it was a number that would pop up if one did some math on some of the records that were on the Ramseys’ computer. Of course, shortly after the murder it would make sense for investigators to explore all avenues regarding any possible connection between John Ramsey and his business and the amount of $118,000. Since the ransom note mentions it, police would have to look into whether the amount may have had some special significance that might be relevant to the murder. This doesn’t mean any such connection they found was relevant to the murder in any way.

As I mention somewhere in the running text document, it is hardly surprising that some kind of link to the amount of $118,000 could be made when going through both the Ramseys’ personal finance records as well as those of a company with over a billion dollars in revenue. I suspect that for many other round figure numbers between, say, $10,000 and $500,000 a similar link could be found. Such is the nature of numbers, they are applicable to and used for a very wide range of things and therefore it is easy to assign many kinds of meaning to them. That’s why for my interpretation of the amount I have tried to interpret it on the basis of other facts that are part of the case (Patsy’s own words upon discovering the body, her words on the 911 call, testimony about her behavior that morning before discovery of the body, John’s testimony about how he claims the body was left with the blanket, testimony about the significance of Healed of Cancer in Patsy’s life prior to the murder and her belief in the power of faith healing of some sort, Patsy’s own admissions in The Death of Innocence about how she sometimes used the Bible, etc.) along with other facts that I believe can connect some of these first facts (the specific words that are actually used in Healed of Cancer and the context they are used in, the specific words used in some of the passages of the NIVSB that Healed of Cancer references) some of which are certainly close in proximity to the actual murder/crime scene, rather than trying to link it to some more peripheral fact relating to the Ramseys’ lives through John’s or Access Graphics’ financial records.

As John has said in interviews, even in some fairly recent ones, both 118,000 and S.B.T.C meant something to the ‘intruder/killer’ and the ‘mystery’ is figuring out these clues. I think he is just covering his own *advertiser censored* (and Patsy’s posthumous one) because he knows a link between them both can be made on the basis of religious references and meaning. I think he wants preempt precisely such an accusation as mine that these connections point to Patsy by claiming that the killer might be someone who purposely makes biblical allusions for some reason. This is in fact what is also described as being true for the killer in Copycat, which in my theory Patsy used to come up with the manner of staging JonBenét’s body with her hands above her head, a cord around her neck and ducttape on her mouth. I think the written description in Copycat is a better explanation for how Patsy came up with this manner of staging than the claim that is sometimes made that it was based on something she saw in the movie Ransom, which doesn’t match the description as closely and which is obviously more difficult to access from memory than a book in front of one’s nose is. Se7en, another possible source containing "proper burial" in the context of denial of a body, also has a killer using such biblical references to make a point with his murders.

In short, many of the other suggested sources for the $118,000 figure don’t explain exactly why the amount would be chosen by Patsy (and I am assuming here, on the basis of other reasons, that Patsy is the only person who can be seriously defended as the author of the ransom note) and what it would have meant to her.

For example, people repeating that the ransom amount was “obviously” in reference to John’s bonus earlier in 1996 and that the amount was easily found within the Ramsey home, never give a good reason for why the bonus amount would be rounded down then to a round figure and what it would mean. If the point of selecting the bonus amount was to send a particular message with it, then why would the precise amount not have been used to show off just how familiar the kidnapper is with the amount of John’s bonus? This should have been especially easy if the amount was indeed found all over the home. People tend to explain away such inconsistencies with ad hoc scenarios. The more reasonable explanation for the difference, I think, is that the bonus amount was not the source for the amount.

I do agree with what you suggested with your comment about liability/sin that, as for all parts of the note in light of the theory, it is worth pondering whether or not the part may have had some sort of additional religious connection/meaning for Patsy, but I think for this particular part of the note it isn’t necessary to postulate a further religious meaning that would require additional complicated effort on Patsy’s part (going through financial records and calculating a liability amount for an arbitrary month earlier in the year), because the 1 John 1:8 is already a clear religious interpretation that can fit into a scenario in which Patsy was responsible for causing JonBenét’s death. And the fact that this religious meaning was incorporated into a ransom amount can be explained by the fact that she borrowed inspiration for the note from stories that talk about kidnapping, ransom money and businessmen working for the government being punished for their actions through targeted murders. In addition, some of the NIVSB passages also explicitly talk about the relation between business and sin, in a somewhat metaphorical way, so the fact that the 1 John 1:8 reference (which is about sin/being sinful) is used in the context of business also makes sense from that perspective.



You are of course correct that there was no reported evidence that the Ramsey car (either of the two) had been involved in a collision. But my hypothesis is not that such a serious collision occurred but that some type of accident with a vehicle that can be operated (most likely a car), that did not seriously damage the car, caused the skull fracture that JonBenét suffered. Although car collisions obviously generate a much stronger force than accidents not involving collisions, and is a more likely cause of a skull fracture than a non-collision accident, this does not mean that a skull fracture cannot be the result of a non-collision accident involving a car. Unspecified car accidents, most likely the majority of which do involve collisions, actually are reported in the literature for some countries as the leading cause of traumatic head injuries, being responsible for more such injuries than assault. But the scientific literature on this topic is uneven and anything but conclusive regarding the type of question we would need an answer to with regard to this case. Skull fractures and what can be deduced about their unknown causes through scientific analysis has actually been a pretty controversial and hotly-debated topic for some years now, and I still have to do more research and will have to owe you a more detailed argument around this relevant to my theory until I get more time to write it up. For now, I will admit that most experts who look at JonBenét’s skull fracture would probably conclude (as experts have done so far) that blunt force trauma was the cause of it and that most of them would probably suggest that this trauma was most likely caused by the use of some blunt instrument.

