Thursday, December 19, 2013

Patsy Ramsey Interview Analyzed

Statement Analysis of Patsy Ramsey Interview
by Peter Hyatt





John and Patsy Ramsey Con 
It's Christmas time, which for some, will be a reminder of a horrific murder of a little In the murder investigation of Jonbenet Ramsey, we have learned that the parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were, in fact, indicted by a Grand Jury into her death.

The District Attorney at the time, Alex Hunter, refused to sign the indictment.  Those who followed the case closely know that Hunter did not want to go up against the wealthy Ramsey's high powered attorneys and suffer the humiliation of a loss.

Those of you who bristled over this case had every reason to.  Police, widely criticized for not having enough experience in murder investigations did make some mistakes, but they also knew that the parents caused the death of Jonbenet.

Talent is often drawn away by money.  There's not much that can be done about this.  Talent in law enforcement ends up in the private sector, doing security, corporate investigations, fraud, insurance, and so on.  Thus it is in the world of attorneys. Many take low paying jobs with their state, as "assistant district attorney" or "assistant attorney general" but the private sector, when they meet in a courtroom, will target the talented to join "the other side."

When a family, longing for justice, is told, "I have 25 years prosecuting cases and this case is not prosecutable!" it may at times be translated, "I have been overlooked for 20 years by the private sector and there is no way in hell I am going to go up against the private attorneys and be humiliated!"

It is not always the case, however, as there are those who have dedicated their lives to justice, both in law enforcement and within prosecution.

Alex Hunter, however, isn't one of them.


Here is the Patsy Ramsey interview:


The little girl, replete in sexualized Las Vegas like costumes, with her many urinary tract infections, and bed wetting, was likely a victim of sexual abuse in which both parents conspired to make her death appear like a kidnapping gone wrong.  


ST: Just sit down.
??: Okay.
ST: (Inaudible) so I’m going to keep half an eye on this as we, as we go this morning and, and Jon certainly let me know as you need to take a break to changes tapes or anything.


JF: Alright Steve.


ST: For the, simply for the record, uh, let me state today is Wednesday, April 30. 1997. The time is 9:05 a.m. My name is Steve Thomas. I’m a detective with the Boulder Police Department. Present in the conference room at the Boulder District Attorney’s office are myself, Detective Thomas Trujillo, Chief Trial Deputy Peter Hoffstrom, Mrs. Patricia Ramsey, Mr. Patrick Burke and Mr. Jon Foster. Just some quick introductory remarks and some housekeeping and we’ll get started here, but Patsy I want to speak specifically to you and tell you that we appreciate you coming to the table today, uh, and your involvement with this and our intention, and I can speak for myself and I think the other persons on this side of the table, is to establish some sort of ongoing dialog. And to that, uh, I think today as an important leap of faith for both sides and uh, I appreciate your comments of wanting to work with us and, and we desire that as well. As you know and as I’m sure Pat’s told you today, we’re going to ask some difficult questions as well as some easy questions and the difficult questions are simply necessary in a case like this and I think you can appreciate that and understand that and we’ll try to get through that as best we can and we’re very sensitive to this Patsy. I want to assure you of that. Uh, I have uh, and you don’t know me personally, but I’ve gone to bat for John’s two oldest kids, uh, John Andrew and Melinda, and despite what anybody thinks about me, I will continue to do whatever is necessary as will Tom and Pete to find the truth in this case and that’s what we’re all looking for. Uh, I will tell you that we will work this until we bring it to a successful conclusion and we will do that and to do that we desire your cooperation. Um, as necessary today Jon and Pat and Patsy, we’re pretty flexible. If you need to take a break or compose yourself, uh, if it’s lunchtime, whatever you need, we’ll work around those things. I think Tom’s going to start and he probably has uh, uh, maybe several hours of questions for you and I might jump in intermittently, but it’s a two way street and I, I’ll just turn it over to you Tom.


TT: Okay. Let’s just (inaudible) a little bit. Kind of tell me a little bit about yourself, your background, where you were born, kind of the nuts and bolts kinds of stuff.


In Analytical Interviewing we begin with open ended questions (I think it is fair to say, 'dispense with the rapport building here), and use the skill of listening, as people very rarely ever lie directly, instead withhold critical information. 

