Note Clues

[K777angel]

Remember that they had ALL night to complete the staging. That can be as long as 8 hours by some estimates, if the accident happened near 10 P.M.
And nothing the Ramseys have ever done falls into the catagory of "normal".

And facts lending to the probability that at least Patsy WAS up all night, is the fact that she was fully dressed, made up and coiffed when the officer arrived at 6:00am that morning. With the time-line Patsy gives - it is clear that she is not telling the truth.
Let's examine this in THEIR own words from their book:

Johnpg.9) - writing about the night of the 25th : "At about 9:30 I led Burke upstairs and got him ready for bed, then tucked him in and turned out the light. I went on up to our room on the third floor, which we had converted from an attic space to a master suite in 1993. Patsy was already in bed. I got ready, took a melatonin tablet to insure a good night's sleep,
set the alarm clock for 5:30am, and read in bed for a short while before turning out the light."

Patsy: (pg. 10) - "I hear John turning on the water in his bathroom and realize that it is still dark. ....I swing out of bed and abruptly remember that my shower is still broken."

Ok let's stop here. John's alarm is SET for 5:30am. Assuming he just jumps out of bed at that very moment and takes the time to go into the bathroom,
do his business and ready the shower - it is going to be at LEAST 5 minutes before Patsy "swings" out of bed! And that is being very generous. Not to mention how odd it is that it is John "turning on the water" in the shower that she claims awakens her - and not the annoying ALARM that goes off right next to her! Yeah right)

Ok, so going with HER time-line here - she doesn't even roll out of bed until
at the EARIEST 5:35am.
She calls 911 at exactly 5:52am. Just a mere 17 minutes later.
And in that time of 17 minutes, she wants us to believe that she did all the things she said she did.
Here she writes how she doesn't "need" a shower this morning (eewww!),
"Don't need one this morning, I think to myself. Just put my clothes on. And,
of course, my make-up. I remember my mother's words. "Never leave the house without your make-up." (what a bizarre thing to say in this particular recollection...) Plus we are going to be with Melinda's fiance', Stewart, so I want to make a good impression. (Oh! So she goes stinky-style and not only doesn't take a shower - she puts on the same clothes she wore the night before to a party!!) NOT believable.

She then, after taking time to dress and put make-up on (which takes a good ten minutes alone - not to mention doing her hair - which would be BED HAIR and needing some major attention!) she puts laundry into a plastic garbage bag, and goes down the spiral stairs, finds the note, comes back upstairs,
yells and waits for John, goes to Burke's room at the "far end" of the second floor, runs downstairs with John and he crouches and reads the note on the floor and THEN she calls the police.

There is NO way she can do all this in 17 minutes.

There is deciet in their story here.

And I have a question on my mind that I've pondered and never seen discussed.
Just what was Patsy's facial appearance when the officer arrived at 6:00am?
IF she had been dealing with JonBenet's death all night long as is suspected,
wouldn't her face be very puffy from crying?
Wouldn't her eyes show that look of having been crying for hours?
Her voice be nasly?
Her eyes red?
These features of lengthy crying take time to develop.
If she'd just discovered JonBenet MISSING only 10 minutes before the officer arrived, as she claims, her face should not show this appearance.
It is an important clue.
WHAT did Patsy's face really look like when the officer first laid eyes on her at that door at 6:00am?
And for that matter - what did JOHN'S face look like?

It is too frightening to consider that Patsy HAD been up all night staging the crime with her daughter lying dead - and be so stone faced that she didn't shed a tear.
I do not believe she would have behaved and reacted this way.
Her face SHOULD have shown signs of crying and puffiness at the officer's arrival if she'd been up all night - or for even an hour or two.

Perhaps this never discussed or released detail is being held close to the breast of the police and is what is in part meant by the officers' observations that day that it appeared that a DEATH had occured more than a kidnapping.
Hmmm.....
~Angel~

 

[Barbara]

Excellent points, Angel. And good questions too.

I am very quick in the morning, but 17 minutes would never do

 

[BlueCrab]

Excellent points, Angel. And good questions too.