I do want to emphasize that it was never my intention to come up with an alternative hypothesis about the cause of the skull fracture until my analysis of the note made me consider the D-U-I interpretation. I was very much content assuming that some version of a PDIA scenario was what caused the head trauma, and I believed that Steve Thomas’s theory was/is a perfectly plausible scenario when taken at face value. That’s because it is in essence a simple and straightforward theory that doesn’t elevate the Ramsey case into some sort of special mystery but treats JonBenét’s murder as being similar to many other sad cases of child murder by the hands of a parent that unfortunately happen fairly often and are not as rare as people make them out to be. There was nothing about Patsy Ramsey that would make her incapable of killing her child in a moment of anger. And the flip side of that is, that just because she would have been capable of it like many other mothers are, it doesn’t mean that she did do it.

My purpose was to explain the ransom note as thoroughly as possible in relation to the other known facts of the case. This is what made me reconsider the possible cause of the skull fracture and why I believe some of the expert opinions on the cause of it might have been wrong. I don’t want to challenge people’s status as an expert, or proclaim myself to be an expert in interpreting skull fractures. I just want to (re)assert that the ransom note is an absolutely crucial piece of evidence in this case and that perhaps it makes more sense to start from there and interpret other findings in the case on the basis of the best possible interpretation of the note, rather than read the note on the basis of conclusions/expert opinions about physical evidence that people take to be infallible. Although we could have a long discussion about the nature of science and the role that scientific experts (should) play in criminal law, for now I just want to say that even world-renowned scientific experts in all sorts of fields can sometimes get something wrong about some things relating to their expertise (in fact it is the nature of the scientific enterprise that this must happen all the time), and that if such a thing happened in this case, it shouldn’t be all that surprising given that there was an element of deception involved in this case that could have swayed even a trained expert’s opinion in favor of a particular interpretation. Put another way, cases where deaths were staged in the particular way JonBenét’s was were reported to have never happened before or since so no expert could have been familiar with such a possibility through experience and no expert would have been inclined to even consider the possibility of a car accident being the cause for such a death.

Again, I admit that my theory still owes an argument for how the skull fracture could (physically) have been caused by a non-collision car accident.



The part in my previous post where I say “steer away attention from this part of the story of what happened that night” didn’t necessarily refer to the interviews that I mention earlier in the sentence. What I meant with this part was that the Ramseys generally have steered the story of their alibi away from the car by making the car part that inevitably had to be part of their story (their return from the Whites’ home and the stops along the way) as uneventful as possible and offering as little details as they could about what was going on for the duration of it.

I think the reason for their avoidance of this topic was not that the car ride really was uneventful but because it held a key to the crux of the whole story. As I mentioned, I think John and Patsy disagreed whether or not they should make the final intended stop to drop off the last gift basket. I think to John this stop wasn’t so important and he probably wanted to go to bed early to be ready for the next day’s trip, a trip that he had arranged and that Patsy admitted she hadn’t really been looking forward to.

So in order to not raise suspicion about why this last stop was never made, the Ramseys’ story after the murder (months later) becomes that they were in agreement that they shouldn’t make the last stop. They also now claim JonBenét had been asleep in the car so as to have a reason for returning home and deciding not to make the stop. This also conveniently lets them avoid having to come up with a story about what JonBenét had been doing after they got home: she was just carried straight to bed. I think the real story was that after the disagreement, Patsy insisted that she and JonBenét (and possibly Burke) go to the Fernies to deliver the last gift basket because it was an important part of what Christmas was all about to Patsy. And because she was also accustomed to a tradition of matching Christmas outfits (as evidenced by several photos from previous years), she wanted JonBenét to change clothes and put on the red turtleneck as per her original plan.

Where this story by the Ramseys fell apart, of course, was that at that time they did not yet realize that investigators had learned (through the autopsy) that JonBenét had eaten pineapple shortly before her death so that she couldn’t have been asleep the whole time after she got back to the house. That is the significance of the pineapple. I don’t think that the actual circumstances surrounding her (and Burke) having pineapple was very relevant to the murder other than that. In my scenario, Patsy has to get JonBenét upstairs for about five to ten minutes and persuade/force her to put on the turtleneck. Possibly she was being uncooperative and Burke may have been nagging her that he was still hungry and that he wanted his favorite snack and that it was Christmas after all. So Patsy in a rush grabs a bowl and gives him some pineapple before she takes JonBenét upstairs to put on the turtleneck. She may have forgotten to even put a spoon in the bowl so Burke grabs one (the supposedly oversized one that Patsy wouldn’t have selected). Either at that moment when she prepares it or a few minutes later when Patsy comes back down with JonBenét, either she or JonBenét herself grabs a piece of pineapple for JonBenét. Burke meanwhile prepares a glass of tea for himself. Perhaps he starts putting together the toy as well, possibly with John’s help for a moment. This is where this part of their alibi comes from. It was probably based on something that really did happen but they left out the important details surrounding it. I think all of this could have happened within a 10-15 minute window from when the Ramseys arrived home.

Patsy and JonBenét come back down and head for the car, either taking Burke with them or not. The reason for Burke not finishing the bowl is either that Patsy takes him with them for the trip to the Fernies or because he does not go along with them but is sent upstairs shortly after when Patsy returns with JonBenét after the accident (possibly another 10-20 minutes later). Either way, she sends Burke upstairs to bed, pretending everything is fine, so that she can figure out what to do. In the scenario where Burke doesn’t go along for the trip, he eats relatively little from the bowl because he is preoccupied with putting together his toy.