Notice here:  Very poorly worded question.  Shortest open-ended questions are best, allowing the subject to choose where she wishes to choose, instead here he tells her where to begin her answer. 
What should we look for?

In the case of Jonbenet, we had a child:

1.     Sexualized Appearance
2.     Chronic urinary tract infections
3.     Chronic bed wetting

Therefore, it would be wise to listen to any references (linguistic) of childhood sexual abuse in either John or Patsy Ramsey’s answers about growing up.  These indicators are well known to readership, including “child”, “lights”, “doors”, “windows”, “blankets”, “coverings” and so forth; generally found as “extra” words within a sentence. 

PR: I was born in Parkersburg, West Virginia, November 29, 1956. I attended school there, uh high school. I, I was college (inaudible) Charleston, West Virginia and short time  and then I moved to Atlanta in the summer of 1979 and was working for McCann Erickson Advertising Agency. And in 1980, November, I married my husband, John.


The subject moved very quickly from birth to marriage, with no significant details given at any aspect of life.  A trained interviewer would have brought her back to early childhood.  Remember, this is a child murder, and the interviewer should bring the subject back to her earliest recollections in childhood without feeding her any words.

Victims of sexual abuse do not all go on to molest.
Yet, molesters most all have been victimized in childhood.

The social introduction "my husband, John" is complete. This is a signal that at this point in time, the relationship is good.  Even within the same interview, this could change, as the topic shifts.  

TT; Okay. So let me back you up just a bit. What high school did you, Parkersburg, Parkersburg High School right?


There is always a nervousness when an interview is being recorded, as the interviewer knows his words (his work) will be examined carefully afterwards, likely many times.  Combine this with the following:
1.     It is a rare murder case
2.     It is a child murder case
3.     The parents have not cooperated
4.     The DA is sabotaging the case
5.     The parents are well insulated by top lawyers

The interviewers’ nervousness is to be expected.  We find questions that may build one upon another, and we find others that do not serve any objective purpose.  Even when questions are used to build a pace in the interview, it is still wise to be gathering relevant information even when rapport building or pace setting. Thomas gets a pass, as it is difficult knowing how much scrutiny they were under, and how the attorney who's job was to represent the police, was sabotaging the investigation just to avoid facing off against private attorneys. 

PR: Parkersburg High School.


TT: Okay. What kind of clubs were you in? What kind of activities did you do in high school?


PR: I was a cheerleader in the 10th grade. I was on the drill team my senior year.


TT: Drill team?


PR: Like a, like a dancing, with the band.


TT: Okay. Not like a . . .(inaudible)


PR: Pom pom kind of thing, you know, yeah, no.


TT: Okay.
PR: Um, I was in student government there.

TT: Did you hold an office those senior years?


PR: Uh, I don’t remember.


TT: Okay.


PR: I was president of the student body when I was in the 9th grade . . .


TT: Okay.


PR: . . .in junior high school. And I was very active in the speech and debate team there and uh, participated regularly in that group.


TT: Where did you go to college at?


PR: West Virginia University.


TT: Okay. And you graduated from there.


PR: Yes.
TT: What was your degree in?


PR: Journalism.


TT: Okay. How’d you do with that? How’d you do in college with your journalism degree?


PR: I graduate Magna Cum Laude.


TT: Okay.


PR: And uh, my emphasis was in advertising so that’s what I did for a, some short time after I graduated.


TT; Okay. And you were Miss West Virginia, Miss America about what did year did all that happen?


PR: 1977.
TT: Okay. That’s during college.


PR: (Inaudible)


TT: Okay. Did any scholarships come out of that?


PR: Yes. I uh, there was some scholarship for winning Miss West Virginia. I can’t remember exactly how much and then at the Miss America pageant I won a non-finalist talent award and I think it was a $2,000 scholarship for that.


The interviewer likely had his mind on the ransom note, and may be seeking something to connect her education, writing style, interests, and so on, to the note, which was rich in cultural references. 

TT: I’ve got to ask which talent.


PR: (Laughter) “The Kiss of Death” dramatic dialog.
??: (Laugher)


ST: (Inaudible) Miss Jean Brody.


