I’ve seen experts identify Mr Ramsey and even Karr as the author, and I know that most people looked at by BPD fell into the same category as Mrs Ramsey. It’s easy to find some expert willing to say that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note, or didn’t write the note, or couldn’t be excluded, etc; but, so far the only experts accepted by the courts are those experts accepted by Carnes. None of the experts accepted by the court identified Mrs Ramsey as the author. So, I think that my original claim remains true: the belief that Mrs or Mr Ramsey wrote the note has not been confirmed by credible experts, and I’m just not interested in other’s opinions.
.
Without the ransom note you could have a dead child anywhere in the home. If all they had to do was explain a dead child then all they had to do is lie. No self-incriminating evidence, no contradiction between kidnapping and body in house, no crime scene, no police, etc. There is no reason for the Ramseys to even think of faking a kidnapping if they weren’t going to dispose of the body.
As to where or how they would dispose of the body and the risk involved – who cares? They didn’t dispose of it and there is no evidence to support the argument that they planned to dispose of it; in fact, the evidence – body hidden in basement – contradicts the claim. No disposal = no kidnapping.
If RDI why would the Ramseys call the police BEFORE calling the Whites, etc? Calling the police first means the police arrive first and possibly prevent others from entering, etc. Calling the Whites, etc first supports RDI, calling the police first does not.
What difference does it make what was said later? That morning when the police arrived and when the Ramseys, if RDI, needed them to believe an intruder had entered the home the Ramseys said that the home was secure thus making their imaginary intruder’s entry appear a mystery; more than a mystery: unlikely.
IMO LHP had a big influence on the grand jury’s decision; however, LHP said a lot of things, and in the beginning and iirc they were favorable things. There are several reasons to question her credibility. Regardless, there is nothing in what she or any other Ramsey insider has ever said that makes the Ramseys out to be the kind of people who could commit such extreme acts of violence on a child.
Etc.
No worries, I don’t take anything you’re saying as being mean. And, I hope you understand that I am not saying that there isn’t any evidence that supports the RDI position. I’m just underwhelmed by that evidence.
...
AK
There's been tons of experts who claim various people are authors, and I don't think it's possible for all of the experts to come to a solid conclusion on who wrote the note. I understand what you meant by experts now, and it is true that the six experts accepted by Carnes didn't fully believe PR was the author, but rather their findings were that they couldn't identify her or eliminate her as the author. There are various credible experts who have identified her as the author as I have listed above, it's more of a matter of opinion on which one you personally feel is correct. I respect the testified opinions, but the fact that she wasn't ruled out as the author by them only strengthens my personal stance with Epstein's findings.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't believe her death was supposed to happen in the first place. I don't think John knew until December 26th either. I think Patsy panicked and fabricated everything after the head bash. I also don't think it's possible for an 8.5 inch skull fracture to be explained innocently and she knew that. Whether she was aware that JB was dead or not is besides the point. If JB was alive, she could tell someone what happened. If she was dead, PR was responsible. Appearance was everything to her. Which brings me back to her faith. The note is littered with religious incentives and I'm happy to list them if you'd like. If you've read Shapiro's stance on the case then you'll understand where I'm coming from. He says it much better than I can.
Why would an intruder write the note in the first place? Why would they introduce themselves as a "group of individuals" or a "foreign faction" and ransom the family's dead daughter in the basement for such a small amount of money? If they wrote it prior to the murder then why did they continually write "she dies" instead of "she will die?" "She dies" is indicative that they already knew she was dead. An intruder as the author contradicts the DNA and their own ransom instructions which leaves no known motivation for the killing. PR as the author makes more sense, IMO.
I didn't question the disposal, you did. I was explaining why they didn't. Same goes for IDI though. I've seen many IDI theorists speculate that she was to be taken out the window in the suitcase or some other way, but something went wrong. Whose to say the same didn't happen if PR attempted it? As to what went wrong, I have no clue. I don't think she could bear to dispose of her even if she thought she could have to be honest. I think she counted on the very theory IDI's count on in the sense that they didn't get her out of the home. The fact that the body was found in the basement also contradicts the intruder because the note stated she was kidnapped and under the watch of two gentlemen. So it goes both ways.
I'm not questioning the time frame of the phone calls, I'm questioning the fact that their friends were called right after police when the note stated that she would be killed if they made any contact what so ever. Police I understand calling, but not people the Ramsey's obviously didn't trust considering they turned on them soon after. I think she called their friends to place distance between herself and the crime. Calling their friends before or after police doesn't matter to me. She needed police there for obvious reasons. What matters is that the friends were called despite the ransom notes instructions and then they sent their son to the Whites home when a supposed group of men had their daughter? The only way I could see anyone risking that is if they knew JB was already passed and there was no danger.