John meanwhile doesn’t want to go along with the whole thing, thinking it unwise, and just goes to bed. In the scenario that Burke doesn’t go on the trip, he is just told/assumed to not stay up too long. In either scenario (Burke staying home or going along), John figures or agrees that Patsy will make sure both the kids go to bed after she comes back home from making the trip as fast as she can.

I do not claim that Patsy sneaked out of the house with JonBenét against their agreement or without John knowing. I claim that they were not in agreement about whether to make the trip and that John decided not to go along but went to bed instead, perhaps even before JonBenét had finished changing her clothes. This leaves a good 20-30 minutes of time for him to fall fast asleep and to not be disturbed by any of the events that transpire in the house later that night. It’s also possible that he was awake for a bit even after Patsy returned with an injured JonBenét (perhaps while Patsy grabbed the NIVSB from upstairs at the back of their bedroom where John’s study was) but that she pretended everything was fine and that she was still finishing putting the kids to bed and finishing the final preparations for the trip. She may indeed have acted out some of this last minute packing one floor down (as evidence of this was found I believe in either John Andrew’s room next to JonBenét’s room or in the back of her bedroom on the third floor) so as to have an excuse for what she was doing still up so late if John happened to come downstairs from bed while she was still busy staging.

The “I then focus on aspects to do with the car in later interviews” in my previous post refers to some of the comments made in later interviews that somehow relate to the car trip being involved in the lead-up to JonBenét’s death. Some examples follow below.

First of all, there is Patsy bringing up “the lady who drove her kids into the water” (referring to a case in which a mother had actually killed her children and came up with a false scenario) in the CNN interview, as well as bringing up the OJ case in which tiny blood evidence found in his car was an important part of suspecting him of the murders and in which a car chase was also infamously involved. Patsy comparing herself to princess Diana, that Meara brings up in her post, is also interesting since she also famously died in a car accident. Princess Diana is also mentioned as a possible target for the killers in Jack & Jill, a book I hypothesize for different reasons to have been a source for Patsy’s staging.

Next, there are John’s comments about how they “debated” not to go to the Fernies, as I described in my previous post.

Another example is Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil. There are two moments that I think are telling in light of my theory where Burke brings up the car himself:

one is when he is asked when he last saw his sister alive. He answers, in 2016, that it was “probably” in the car. Of course, what he wants us to believe he means is that he last saw her alive on the trip home from the Whites. This conflicts with what he said shortly after the murder where he says he saw her walk upstairs herself, without John carrying her. Although I think even in that earlier account he was also being deceptive because there he’s trying to suggest that JonBenét was going upstairs to go to bed, I think that earlier account did reflect a kernel of truth since in my theory JonBenét did go upstairs shortly before they left a second time to put on the red turtleneck. What this suggests to me, is that Burke, like most people who want to get away with a lie tend to do, uses pieces of truly recalled events and incorporates them into the lie to come up with a more convincing story. This is also psychologically convenient because it causes less stress about having to come up with made-up scenarios and keeping them consistent.

I think in the 2016 interview he also incorporates such a truthful kernel to relieve himself of some psychological stress. Only here he is no longer a child and he is smarter about his lie, as well as being more aware of what is required of him to point suspicions away from his mother: he says he last saw his sister alive/well in the car (which was true) but he leaves out that this was during the second trip they made to go to the Fernies. He’s directing attention away from questions about what was going on with JonBenét after they got home from the Whites but at the same time he’s saying something that he knows is true so that he has to worry less about coming off as deceptive. The use of “probably” also makes sense because technically he would’ve seen JonBenét at least for a short moment after returning home from the second trip with the accident before Patsy sent him to bed. He now (in 2016) knows that JonBenét was still alive at that moment but he probably only saw her being unconscious at that point, looking not very much alive at all, but based on what he has heard from experts he assumes she "probably" was. By saying “probably” he also gives a truthful answer to the implied question of when he last saw his sister unscathed (in the car) but he acknowledges to himself that interpreting the question that way is a little misleading: you, Dr. Phil, “probably” mean to ask me what I can tell you about when I actually last saw her alive literally, but I choose to interpret your question, for my own convenience, as asking me when I last saw her conscious and unscathed before the skull fracture which was in the car before the accident.

The second interesting moment when he brings up the car is when he is asked how he remembers JonBenét. Burke’s very first answer to this open-ended question is a memory about his sister and him fighting/teasing each other in the backseat of the car, as children tend to do. Of all the memories one can have about shared moments with a sibling, Burke’s first memory about her, how he remembers her, is in the backseat of a car. I think this is again truthful but in a misleading way. He does have this memory and does remember her that way but, in my opinion, it is because it is his last memory of her alive and well and it was a very traumatizing memory that must have haunted him for years, most likely up to this very day. It also hints at what may have been a contributing factor to the accident: if the kids were teasing each other this way, as kids indeed do, it may have been a distracting factor for Patsy and diminished the attention she paid to the road. It would also likely have made Burke feel guilty/responsible for causing the accident, even if this was not at all the case. This would explain why the memory would be so prominent in his mind and why he remembers her that way, because it haunts him, especially since events unfolded in a way that he never got a chance to be open and truthful about those feelings in public. His hand was forced to go along with his mother’s (and father’s) lies.

Also note that my scenario can explain how Burke could have had knowledge of JonBenét having suffered an injury to her head before this was common knowledge. BDI defenders tend to treat this as something pointing to Burke as the responsible party, but my theory shows that, as with just about all BDI evidence, there is no good reason to interpret specific, unquestionably relevant evidence in the case as pointing more to Burke than to Patsy. The reverse is not true.