PR: Your right.


TT; Was that, was that earlier?


PR: “The Pride of Miss Jean Brody.” Well actual. . . no it wasn’t, actually what happened, uh, I did the Miss Jean Brody, I competed in high school with that and uh, placed nationally with it and then I had done that for Miss West Virginia and won with that and then when you go to Miss America you have to do through this business of um, in the event you make the top ten and you're on television there are all these rights and royalties or whatever they call it and uh, I have, they have to give you clearance, okay, and to make a long story short, I was unable to get clearance for this. Uh, I can’t remember exactly the details, but uh, I ended up writing a dialog that I used and I don’t even remember, but it had a lot of the same characterizations and that kind of thing. It was all, I was definitely thrilled when I won the talent, you know, because it was a real chore getting there.


It is not likely that a Miss America contestant has forgotten much about what she went through, therefore, the extra word "exactly."  This should be considered sensitive information.  Please note that "I ended up writing" is passive.  Instead of "I wrote", which would be strong, there is more information here.  

Sensitive topic:  Writing. 

The ransom note was likely in both her mind, and the Interviewer's mind, during this.  The ransom note has a flair for the dramatic. 

Note she doesn't "even" remember.  He we find someone telling us what is not remembered in a lengthy response.   

Note the need to explain why she was "definitely thrilled" when a win should be thrilling, as a matter of course.  Here, it is linked to being a "real chore."  It would have been interesting to explore it, but the Interviewer did not. 

ST: I bet.


TT: (Inaudible) Atlanta in ’79 and who did you live with down there?


PR: I lived with Dan and Claudia McCutcheon.


TT: Okay.
PR: Who had been friends from Parkersburg.


TT: Did you guys move down there together?


PR: Well, I went to Atlanta with Dan’s sister, Stephanie, who was my age.


TT: Okay.


PR: And we had been roommates in college for a year and we went down to visit her brother and sister-in-law . . .


TT: Um hum.


PR: . . .who had also gone to high school with us so we were all friend. And um, we went, I think initially for just a short visit and then came back a few weeks later to, and decided to move to Atlanta. Stephanie had gotten a job and, and I was still interviewing with advertising agencies.


TT: You (inaudible) get a job with Hayes Computers you think?


PR: No, I, that was much later.


TT: Okay.


PR: I had worked with McCann Erickson Advertising Agency.


TT: Okay, so you worked as an advertiser to start with.


PR: Right.


TT: When you first moved to Atlanta you lived in an apartment building?


PR: Um hum.


TT: Same place that John lived, is that right?


PR: Well we were, we were guests at Dan and Claudia.


The pronoun "we" shows unity/cooperation.  Always note pronouns, and note any changes.  Here, we find unity between them, and seek to learn if there are any deviations from this as the interview progresses. 

TT: Okay.


PR: You know, kind of sleeping on the couch there.


It was not sleeping on the couch, but only "kind of" 

TT: Okay.


PR: In a one bedroom apartment and John lived upstairs.


The subject is making sure that a certain appearance is being upheld.  What is the topic that the subject is using extra words regarding?  And...
why is it important enough to the subject to even mention?

TT: Okay. Where was this apartment at? Do you have any idea .

The compound question noted. 
. .
PR: Where was it?


TT; Yeah. Do you know the address or anything?


PR: Uh huh. It was Post River Apartments on Talersbury road in Atlanta.


TT: Okay.
ST: Downtown Atlanta then?


PR: No, this was north . . .


TT: On the outskirts.


PR: . . .Atlanta. Marietta. Uh huh. But we were only there for just about a month actually . . .


TT: Okay.
PR: . . .staying with then.


It is not clear where he was going with this line of questioning...

TT: All righty. Um, tell me about some of the TV shows you guys watch. You specifically. Uh, say in recent history, last, the last year. What kind of TV shows do you guys watch?

At times, interviewers will ask background questions:

1.     To see if the subject will be truthful, verifying research already done
2.     To pick up new contacts to interview
It can be draining and ongoing, but it can, sometimes, yield small pieces of information relevant later. 

Here, they know that the Ransom note has references from movies/television (televised movies) and the question is, “What kind of TV shows do you guys watch?”