I am very quick in the morning, but 17 minutes would never do

Correct. I also agree the timetable won't fit. IMO the Ramseys got up around 4:00 A.M. to casually get ready for the trip to the airport and the all-day flight to Michigan. Why would they PLAN to be in a bum's rush in the morning by waiting until 5:30 to get out of bed when they had to be at the airport by 6:30, a 20-minute drive by itself?

JMO

 

[K777angel]

Correct. I also agree the timetable won't fit. IMO the Ramseys got up around 4:00 A.M. to casually get ready for the trip to the airport and the all-day flight to Michigan. Why would they PLAN to be in a bum's rush in the morning by waiting until 5:30 to get out of bed when they had to be at the airport by 6:30, a 20-minute drive by itself?

JMO

I've asked this question before: Did the police TAKE John Ramsey's alarm clock as evidence to check what time his alarm was REALLY set to?
If he says it was 5:30 and in fact it was really 4:00 or 4:30 - then they are caught in another lie.

I have suspected this lie ever since I watched John Ramsey make a huge boo-boo on the 1st crock. I've mentioned this before and it bears watching if you have a video of it.
John Ramsey starts talking about the night of the 25th and the need they had to get to bed early "because we were going to get up early, around f..."
And at that point when he is just about to finish the "f..." time - he realizes what he has done and how he has slipped (it is SO obvious) and he
gets a horror look on his face, stumbles, throws his arm up and oddly POINTS at the interviewer and - changes what he was about to say to a general time of "early" or something. He CLEARLY was concerned about the TIME they were planning to get up on the morning of the 26th. WHY??????
WHY if they had absolutely nothing to do with the crime and no knowledge of anything - would they care one way or another what time they got up>
What difference too would it make if Burke was awake or not if they were all innocent?
What difference would ANYTHING - except the TRUTH - make if they are innocent?

And they wonder why they are not believed. It's called "reason."

 

[SisterSocks]

It is well understood that the most critical piece of evidence in the case is the "note" Patsy Ramsey claims she found on the stairs. Setting the "handwriting" aside - let's look at the abundance of other clues the writer gave us in writing that note.

One came to my attention today in browsing through the Ramsey's own book.

Patsy is talking about a "message of appreciation" she and John wrote and had printed on the back of the liturgy program for the Dec. 1997 rememberance service held for JonBenet in Boulder.

Patsy writes (pg. 234): "In composing this expression of appreciation, John and I had each written a version. With both copies in hand, John dictated and I typed at the computer as we merged the two into one."

Whoa. Here we have PROOF that John and Patsy practiced John dictating and Patsy writing!! Just as has been suspected in the writing of the "ransom" note.

Again - it is not just "one" thing that points to the Ramseys as the author's of that note, but a combination of things. To the point of rendering the suggestion of some stranger/intruder/kidnapper/pedophile as the author as
simply ridiculous.

We of course also have the now well-known clues such as: "and hence", the
ransom demand of $118,000 (same as John's bonus that year), the use of the word "gentlemen" which Patsy and her family use and she also uses in her
book (pg. 57), the familiar term "John" departing from the intial "Mr. Ramsey",
the frequent departure from the use of "we" to "I", the use of the term used in the family "use that good southern common sense", the use of the term
"fat cat" (Patsy's dad used the word "cats" when referring to others too),
the phrases used to "be well rested", "bring an adequate sized attache',
and the sheer extreme length of the note suggesting panic and desperation on the part of the note writer to DIVERT attention away from what would be so very obvious as to who caused the death of JonBenet.

And they wonder why they are not removed from under the umbrella of suspicion.

Well K, I believe that Patsy wrote but,I don't think John had anything to do with the Note.

Socks

 

[Arielle]

Well folks, for those of you (specifically K777angel) here is my typical morning timeline:

Set alarm for 6am. Get up at 6:07 when snooze goes off. If it is Tuesday or Thursday, take shower, dry and style hair. If it is Mon, Wed, or Friday, just brush hair and style it. Get dressed. Dress 4 year old daughter. Go downstairs, feed cat and dog. Let dog out. Get breakfast ready. Eat breakfast. Get lunch together. Leave house at 6:45. On days when I shower in the morning, I may not have time to eat my breakfast at home. But I get all of this done in a mere 32 minutes. I do not wear makeup often, but when I do I wear everything from foundation out. It takes me only 5 to 10 minutes to put it all on. If I did it daily, I imagine it would take me the 5 minutes most of the time.