Something similar can be said for interpreting Burke’s response to the pineapple questions in the interviews shortly after the murder. His apparent (slow) realization that the pineapple is in some way significant does not at all necessarily show guilt about him being responsible for the murder. He may have remembered/realized in those moments that the pineapple they had shortly before they left to go on the second trip, contradicts the story his parents have come up with for the three of them. He may be worrying that police somehow know about the pineapple being part of the real events of that night and that they are onto the real story of what happened.
Another issue I have with the PR and JBR taking the car and going to the Fernie's after going home theory, is Barbara Fernie herself. As time went on, she began to be suspicious of the R's and was doubting their stories about what happened. She even called police to alert them to certain things that concerned her about some of the things that went on and things that were said. This is an indicator to me that she most likely would have disputed their stories about what happened that night if PR and JBR had dropped by with a present late that night, but she has not.

I also think their discussion about whether or not to go to the Fernies, who lived much farther away than the other friends was not that big a deal. It seems very reasonable for JR to have questioned going, and for PR to agree they should all just go home. I may have misunderstood your comment about PR having to sneak out without JR knowing, it seemed like that's what you were implying. And I think JR would've put his foot down on PR's plan to go back out with JBR in tow to drop the present at the Fernies. Now that might've been an argument, but I just don't see PR insisting that was a good idea given that they all had to get up early the next morning and she still had more packing to do.

The different stories and lies that have been told by the R's almost always do not involve other people outside of the immediate family. That way they are much harder to verify as being truth or fiction. Bringing other people into the mix complicates things, as you have to rely on those other people to either remain quiet or actively participate in the lies. After awhile, the majority of the friends who were in the R inner circle began to doubt that what they were being told was the truth. So everyone was cast out of that inner circle, with the exception of the Stines, with whom interestingly enough they were not all that close with until after the murder.

The comments that PR has made about various car scenarios do not strike me as being indicative of anything in particular, or an inference of anything to do with a car. Neither does BR's recollection of being in the back seat with JBR. It was the last time they really were together, so it seems perfectly normal that he would recount that as it was the most recent memory. I do think that he knows a lot more than he has admitted, and how he answered some questions during the Dr. Phil interview is indicative of that.
 
The comments that PR has made about various car scenarios do not strike me as being indicative of anything in particular, or an inference of anything to do with a car.
I forgot to add that the crimes she mentioned that involved cars in my mind didn't have to do with cars as much as it may have been a subconscious alignment of herself with crimes that were perpetrated by a family member against family members....OJ killed his wife, Susan Smith killed her children.
 
Another issue I have with the PR and JBR taking the car and going to the Fernie's after going home theory, is Barbara Fernie herself. As time went on, she began to be suspicious of the R's and was doubting their stories about what happened. She even called police to alert them to certain things that concerned her about some of the things that went on and things that were said. This is an indicator to me that she most likely would have disputed their stories about what happened that night if PR and JBR had dropped by with a present late that night, but she has not.
My theory isn’t that either of the Fernies were aware of any of these events, but rather that the accident happened on the way to the Fernies, probably shortly after Patsy would’ve left the Ramsey home for the second time. When the accident happens, Patsy never goes over to the Fernies and goes back home instead after a few minutes of panic. The reason for believing this is precisely as you said because it is a simpler theory that requires less involvement from other people and also because the way the crime scene was staged shows signs of a very intimate (and irrational) dynamic between a number of personal beliefs and magical thinking habits of the (single) person staging on the one hand and the hypothesized sources on the other. This is also why I agree with Steve Thomas’s interpretation that John did not know anything until the next morning because some of the choices made in staging are highly unlikely to be the result of two people discussing how to stage the scene based on the sources.

One more thing about the car: as another more speculative remark on Burke’s memories in later interviews, I think the comment about his mom “going psycho” may have been a description of what he witnessed in the car immediately after the accident when Patsy would’ve been in a complete frenzy and very emotional.

The comments that PR has made about various car scenarios do not strike me as being indicative of anything in particular, or an inference of anything to do with a car. Neither does BR's recollection of being in the back seat with JBR. It was the last time they really were together, so it seems perfectly normal that he would recount that as it was the most recent memory. I do think that he knows a lot more than he has admitted, and how he answered some questions during the Dr. Phil interview is indicative of that.
Fair enough. As I mentioned, I fully acknowledge that there is a degree of subjective judgment involved in interpreting some of these interview remarks, behaviors and other evidence but the important point is that these bits are only used in my theory as additional support for the general picture of what happened, a picture that first emerged on the basis of other evidence that I think is much less subjective and would be less plausible to deny, e.g. the overlap between the ransom note and some of the hypothesized sources as well as the overlap between Patsy’s documented behavior on the 26th in relation to both Healed of Cancer plus the ransom note as well as other physical evidence in the case, the conceptual and verbatim overlap between the Ramseys’ interviews and the hypothesized sources (espescially the Alex Cross stories).

I forgot to add that the crimes she mentioned that involved cars in my mind didn't have to do with cars as much as it may have been a subconscious alignment of herself with crimes that were perpetrated by a family member against family members....OJ killed his wife, Susan Smith killed her children.
I agree that the OJ remark could be explained in a number of ways (I actually make some remarks on an additional link between the OJ case and some of the hypothesized sources for the ransom note and staging) and that the car link there is somewhat slim, and not convincing on its own, but I mention it just because when one takes all of the known little bits of evidence together with the bigger pieces which in my theory are mainly the sourced ransom note, the connection between the ransom note/crime scene with Osteen’s Healed of Cancer and Patsy’s observed behavior on the 26th and the Ramseys’ statements in their first interviews (CNN, police, local media), there emerges a pattern consisting of mutually reinforcing pieces of evidence that point in the same direction. Claiming that there is no real pattern suggestive of a causal correlation between the evidence and my interpretation I think would require a great amount of appealing to coincidence(s) to a degree that I believe would be extremely implausible.