I'm not a fan of the modern phrase "you guys" when it comes to male and female.  

What was he looking for? 

PR: I don’t watch TV much.


The answer is significant.
1.     She answered it for herself, with the pronoun, “I”, even though it was directed to “you guys”, plural.
2.     She answered it in the negative
3.     She avoided the specific question.

This is where the investigators were going:  the language of the Ransom note.

The question was plural, "you guys" meaning, either you and John, or the family, but the response is singular.  This is "out of bounds" of the specific question and it should be, therefore, considered very important. 

There are references to movies on the Ransom Note and this appears to be something that Patsy wishes to avoid.  Recall, "Don't grow a brain, John" is from one of the Die Hard movies that has been played ad naseum on television. 

Ranson notes, in general, should be analyzed no differently than anything else, meaning there is an Expected and an Unexpected. 

What do you expect from a Ransom note?

1.  Brevity
2.  Demand for money
3.  Short directions on how to get the child back for the money. 

This Ransom note has lots of drama...dramatic in nature. 

What is else "dramatic"?  A Miss American pageant participant writing her own script.  

TT: Okay.


PR: You guys, who guys?

“you guys” does not sound like an intelligently worded question and Patsy seeks clarification.  “What kind of shows do you and John watch?” would have been better.  Patsy is not a “guy” and particularly in her culture, being referred to as “you guys” is not something she likely appreciated.   It is not only incorrect, but impolite and the tension between them is something that should have been sought to have been diffused.  An interviewer must become all things to all people, even if it means listening, without judgment, to a child molester.  Here, he should have exercised better manners within language. 

We live and learn, however. 


TT: You, John, Burke.


Note the order:  TT gives Patsy first, and John second.  This gives away a hint to Patsy that they suspect her as the author of the Ransom note. 

Patsy is not stupid.  She only answers for Burke and she portrays him as intelligent.  She has also been well prepared by attorneys:  Give as little information as possible on even the most innocuous sounding questions and do not go beyond the boundary of the question.  Listen very carefully and answer with short sentences.  This showed itself even when asking about pageantry.  They had hoped to get her boasting, which is the expected.  In the earlier exchange, she kept it to a minimum. 


PR: Burke likes Discovery.


By asking compound questions, the interviewer allows the subject to pick and choose which to answer.  Here, he gave her three to choose from, or to answer as one.  Given Burke's age at this time, this was not a good question.  Burke is going to watch juvenile shows, and not likely to have watched "Die Hard" with his parents. 

Patsy is smart.  She took "you guys" and deflected it to just a child. 


TT: Okay. Discovery Channel?


PR: He likes the Discovery Channel.

She still needs to answer for the others, too.  Her answers are short, but if too short, she will appear uncooperative, and if she goes on in too much detail, she might trip over herself and reveal more sources to the Ransom note. 

Remember:  her brain knows the Ransom note and the drama she flatters herself as having as a writer, and knows what was written.  The investigators are looking for "leakage."


TT: Okay.


PR: And John likes the Weather Channel.


TT: Okay.


PR: He’s a pilot.


Note the need to explain why he likes the Weather Channel.  

TT: Is this a, is that because he’s a pilot?


PR: Yeah. And he watches that, whatever the, you know the thing that runs across the bottom with the stock market . . .


She has mentioned what Burke watches and what John watches and has limited it greatly.  

TT: Um hum.


PR: I don’t know what that is.


TT: Okay. What’s the. . .


PR: And he likes old movies.


TT: Okay. What’s the last book you read?


Note that the Interviewer did not stay the course here.  

Having gotten little from her (Burke, given his age, likely watched much more than just Discovery channel, which, back in 1996, was educational), the interviewer seeks to find a connection to the Ransom note elsewhere.  Unfortunately, this question also gives away information:

PR: Last book I read?


Hot spot.  She answered the question with a question, making the topic sensitive. This is likely because of the Ransom Note's references. 

Remember the foolish "we are a small foreign faction"?  

It may sound like good writing but it isn't.  When someone immigrates to a country, or is visiting, one does not generally refer to himself (or plural) as a "foreigner"; something the author of the Ransom Note missed. 