The importance of a suspect changing their story in a murder case is kind of a big deal and they did it frequently. John told police on the morning of December 26th that he checked the locks, NOT Patsy. After learning what happened, he changed his story. Like I said, I don't believe JR knew until December 26th which explains his behavior that day imo.
"JR: Well, I think she called the Fernies and the Whites and just screamed at them to come over." I think Patsy was attempting to distance herself from the crime in front of an audience who knew her as the put together devoutly religious woman who could never commit a crime. I also think she knew JR would catch onto what happened and wanted an escape where she could continue mourning.
I thought her testimony was fine, but okay. Here's another from Linda Wilcox.
LINDA WILCOX: Okay, first and foremost, the major...Patsy's major job was to make sure nobody annoyed John. One of the things that really annoyed him was lots of noises, you know, (couldn't understand) noises, things like that. One day, I was there, it was during the summer, so Patsy and the kids were in Michigan, it was the summer of '95, probably June or July, I was in the master bedroom, upstairs, on the 3rd floor, vacuuming the floor, which was my job. I was finishing up. John Ramsey had come in during that time, probably through the garage, went up the stairs, turned off the vacuum, turned around and walked away.
PETER BOYLES: He didn't say anything to you?
LINDA WILCOX: Not a word.
PETER BOYLES: Just turned it off and walked away?
LINDA WILCOX: The look on his face said it all.
PETER BOYLES: What were you doing, other than your job?
LINDA WILCOX: Nothing, I was vacuuming the floor.
PETER BOYLES: And he came over, turned off the vac, didn't say anything to you and walked away.
LINDA WILCOX: Right. He didn't like the sound of the vacuum.
LINDA WILCOX: Okay. It was the summer of '95. It was probably two or three weeks before they left for Michigan. JonBenet was 4, getting ready to turn 5 that August, and her and Burke both caught the chicken pox. I was there cleaning in the kitchen.
Burke was upstairs itching like mad. He had them all over, he was in bed with the t.v. in his room, playing videos. JonBenet was in the t.v. room, sitting at a small table, in her nightgown, doing something quiet, like coloring.
The child had a fever, she's sitting there coloring, Patsy is in the kitchen on the telephone with the doctor. I figured, oh, she's going to call the doctor to find out what to give the kids and the conversation went, "well JonBenet's got chicken pox and she's got these spots on her face and we need to have a photo shoot in about 3 days. Is there anything you can give her to get rid of the spots? This is the child she loved with the whole of her heart?
"Like, JonBenet, for example.
She got no affection at all when she was little except maybe from their nanny. Until she started to perform or produce, she was basically ignored. At one point, John was complaining because he had to get her dressed one morning because Suzanne had been out of town. He couldn't find any clothes that matched. The reason was, she was wearing cast-offs from Burke because she didn't have any clothes of her own."
" I was talking to Suzanne that next week and she said, Yeah, I went to see the kids and she was going to take JonBenet to McDonalds because
JonBenet loved McDonalds. It was like her favorite thing in the whole world. And Suzanne told me, I just heard the saddest thing. She'd gone and gotten the kids and she said, hey, I'm going to take you guys to McDonalds. JonBenet looked at her stone cold and said, "Eating McDonalds makes you fat."
"I was working for them when Patsy got sick with cancer and after she recovered. During that time, Nedra moved in and was caring for the children.
Then Patsy had what she called her divine intervention and was cured of her cancer. After Patsy finished decorating the house,
Burke became her favorite child. She spent all of her time at his school. He was her first project. At that time JonBenet was too young to do anything Spectacular. She hardly got Patsy's attention. Suzanne Savage was in charge of her. JonBenet wasn't in school yet, and her world revolved around adults, whereas Burke's life revolved around his friends.
Then, when ]onBenet started school, she became Patsy's second project. The children really were like projects to her. I'm afraid that after JonBenet became Patsy's focus, she also became her obsession. I think that to Patsy; nothing and no one had the right to be imperfect. Everything had to fit Patsy's image of what it should be. So JonBenet was under immense pressure to fit the image Patsy had of her new project. When the police interviewed me, they asked if the kids wet the bed a lot. I said yes. Detective Harmer asked if I thought that was unusual, and I had to say, "Not really. Not at that age."
Burke wore Pull-Ups until he was six, and JonBenet always wore them. But I also told the police it was curious to me that Burke stopped wetting the bed when he stopped being the focus of Patsy's attention. And that was when JonBenet became a chronic bed wetter. But you know if you have little kids around that age, they are bed wetters. When I left in September of 1995, they were both still wetting their beds."
Linda maintained her view of the Ramsey's so I don't know how you can discredit her testimony. I've placed the parts of her interview that indicate oddity in bold for easier reading.