I will try to make some more posts about some of the coincidences that people would have to claim are all coincidences if my theory isn’t at least somewhat close to the truth. I will also post about some of the remarks made and questions raised by other people (on Reddit and elsewhere) that generally tend to be posed as baffling questions that are considered just ‘odd’ that my theory can actually provide explanations for, even if this does require making assumptions about what might have been going through Patsy’s mind without being able to verify such interpretations fully of course.

I would like to emphasize again that much of my theory can also be derived by arranging a number of facts about case evidence and Ramsey behavior in a particular order and that the theory really uses facts from all major facets of the case evidence (statements made in the 911 call, statements in the ransom note, physical evidence from objects found in the wine cellar, physical evidence from JonBenét’s body, Patsy’s behavior on the 26th after police arrived and before JonBenét was found, Patsy’s behavior immediately after discovery of the body, statements from the CNN interview, statements from the police interviews, statements from the interview with local media months after the murder, statements made in The Death of Innocence, testimony about Patsy’s behavior before JonBenét died by people who knew her personally, remarks by people about what behaviors/statements by the Ramseys appeared inexplicably odd to them, etc.). This is why I think my interpretation of the evidence deserves to be called an actual theory whereas many other interpretations don’t really explain how all of the evidence fits into their account of what happened. Even when I disagree with some of the experts’ opinions on certain interpretations of evidence, I can give reasons for why I disagree with their interpretation. Compare this with people who give an opinion on what they think happened who do not say for all of the known pieces of evidence in any kind of detail how they are related to what they believe happened.


If any of the below statements can be shown by anyone to not be factual, I will withdraw them from this overview or revise/rephrase them to make them factual. Underlined parts of quotes are not part of the quote unless stated otherwise but are used by me to draw attention to particular parts of the quote. Some of these statements are phrased in a way that still uses some interpretation but are arguably readily conceded by most people and can easily be rephrased in terms that are factual.

FACTS

General


A ransom note was left at the crime scene demanding $118,000 and which was signed ‘S.B.T.C’.
Patsy Ramsey states that she was alone when she found the ransom note.
Patsy Ramsey is the only person in the Ramsey home who we know indisputably was aware of JonBenét being missing at the time the 911 call was made.
There are handwriting experts, among them Cina Wong, who have claimed that they believe on the basis of a comparison between Patsy’s handwriting and the ransom note’s handwriting, that Patsy was the person who wrote the letters of the note.
Police CSIs determined that fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy had with her at the Whites’ dinner party were found in the ligatures around her wrists and neck and on the sticky side of the ducttape that John said was over JonBenét’s mouth when he found her.
Patsy stated she did not go to the basement of her home between the time of attending the Whites’ party and the time when John found JonBenét in the basement of their home.
John claimed he did not try to remove the neck ligature.

If my theory is completely false, any perceived causal relationship between any and all of the following facts will have to have occurred by complete coincidence and the facts would have to bear no relationship to one another whatsoever.

Facts particularly relevant to my theory
People close to Patsy have reported that Patsy relied on books dealing with faith healing during her battle with cancer, including Dodie Osteen’s Healed of Cancer.
Patsy, before JonBenét’s murder, credited her faith with beating (temporarily) her cancer.

The words reported by Linda Arndt to have been uttered by Patsy immediately after encountering JonBenét’s lifeless body were “Jesus! You raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby from the dead!”
If Patsy was telling the truth about not knowing what happened to JonBenét, she would have had to have uttered these words after having had virtually no time to process the death of her daughter who up til that point was reported only to have been kidnapped.
At the end of Healed of Cancer Osteen writes that “Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.” (the only mention of Lazarus in the book) in the context of getting whatever one wants from Jesus, including miraculous healing.
On the same page it is mentioned that “We want people to get well any way they can.” and “There are many different ways of healing, but only one Healer, and His name is Jesus. He wants His children well. And I trust that this book will be a means of bringing hope to your heart and to always know that He will never change.”
People have reported, independently of my theory, to hear Patsy utter the words “Help me Jesus” at the end of the 911 call.
In Healed of Cancer, Osteen states in the context of healing and getting one’s wish granted by Jesus that uttering the three words “Jesus, help me.” in times of need have “never failed to help” her and she recommends to her readers to try using them in times of need too and they will “never fail to help you either”.
According to Patsy, she barely read the note (not entirely through) before calling 911 so she wouldn’t have had much time to process what exactly was going on at the time of the 911 call, but she is reported to be heard using the same three words that Osteen recommends using in the context of relying on Jesus for healing and getting one’s wish granted in times of need.

Many people have stated prior to (and independent of) my theory that they perceive similarities between the content and tone of the ransom/Ramsey note and lines and tone in stories from movies.
The Ramseys had several movie posters in their home.
The Ramseys had had a home theater in their previous home and in their Boulder home had installed a large drop-down tv screen in their bed room.
Police found hundreds of books present in the Ramsey home where JonBenét was found, including books of fiction.
The Ramseys have stated that they had a habit of reading books just before they went to sleep.