The pause may have been time for the brain to think what books might have referenced the Ransom Note.  She finally comes up with an innocuous fictional account of small town America.  (Yes, I read it)

TT: Um hum.


PR: I am reading right now um, “At Home in Medford” by Jan Carran.


She gives the title of a heart-warming fictional story.  This is not what TT was looking for:

TT: Okay. What other kind of books do like to read?


This is also poorly worded.  Instead, he should have asked "What else have you read?" or even better, "What books do you like?"  

Hindsight is unfair, however, and nervousness had to be at play here, knowing all the factors involved. 

PR: You know, I don’t read a whole lot, because I’m usually so tired by the time I go to bed.


This is an important answer as she feels the need to explain why she does not read a lot.  She wishes to move away from the topic of books, as it is intended to prove that she is the author of the book.  However, even in this deflection, she introduces a new, and important topic:

fatigue.  

I have read some scenarios that have been hypothesized on how Jonbenet died, with not a few of them describing a spent, exhausted Patsy Ramsey, on her last nerve, with Jonbenet, yet again, getting up late at night (eating) and wetting the bed.  

Later, Patsy would  attempt to debunk this theory by introducing the topic of cancer.  This was likely a prepared answer, giving possible insight into just how clever the attorneys that Alex Hunter would be up against....having a jury empathize with a cancer patient, while he was forced to look foolish and bully like.  

TT: Okay.


PR: Um, uh, I’m just drawing a blank.


I would have asked Patsy about art here. 

TT: Okay. Do you, do you get to the movies at all? Have you been out to see any shows at all?


Compound question.  They are looking for movie references from the Ransom note and she knows it...

PR: Oh, I have . . .


TT: I, I know it’s difficult in the last couple of months. . .


too late for empathy 

PR: Right.


TT: . . .because of, of what’s (inaudible).


Do not interrupt.  Do not lead.  Do not suggest.  LISTEN!  Ask OPEN ENDED Questions. 

PR: Right.


TT: Let’s say before December, what kind of movies have you and John gone out to see?


Desperation showing…Instead, they should have researched what movies they rented or had gone to see, and by giving a date, the interviewer gives even more info to Team Ramsey.

If they had cable, Direct TV , for example, might have been able to let investigators know which movies were watched.  


PR: Well, actually we didn’t go out to movies very much, because we had a home theatre . . .


Here she admits renting movies.  If this was 1997, it would likely have been from a local video rental store and records should have been easy to obtain.  

The Ransom Note had enough references to warrant some background work. 

TT: Okay.


PR: . . .so we would usually we’d see everything about a year after it came out.


If one has seen "everything", one cannot be pinned down to a particular genre of movie. 

TT: Once it came out on video.


PR: Yeah, but we, you know, the kids liked to watch movies up there . . .


"You know" is an indication that the subject is aware of the Interviewer's presence at this point in the interview.  Always note what prompts this figure of speech. 

TT: Um hum.


PR: . . .we watched “Forrest Gump” and . . .


TT: Do you and John watch movies at all up there?


PR: Uh, yeah, but I usually fall asleep. He, he usually goes, gets the movies and they’re not my favorites and I usually fall asleep.


Here is a slight split and weakness between John and Patsy.  She reports in the negative, making it important. The interviewers are looking for “don’t try to grow a brain” phrase from the Ransom note as well as anything else they feel came from pop culture. 

TT: Okay. What kind of, what kind of movies did he, do you guys end up starting to watch.


PR: Um, he likes Mel Brooks.  He liked 1941. He loves animal House. I got him that for Christmas, and uh . . .


TT: So the kind of comedy type movies.


Never interrupt.  Never interrupt.  He will now change directions.

PR: Um hum.


TT: Okay. Patsy, are there any concerns in the neighborhood up there or have there been any concerns in the neighborhood up there. . .door to door salesman. Any of your neighbors talk about prowlers anything like that over the last six months?


Note that the phrase “up there” is repeated (sensitive to TT) regarding the neighborhood.

They moved too quickly through her upbringing, and came up with nothing on the movies and books, but Team Ramsey now knows the direction investigators sought to go in.  It is time consuming and it takes immense patience, but the subject must be allowed to speak for herself and even in “conversational” style, books, TV, and movies can be spoken about, with information given.