Also, I often wear the same thing two days in a row. Especially if it is a dry-clean outfit. I will wear it several times before taking it to the cleaners. Or if it is a special outfit, such as a Christmas outfit I only wore for a few hours the previous day. Now, if I spill something on it, that is different.

So, yes folks, I only shower 3 to 4 days a week (Sat and Sun also), not daily. I do not have hygeine problems. I do not stink to my knowledge and no one has ever hinted that I do.

Putting all of this together, I do not doubt that patsy could have done all she said she did between 5:30 (or even 5:35) and 5:52. Also, you may need to take into account that many people will set the time on their alarm clock ahead a few minutes. So perhaps 5:30 was actually 5:20. That is something we will never know because it is a quesiton which has never come up to my knowledge.

 

[K777angel]

Well folks, for those of you (specifically K777angel) here is my typical morning timeline:

Set alarm for 6am. Get up at 6:07 when snooze goes off. If it is Tuesday or Thursday, take shower, dry and style hair. If it is Mon, Wed, or Friday, just brush hair and style it. Get dressed. Dress 4 year old daughter. Go downstairs, feed cat and dog. Let dog out. Get breakfast ready. Eat breakfast. Get lunch together. Leave house at 6:45. On days when I shower in the morning, I may not have time to eat my breakfast at home. But I get all of this done in a mere 32 minutes. I do not wear makeup often, but when I do I wear everything from foundation out. It takes me only 5 to 10 minutes to put it all on. If I did it daily, I imagine it would take me the 5 minutes most of the time.

Also, I often wear the same thing two days in a row. Especially if it is a dry-clean outfit. I will wear it several times before taking it to the cleaners. Or if it is a special outfit, such as a Christmas outfit I only wore for a few hours the previous day. Now, if I spill something on it, that is different.

So, yes folks, I only shower 3 to 4 days a week (Sat and Sun also), not daily. I do not have hygeine problems. I do not stink to my knowledge and no one has ever hinted that I do.

Putting all of this together, I do not doubt that patsy could have done all she said she did between 5:30 (or even 5:35) and 5:52. Also, you may need to take into account that many people will set the time on their alarm clock ahead a few minutes. So perhaps 5:30 was actually 5:20. That is something we will never know because it is a quesiton which has never come up to my knowledge.

Sorry but there is no way Patsy could have *dressed, *put on make-up (and keep in mind she is a BEAUTY QUEEN who specifically mentioned wanting to impress Melinda's boyfriend and therefore look her best that morning - she would have taken much care to apply it all carefully. We're not talking about a dash of lipstick and a slap of blush here - she was admonished by her mother she takes care to mention that you NEVER go out of the house without your make-up on....) * doing her hair - the style that it was then - and we can see because we have photographs of her the morning before with her bed hair - would have required some primping and spraying and fluffing and styling without a good wash. T-I-M-E.
Then we've got the fussing with the laundry and finding the big plastic garbage bag to put it all in, going down, finding the note, going back up, checking on Burke, going back down, waiting for John to read the note and THEN calling 911.
There is absolutely no way she did all this in that time frame.
I don't care if the alarm was set 10 minutes earlier - it is not reasonable to figure that John leapt up at that moment and sped into the bathroom.
The time-line just does not fit and John's horror at almost SLIPPING with the time they really DID plan to get up at on the crock - goes right along with it.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

... I don't understand how people want to convict these people period...

Those of us who believe a Ramsey did it want nothing more than to believe an intruder did this. The problem is that it looks, for all the world, like a Ramsey did it. That fact haunts us, believe me.

I don't think John did this. I don't think Burke did this. However, if someone else wants to tell me that they think John or Burke is guilty, I don't respond with something like, "Well, why do you want to hurt this innocent man????"

You seem like a very polite poster. However, you are among the minority of 'intruder-did-it' theorists. I just don't get it.