The Ramsey note asks for a ransom and contains the line ‘At this time we have your daughter in our posession.’
The Ramsey note also uses the word ‘advise’ twice, including once on the same page as the line about having Mr. Ramsey’s daughter in their ‘posession’.
The Lethal Weapon novelization by Joel Norst describes on its back cover that the plot involves a daughter getting kidnapped and the book contains the lines “ ’Advise the Murtaughs that we are in possession of their daughter. She is alive and well at this time, but will remain so commensurate only to how her parents behave during this unfortunate incident. Sergeant Murtaugh is not to apprise his department or any allied law-enforcement agency, such as the FBI, of the abduction. Make it clear that this is not a kidnapping for ransom.’ ”
The Ramsey note contains the words ‘such as police, F.B.I.’.
There is nothing that inherently/necessarily relates the phrase ‘at this time’ with the message of having someone’s daughter in one’s possession (meaning if a story uses one of these elements, it isn’t automatically expected that the other element would be used too), but both Lethal Weapon and the Ramsey note use the concept of a bad guy having someone’s daughter in their possession together with the phrase ‘at this time’.
There is no necessary relationship between mentioning that police and FBI should not be called in kidnapping scenario and use of the words ‘such as’, but Lethal Weapon and the Ramsey note both use the concept and the words together.
The Ramsey note contains the words ‘safe and unharmed’, which are conceptually similar to ‘alive and well’.
Lethal Weapon uses the word ‘unharmed’ in the context of the kidnapped daughter’s fate.

None of the quoted Lethal Weapon lines are in the movie, only in the novelization.

The Ramsey note contains the line ‘It is up to you now John!’, uttered to John by the supposed kidnapper.
Lethal Weapon contains the line “[‘]Now it’s up to you if you want to save the rest of your family.’”, spoken to the father by one of the people responsible for kidnapping the daughter in the story.
There is no necessary relationship between stories about bad guys kidnapping daughters and the concept of the same bad guys telling the father that it is ‘up to you’ in the context of the daughter’s fate.
Furthermore, in contexts within stories where a bad guy does use this phrase ‘up to you’, there is no necessary relationship with also using the word ‘now’ in that sentence, but Lethal Weapon and the Ramsey note both use the phrase ‘up to you’ and the word ‘now’ together in the context of the kidnapper speaking to the father in the context of saving (part of) his family.
Osteen’s Healed of Cancer states that Jesus said that if two spouses agree on any particular thing on earth they ask for, that it will be done for them by God.
The first words Patsy uttered after encountering JonBenét’s lifeless body, asked/commanded Jesus to do something for her and JonBenét.
The use of ‘Now it’s up to you’ in Lethal Weapon occurs in the context of saving one’s family by complying with the request of the daughter’s kidnappers.
The capitalized word ‘Now’ is used at the start of the sentence in Lethal Weapon but in the Ramsey note the word ‘now’ occurs later in the sentence and the sentence containing it starts with an ‘I’ (‘It’).
The sentence with ‘It is up to you…’ in the Ramsey note comes right after the only part in the Ramsey note where two sentences of the note start with the first (capital) letters of their sentences right beneath each other. (D and U).
So for each of the last three sentences of the Ramsey note, something noteworthy can be said about the placement of the capital letter starting it.

JonBenét was determined to have suffered fresh trauma to her vagina when she was found.
The same people responsible for kidnapping the daughter in Lethal Weapon threaten to sexually assault the daughter if her father does not go along with their requests.
The Ramsey note threatens to harm JonBenét if requests by the kidnappers are not followed.

The Ramsey note uses the words “follow our instructions” twice and uses the word ‘instructions’ separately another time.
Lethal Weapon contains the line “’I pray you’ve followed our instructions?’” spoken to the father by one of the bad guys responsible for kidnapping the daughter in the context of getting her back.
The word ‘instructions’ is used in Lethal Weapon right before the line about advising the parents that they have their daughter in their possession.
In the Ramsey note one of the occurrences of “follow our instructions” is in the sentence after the one that mentions the kidnapper(s) having JonBenét in their possession.

Lethal Weapon refers to the kidnapping of the daughter as a ‘situation’ for the father.
The Ramsey note refers to JonBenét’s kidnapping as a ‘situation’ for her father.

The Ramsey note contains the words ‘if you want her to see 1997’.
Healed of Cancer recommends asking God for what you want according to your need and that “you CAN have life abundantly if you want to”.
In one of the two editions of the NIVSB (an unknown edition of which was in the Ramsey home), there is a page 1997, which is part of the index, and on that page there is the entry for ‘Life’ with a sub-entry on ‘resurrection’, which is the concept invoked by Patsy immediately after supposedly first encountering JonBenét’s lifeless body.
Healed of Cancer stresses multiple times the importance of (looking for) the Word of God or God’s Word in the Bible in order to get what one wants/needs.
Healed of Cancer also refers to both the books First John and Third John in the Bible.
In the NIVSB (the edition with page 1997), the part where verse 1 John 1:8 occurs is in a section under the header ‘The Word of Life’ and in a footnote it states that Jesus is called “the life”.
Both Healed of Cancer and NIVSB passages about resurrection stress the importance of obeying God’s commandments/instructions to be saved/get what one wants from God, Healed of Cancer does so by referring to the book of First John (1 John in the NIVSB).

1 John 1 stresses the importance of confessing one’s sin(s) in order to be forgiven and purified by the the “blood of Jesus”.
1 John 1:8 acknowledges that we are sinful and that denying this will mean there is no place for his word [Jesus] in our life.
$118,000 was the ransom amount asked for in the Ramsey letter.
$118,000 was not the exact amount of John’s bonus, despite the exact amount reportedly having been accessible in the home.