They may seek to disarm her here, by playing up the intruder theory:

PR: Uh no. Not that I recall. I mean we did have door to door sales people occasionally.


TT: Um hum. Magazine sales, the typical sales people come (inaudible) come through.


Please keep in mind the phrase "up there" in the Interviewer's language while noting this response:  

PR: Yeah, sometimes children, you know, like a, um, black children. I mean, they don’t look like they’re from my neighborhood or nothing, or look, you know like they’re from Denver and they have candy bars of (inaudible). . .


Note that she mentions race here.  

TT: Typical kind of door to door sales.


PR: Um hum and um, you know that’s the only thing I can recall.


How does she know that that is the only thing she can recall when she has not been asked about other things?

TT: Okay. How close are you to your neighbors? I know the Whites and Fernies, they live away, but to the immediate neighborhood, the street you live on. How close are you to the neighbors?


Opening the topic of something being heard by a neighbor, such as screaming.  This is not lost on Patsy  

PR: You mean close in distance or . . .


Note that she seeks clarity...

TT: Not too much specifically, do you know your neighbors?


"Do you know your neighbors?" was a good question which needed no introduction.  

PR: Do I know them very well. Well the Barnhills across the street . . .


The subject has changed the wording and added "very well" to knowing them.  This is significant. 

TT: Um hum.


PR: . . .I know very well.


TT: Okay.


PR: Scott and Pricilla next door, I know fairly well.


Always follow the pronouns as they are instinctive.  Here she uses the pronoun "I" and qualifies knowing them well with "fairly"

TT: They live to the south of you.


PR: Well uh . . .


TT: is that towards Baseline?


PR: No the other way.


TT: Okay.


PR: Towards Cascade.


PR: Right.


TT: Alright. You and the neighbors on the block that you know or you talk to, socialize with at all?


Know
Talk to
Socialize

these are three questions...

PR: Not really very much, well Mary and Pat Van live down two doors . . .


TT: Okay.


PR: . . .on the corner of Cascade and 15th. . .


TT: Same side of the street?


PR: Uh huh. But we didn’t, you know, I didn’t see them very often, but just to wave and . . .


Here we have the change from "I" to "we", and then that she, herself, didn't seem them very often.  I would have liked to have explored and learned why the pronouns changed. 


TT: How often do you talk to the Barnhills or have you talked to the Barnhills in the past?


Which is it?  Have you spoken to them in the past (how else might one have "spoken" to them?) or, "how often?"

This could be from the lack of training or could be a case of nerves.  It is important to practice, practice, practice Interviewing.  We use a "bell" to "ding out" (like the old 'gong show') compound questions, leading questions, poorly worded questions, and so on.  We also video taped them to replay and learn from.  It is a good tactic for pressuring someone towards excellence in interviewing. 

PR: Uh, I kind of keep, you know their elderly . . .


TT: Um hum.


PR: . . .and I would kind of, you know every two or three days probably . . .


TT: Kind of keep in touch with them:


Don't lead the subject.  Don't introduce wording to them.  "keep in touch" is not Patsy's language but allows her to agree.  This is not "Analytical Interviewing"...

PR: Uh huh. They, they kept our dog a lot . . .


TT: Um hum.


PR: . . .when we went out of town or whatever. Joe was, last year about this time, around Easter time, he was quite ill with some respiratory stuff and I was taking groceries and dinners and . . .


TT: Kind of taking care them.


don't finish sentences for the subject. 

PR: Yeah. Kind of keeping my eye on him.


TT: Okay. In talking to them had they noticed any weird people around the neighborhood, anything like that in the last six months?


What an odd question!  The Interviewer does not believe the 'intruder' theory that Team Ramsey  had so strongly fed to the public, and this question is a thinly veiled attempt to sound in agreement.  

PR: No.


What else could she possibly answer to a silly question like that?  "Why don't YOU go ask them?" perhaps.  

TT: Anybody that shouldn’t be? I know it’s, Boulder is real transient, I understand that . . .


PR: Um hum.