I mean, I don't think Burke did it, but I don't see those who do think 'Burke did it' as 'out to get' Burke Ramsey.

Do you see the difference?

...There are SO MANY cases where children have been kidnapped from their bedroom, raped & murdered. I just think that this house was big enough that the perp didn't have to remove her. Easier to run away without a body.

Another 2 cents of mine

But, the point is that, except for this one case, everyone has simply 'run away' with the body. Or, more exaclty: Everyone has taken a living child and turned him or her into a 'body' away from home.

If you add to that statistic the fact that it was Christmas night, well, then, there are not too many suspects outside of the family.

 

[K777angel]

Blueclouds - you mention that many children have been kidnapped from their bedrooms, raped and murdered. Surely you don't imply that THIS scenario is similar to the Ramsey case do you?

First of all, JonBenet was NOT kidnapped.
JonBenet was NOT raped.
AND - most importantly - a fake RANSOM NOTE was left at the scene.
There is NO comparison to what you suggested as happening all the time.
The Ramsey case does NOT fit any of those.
Polly Klass - taken from her home and killed. No ransom note.
Danielle VanDam - taken from her home and killed. No ransom note.
Two famous examples of how these kinds of perps REALLY operate.

The stager could not make up his/her mind what they wanted this scene to imply.
They tried TOO many things and ended up making it obvious it was none of those.
Kidnapping for ransom.
Foreigners against our country.
Anger toward "fat cats"
(I do not believe the sexual abuse was staging. The stager tried to HIDE the fact that she had been molested by wiping her down and pulling her pants back up... the purpose of staging is to make something that isn't "obvious."
I think the molestation was the catalyst in the whole sad sequence of events that ended in JonBenet's death.)

The FBI Child Sexual Assault and Serial Killer experts will tell you: Perps do NOT "cross over." They are either kidnappers for ransom/Kidnappers for sex.
NOT both. And NEITHER of these happened to JonBenet. She was NOT kidnapped PERIOD. She does not even belong in your category.
She was simply found physically abused and DEAD in her parent's home with a fake ransom note to mislead the authorities.
THOSE are the simple facts. A sad but common scenario in too many homes today. And it knows NO class status. Rich, poor, black, white, young, old, beauty queen, ugly mom, CEO, garbage man....
It happens everywhere.
When a young child is found DEAD in the home - particularly age 6 and under -the vast majority of the perps are very close family members.
That is just a fact.

 

[TLynn]

Whether Patsy can "make-up" fast in the morning or not is debatable.

However, I'm under the impression her make-up looked fresh...not worn from all night or, possibly, tear-stained, etc.

Which means - she could have applied it before calling 911 or whatever.

How did Patsy come down those stairs with three pages of notes spread out on the step and step around it, read it, and do whatever (pick your explanation) of the note.

I have a "winding" staircase - tried it - had to twist my body into a contortion to accomplish that.

 

[Maikai]

bad, then the note wasn't fake---the intent was to kidnap JBR for $$$, but the perp blew it---because he was a amateur---he may have been experienced in breaking and entering--but didn't have a well thought out plan. You also have to look at other socioeconomic factors in the home, before making a blanket statement that JBR was killed by a parent. Many of the homes where a child was killed by a parent or caregiver had other factors such as drugs, alcohol, boyfriend, and/or poverty---not to mention a history of abuse.

 

[sansoucie]

Socioeconomic factors ??? not necessarily. There doesn't have to be drugs, blah blah... for a parent to brutally murder a child.

 

[Shylock]

Many of the homes where a child was killed by a parent or caregiver had other factors such as drugs, alcohol, boyfriend, and/or poverty---not to mention a history of abuse.

Sure Maikai, many of them did--but not all of them. Every day of the year people with no prior history just go nuts in some way. It's human nature, the brain is not perfect. To deny that is just playing silly games with yourself--it happens, face it. Patsy had been through a lot with her illness. That's very stressful and has to effect everyone who goes through it. Additionally, Patsy was a flake who couldn't give up the past and realize she was no longer the pageant queen of the ball. Consider this:

I have a friend who lives in a restored 3-story colonial house built in 1899. The house is in the historic register for the area. A couple times a year he opens his house up for tours usually called something like "A Walk Through History". When he does, he doesn't dig out his High School diploma along with all his sports trophys and lay them out for people to see. If he did that, he would be goofy in the head.