Some of the passages referenced under ‘resurrection’ on page 1997 in the NIVSB talk about circumcision in the context of having a covenant with God.
JonBenét was found with fresh trauma to her vagina from which she bled shortly before her death.
There was evidence found for the presence of blood on multiple items found around JonBenét’s body in the wine cellar.
A footnote on the page with 1 John 1:8 (a footnote to the verse right after it) in the NIVSB states that forgiveness “restores communion with God that had been interrupted by sin (as requested by the Lord’s Prayer[)].”.
John says in The Death of Innocence that Patsy suddenly approached JonBenét’s coffin to pray just after the Lord’s Prayer was played and that he did not know why she did that.
Patsy states in The Death of Innocence that a song played during JonBenét’s memorial that she quotes starting with the words ‘I am the resurrection, I am the life.’ (the same words in my interpretation linking the advice from Healed of Cancer, page 1997 of the NIVSB and the ransom note) “now” seemed “unusually meaningful to me”.

The three occurrences of ‘John’ in the Ramsey note are all in the last four sentences of the note, despite the note starting off with the more formal ‘Mr. Ramsey’.
Healed of Cancer refers to the book of Third John (3 John in the NIVSB), referring specifically to the line “God’s highest wish is for you to be well.”.

Some of the passages referenced under ‘resurrection’ on page 1997 of the NIVSB occur on a page explicitly talking about achieving “victory” over “sin” in the context of “law”.
Many people, independently of my theory, have suspected that the letters ‘S.B.T.C’, which occur right after the last few lines of the note that I claim have been carefully imbued with symbolic religious meaning in several ways, stood for ‘Saved By The Cross’ in Patsy’s mind and that ‘Victory!’ had a religious meaning too.

The passage in the Bible referred to in Healed of Cancer just before the Lazarus mention refers to a passage just after the lone occurrence in the Bible of the words ‘by the cross’.

[TO BE UPDATED WITH MATERIAL FROM THE OTHER HYPOTHESIZED SOURCES AND REVISIONS BASED ON PEOPLE’S FEEDBACK ON THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS]
 
[CONTINUED]

People have pointed out that a few lines from the Ramsey note resemble lines from the movie Dirty Harry, specifically the repetition of “the girl dies” in the movie compared with “she dies” in the Ramsey note, and the concept of talking to a dog (“a Pekingese pissing against a lamppost” in the movie compared to “talking to a stray dog” in the Ramsey note).

The novelization of Dirty Harry also has the parts with “the girl dies” in its dialogue, more times than it is mentioned in the movie. The Ramsey note also has the “she dies” parts in it more times than in the movie.

Whereas the movie version of Dirty Harry only has the conceptual overlap with the ‘stray dog’ line in the Ramsey note, the Dirty Harry novelization actually uses the same word ‘dog’ in this part of the dialogue.

People have pointed out, independent of my theory, that the specification of the size for the container for the ransom money seemed rather odd and not well thought out because the size of the stack of bills needed was very small.

In the Dirty Harry novelization, but not in the movie, there is difficulty in getting the ransom money to fit in the container, hinting (conceptually) at the size of the container being important for a smooth ransom delivery process.

People have pointed out, independent of my theory, that some of the concepts invoked in the Ramsey note appear to resemble aspects of the real-life Patty Hearst kidnapping, a woman who was kidnapped by a militant group (resembling a faction) in a high-profile case during Patsy’s formative years.

There is another movie (and matching novelization) in the Dirty Harry series (The Enforcer) in which the story was inspired by the real-life kidnapping of Patty Hearst.

In the The Enforcer novelization, but not in the movie, a member of the militant group uses the phrase ‘fat cats’ in a derogative sense to speak about the people they are targeting and he also expresses that he wants to be a fat cat himself.

The Ramsey note contains the words “You are not the only fat cat around”.

The The Enforcer novelization describes the militant group as possibly being from or pretending to be from Rhodesia and supporting its political liberation.

The Ramsey note contains the words “Any deviation of my”, which is an incorrect use of the combination of the word ‘deviation’ with a preposition (the corrrect use being ‘any deviation from’).

In the archive.org database of books and texts there are only two pre-1997 books/texts that contain the words “any deviation of my”.

One of the two pre-1997 books containing the words ‘any deviation of my’ is a book with political speeches by president Jimmy Carter, many of which deal with foreign policy.

The line in the Jimmy Carter book containing the words ‘any deviation of my’ makes reference to Patsy’s home state of West Virginia.

Patsy was crowned Miss West Virginia not long before this speech was made.

The place in the 1000+ pages Jimmy Carter book where the ‘any deviation of my’ line occurs is three pages after a page mentioning the “foreign affairs problems” of “Rhodesia”, which is a page that is also listed under the entry for ‘Zimbabwe-Rhodesia’ in the index (the entry for ‘Rhodesia’ refers to the ‘Zimbabwe-Rhodesia’ entry).

The Ramsey note contains the words “in any way” in the context of not tampering with the money demanded two sentences after using the words “catch you talking to [a stray dog]”.

In the The Enforcer novelization a kidnapper uses the words “in any way” in the context of giving his demands and giving out a threat about not being followed or interfered with five pages after the words “I better not catch you hanging around” are used by Dirty Harry.

People have pointed out, independent of my theory, that the line in the Ramsey note that says “I advise you to be rested” is conceptually similar to the line in the Dirty Harry movie where Scorpio tells Dirty Harry that he’s going to need a good night’s sleep.