TT: . . .but, um, have you guys ever talked about any problems in the neighborhood, um, car break ins, anything like that?


PR: No, not that I can remem. . . (coughing) I think once the neighbors across the alley . . .

TT: Um hum.


PR: Uh, they drive a black SAAB and I think a year or more ago they had had a, they were parking on 14th Street and they had a car break in and uh, consequently they build a, I think they build a deck on their house so that they could pull in under, you know, behind their house.


This is not 'allowing' Patsy to go off in a tangent, but actually leading her astray.  The brain knows what it knows and it is best to get the brain to pick and choose its own words.  Even if this is an attempt at rapport building, it is past time for that.  

TT: So they could park in the back?


PR: Right.


TT: Do you need a glass of water?


This is likely a respectful response to the coughing.  Good move.  Being disrespectful to anyone is to hinder the flow of information.  It is the bane of ignorance in interviewing.  

PR: This is, this is just right.


TT: Okay.


PR: So.


TT: And when we talk to you, everybody knows Patsy Ramsey pretty well, um, tell me about some of the enemies that you or your family might. Someone that we may need to look at. Can you think of any names that come up as far as people that don’t like you. Don’t like Patsy. Who don’t like the family at all.?

Note that he went from “Patsy Ramsey” to “you” to “Patsy” in spite of speaking directly to her.  This shows the distance he has towards her (see “up there” regarding where she lived) and may be an attempt to appeal to her pride.  It is a weak and transparent attempt to play up the Intruder Theory, but this came after he showed Team Ramsey that the Ransom note is related to pop culture movies. 

PR: You know. If that’s the case, I’m not aware of it.


Patsy does not take the bait. 

TT: Okay. Nobody’s talked about the problems that they’ve had with you?


PR: No.


TT: Okay. You know John’s been in, in the computer business for quite a few years.


This is not a question and she does not need to answer.

PR: Um hum.


TT: Starting his own company, merging companies, stuff like that.


Its a statement, not a question.  

PR: Um hum.


TT: Up through the years, as the companies have merged together, any bad feelings between employees maybe getting squeezed out, um, anything like that that your aware of?


PR: Not that I’m aware of. I think, when, when they merged uh, to the best of my knowledge, when they merged to form Access, all the three companies that were merging all played a role somehow, you know.


TT: Um hum. Nobody…

PR: Nobody got squeezed out I don’t think.


TT: Demoted anything like that. Moved out of top management positions or shuffled around at all?


PR: Not, not that I’m aware of no.


She does not attempt to give them a red herring.  It is juvenile.  She has been well prepared for the interview and knew which to dismiss.  

TT: Okay. Any problems when Access moved into, into Boulder from Atlanta. People that didn’t want to move to Boulder or anything like that that you are aware of?


PR: Um, no. Hum um.


TT: Okay.


ST: Um, Pat, let me jump in with one quick one on Access, uh, um, I was charged with investigative a lot of the aspects of Access employees that had been dealt with, a lot of the VPs over there and so forth . . .


PR: Um hum.


ST: . . .um, I was made privy to some information that there may be some sort of either IPO offering or management buyout. Uh, was anybody going to get hurt by that over uh, in the Access Corporate office. Was that going to hurt anybody that would . . .


PR: But, I don’t know what IPO is?


ST: And Initial Public Offering if they, if they took the company public, um.


PR: You know, I, I really don’t know anything about that.


ST: Okay. Fair enough.


PR: John didn’t really discuss. . .


ST: Okay.


TT: Bus . . .business matters with you.


Never finish a sentence for the subject.  See OJ Simpson interview for this critical error.


PR: Not, no. Hum um.


TT: Okay. Patsy, I need to go through a couple of things here. 

What medications are you on right now? Are you still on Paxel?


What medications are you on right now? Should have been “What medications are you on?” followed by, “What medications have you taken in the past year?” and so forth.  Instead, he asks a question, and then moves on to a second question and introduces Paxil into the language.

Please keep this in mind with the answer about being too tired to stay up to watch movies. 

Rule:  Avoid introducing new words whenever possible.

PR: I’m on Paxil, um hum.


TT: How often do you take that?


PR: In the evenings once a day.


TT: Just a bedtime?