Patsy was goofy in the head.

 

[sissi]

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach.../pdf/PART_ONE.pdf+mike+mcelroy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I know I posted it elsewhere,but hoping for some opinions..

 

[Ivy]

It looked to me as if McElroy had given up trying to comprehend Nietzsche and the transcendental philosophies of certain old Russian novelists, and had meandered off on his own. Regardless, I found nothing there to suggest he killed JonBenet.

IMO

 

[sissi]

Right,nothing,other than saying "people can't forgive a child murderer" in 26
above that a mention of the media saying to victims "how did you feel when your child was murdered and raped"
"I'll drug to that" in another area
"a dog"
many uses of hence
overusage of "gentlemen"
more than a few exclamations
reference to his not being a "prophet",yet that was his nickname and email addy...
I asked twilight a few weeks ago to read a portion of the letter he wrote following his experience with the BPD,Twi if your listening,could you please take a peak at this.
I ,however,do not know for certain this is the same guy. The name is too common to make that assumption.
His writing was good at the time of his taking down his website,he had talent albeit the content was not to my taste,but I'm really not certain it matches up to this new page.
IMO
Most importantly he was CLEARED which leads me to wonder if he had a follower in a cultish sense.
IMO

 

[Ivy]

sissi, it's obvious you're alarmed by certain words and phrases he wrote because you're not taking them in context. You're trying too hard to make him appear to be the possible killer of JonBenet. After reading his introspective ramblings, nihilistic though they were, I consider it extremely unlikely that he is. Let me rephrase that. NO WAY is he the killer.

Here's an example of a phrase you took out of context (blue text):

And of course, are not the consumption and addition of alcohol and other drugs naught but an attempt to escape this world and our feelings about this world? To discover a different consciousness about this world. I'll drug to that! But of course, a new consciousness and new feelings will not eliminate the question of acceptability or unacceptablity. Stoneology recapitulates theodicy.

He didn't kill JonBenet. In fact, he refuses to vindicate the justice and holiness of a God that establishes a world in which evil exists.

IMO

 

[sissi]

Ivy.....I agree,he likely isn't the killer,however I don't feel I'm going as far out on a limb as those that have considered "reverse speech" or"psychic vibes". I may be out there with those that feel Patsy used "and hence" in her Christmas card,and John said there is no "victory in this", as their subliminal confessions.
IMO
Ivy I do want to thank you for taking the time to read his "paper".
Once ,shortly after I became aware of the name of a few of his friends,I went to a site and read the long and rambling poetry of one ,within the words I found reason to consider this "friend"as a suspect, as well. He spoke of making himself pretty ,becoming the little girl,attending her funeral and going through the motions of etiquette by standing to shake the hand of the fallen rich man. I feel or sense something yet can't quite put a label on it ,within the "fringe society",something cultish,comparable to the "beat" movement of so many years ago,something anti god,anti american,anti capitalistic, members highly intelligent perhaps drugged and misguided. Would anyone act to destroy a family that represents an opposing dogma ,for some benefit construed by them to help humanity as a whole?
Heck,I don't know,but Boulder seems a bit creepy to me..no middle ground,the haves vs the have nots...the last hippie hold out town..I don't know..just my perception...
IMO

 

[twilight]

Sissi, Ivy - someone - who is this guy? And please, spare me Nietzsche. I'm a linguist, not a philosopher. And no they are not the same thing, IMO. So who's McElroy? Another of BC's babysitters?

 

[SisterSocks]

Sorry but there is no way Patsy could have *dressed, *put on make-up (and keep in mind she is a BEAUTY QUEEN who specifically mentioned wanting to impress Melinda's boyfriend and therefore look her best that morning.

K777 -- Girl she could have with ease . Although you mentioned that Patsy was a Beauty Queen----- Surely you know she would be a makeup Indy 500 winner.lol She always looked her best...

Trust me 777 SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE TIME LINE.

Socks