The Dirty Harry novelization also mentions the concept of getting sleep because it is going to be needed. In the novelization, this line contains the words “make sure”, which is a term also used in the Ramsey note.

The term “make sure” is used in the Dirty Harry novelization another time, on the same page describing the difficulty of fitting the ransom money in the suitcase.

In the Ramsey note, the term “Make sure” is used in the sentence that says that the container (the “attaché”) should be of “adequate size”.

People have pointed out, independent of my theory, how odd both the conceptual demand for the size of the container for the ransom money is as well as the particular phrasing of the demand (“adequate size attaché”).

In Healed of Cancer Osteen emphasizes the importance of following all of God’s demands if one wants to receive what one wants from the Lord, and she also recommends going through the Bible to look for the Word of God/Jesus.

In the NIVSB (the edition with ‘Life>resurrection’ on page 1997) the individual books of the Bible have separate introductions giving brief details by scholars about the context and contents of the book.

In the introductions to the books of First John/1 John (referred to by Osteen in the context of God answering the prayers of those who keep his commandments), Colossians (referred to in Healed of Cancer in the sentence preceding the one mentioning that Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead) and Romans (referred to by Osteen and under the entry for ‘Life>resurrection’), it is mentioned that these books of the Bible were originally letters.

In the Ramsey note, it is mentioned that “you must follow our instructions to the letter”.

In the NIVSB in the introduction to the letter of Colossians, the Bible book referred to by Osteen’s Healed of Cancer one sentence before mentioning that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead – the same fact invoked by Patsy immediately after supposedly first encountering her daughter’s lifeless body – it is mentioned that “[t]he theme of Colossians is the complete adequacy of Christ” and that “Christ is completely adequate”.

The word ‘attaché’ has two distinct meanings, one of them being that of ‘attaché case’, and the other being that of “a technical expert on the diplomatic staff of his country at a foreign capital” (the definition given in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, an unknown edition of which was found with an apparently earmarked page on a coffee table in the room where people came together on the morning of the 26th before JonBenét’s body was discovered).

Jesus is described in the The Living Bible edition of the Bible (the Bible version that Osteen mentions in Healed of Cancer that she uses), in the chapter immediately following the chapter describing the resurrection of Lazarus, as “God’s ambassador” (in some editions this term falls on the facing page of the climax of the Lazarus resurrection story). This place, right after the story of Lazarus, is the only place in the (Living) Bible where Jesus is referred to as an “ambassador”.

Steve Thomas described in his book the photo he saw of the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as follows: “A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest.”

Dodie Osteen describes the following in Healed of Cancer under the header of “A Visitation From The Lord”: “He walked through the door and noticed his Bible open on the bed where he had left it earlier that day. As he turned around, he heard someone turning the pages of his Bible. There was no draft or wind coming into the room from any direction. When he looked closely, a page was supernaturally turned under on one edge and Psalm 105:37 was quickened to him on that page. […] How we praised God for that word!

The “supernaturally turned” page in Osteen is in a Bible and obviously refers to a word/verse in the Bible that is supposed to have religious significance as a message from God showing that He is personally guiding Osteen’s fate and therefore is listening to her prayers and reassuring her.

In some editions of the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary where the word ‘incest’ is near the bottom of the left-hand page (matching Steve Thomas’s description), the word ‘incarnation’ is on the same page in the same column as the word ‘incest’.

The wordincarnation’ is used in the first sentence of the outline of the book of First John/1 John in the NIVSB on the facing page of the page containing verse 1 John 1:8 (talking about being sinful) which itself is under the header of ‘The Word of Life’: “I Introduction: The Reality of the Incarnation”.

Both the ‘Word of Life’ and ‘Incarnation’ refer to Jesus, who is the incarnation of the Word of God and who, as mentioned in a footnote, is identified with ‘life’, the same word whose entry is on page 1997 of the index in the NIVSB.

Osteen recommends to her readers in Healed of Cancer to look for (the Word of) God: “If you do not know the Word of God, you need to learn it. Many people suffer and die needlessly because they do not know what the Word of God says about healing. If you’re a baby Christian, God will honor that. Don’t condemn yourself if you don’t know the Word. Just get in the Bible and seek the Lord, and He will show Himself strong on your behalf. If you are in a church where you are not getting good teaching, I would suggest that you go someplace where you can hear the Word of God taught. It may someday keep you alive, as it did in my case.”

This passage in Healed of Cancer follows immediately after the sentence quoting from Second Corinthians: “5. SECOND CORINTHIANS 1:20: God is for you. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.”

Patsy, in her 1998 police interview, when asked to describe the markings on the photos of the article about the Esprit awards, reads the word ‘No’ three times but the fourth word she claims to not be able to make out so easily (despite John Ramsey claiming that Burke couldn’t have written the markings because the letters are too well written), suggesting it might say ‘SOS’ and later she reads the first letter of that word as ‘X’. When Tom Haney then points out to her that the letter could also be a ‘Y’ and that it seems to read ‘Y-E-S’ Patsy expresses surprise saying: “Oh. Oh, ‘Y-E-S’, ‘no’, ‘no’, ‘no’, ‘yes’. I don’t know, I have never seen this before.” One could interpret this as her distancing herself from a word that she knows (or reasonably can suspect while being investigated and interrogated) can be tied to her particular beliefs as having special meaning for her in connection with the Dodie Osteen book.

[MORE COMING]
 
Last edited:

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
299
Guests online
1,113
Total visitors
1,412

Forum statistics

Threads
597,570
Messages
18,066,660
Members
230,392
Latest member
@ttentive
Back
Top