PR: Um hum.


TT: And, what’s the dose on that?


PR: 30 milligrams.


TT: And, are you taking anything else right now?


PR: I just started Monday taking something for this sinus infection. I know your going to ask me the name of it.


TT: Is it an over the, I’ll start (inaudible).


PR: No, it’s a prescription.


TT: Okay.


PR: You take it once a day for five days. Dr. Beuf prescribed it.


TT: Okay. And, are you taking anything else right now?


PR: Um, no.


TT: Any over the counter medication, vitamins . . .


PR: Vitamins. I’m taking vitamin C.


TT: Okay.


PR: (Inaudible) vitamin C.


TT: Just for that sinus infection?


PR: Right.


TT: Is that an ongoing type or just . . .


PR: Well, I just. . .


TT: (Inaudible)


PR: I just, since Monday started taking a lot of it.


TT: Okay. Okay. Um, any, any other uh, any other drugs, originally you were taking Paxil and what was the other drug you were taking? Lorzipan.


Lorazapem is generic Ativan, and is significant, not only as it impacts sleep, but as possible interaction with paxil.  TT introduced it, instead of asking her what else she was on.  Lorazapem might make Patsy very sleepy and keep her asleep throughout the night.  It impacts people differently and she, herself, is the best source of information on how it might have impacted her.

PR: Ah yeah, right.


TT: Are you still taking that at all?


PR: Uh, occasionally. Kind of as, on an as needed basis.


She gives her answers: 
1.  occasionally
2.  as needed is qualified as "kind of" as needed.  

This is a strong indication that sensitivity about the drug exists and needs to be explored.  
People will often seek to blame behavior on drugs. 

TT: When was the last time you took the Lorizpan?


PR: Uh, I took one last night about 6:30.


TT: How’s that, how’s that one make you feel. I mean, out of the two do any of them effect you at all that you can notice?


PR: I mean I don’t really notice anything, but I, usually I take the Adavan if I’m, I start getting, evenings are difficult for me.


This is an important piece of information:  evenings are difficult for Patsy.  Why?  What does “difficult” look like?  What causes the difficulty?  How is the difficulty handled?  What does Ativan do in the evening?  What situations reach the level of medical intervention?  What is different in the evening than the daytime?  What time does John get home?  What is he like when he gets home?  What does he do?  Does he help with the children?  (these questions could have led to questions about the laundry, and eventually, Jonbenet waking up, while Patsy is under the influence of Ativan.

TT: Um hum.


PR: When I start getting tired and I feel the onset of this, not feeling real good. Last night I was pretty, I just been missing JonBenet a lot lately.


TT: Okay.


PR: And uh, you know, it, it seems to, to kind of quell that . .

.
TT: Takes the edge off a little bit.


DO NOT give the subject answers. 

PR: Takes the edge off a little bit.


TT: What kind of dose are you taking on the Adavan when you take it?


PR: Uh, a half milligram.


TT: Okay. Took it last night, how, about how many times a week are you taking that? Once, twice?


PR: Well, probably a couple.


TT: A couple of times a week is all?


PR: Yeah.


TT: Okay. The Adavan and the Paxel, um . . .


PR: The Paxel is an anti-depressant.


TT: Um hum. Either one of them, do you think either one of them’s kind of, uh, changing your thought process or clouding your mind, memory, anything like that?


Very foolish question.


PR: No.


TT: Okay. It’s not, not effecting any judgment or anything like that?


PR: No, huh uh.


TT: Okay. Um, I all this, I know with the sinus infection your probably not even thinking about it, um, have you taken any alcohol? How much alcohol . . .


PR: No. I don’t drink alcohol.


TT: Okay. Uh, do you drink alcohol at all?


PR: No. Not since I’ve been on the Paxel at all.


TT: Okay. When did you start the Paxel?


PR: Uh, I don’t know. February maybe.


TT: Okay. Beg…towards the beginning or the end of February?


PR: I can’t remember exactly.


TT: Okay. And the Adavan, did you start that about the same time?


PR: Simultaneously.


TT: Okay.
PR: One’s kind of a, I think one, is the way she explained it to me, one kind of works, takes awhile to start taking effect and the Adavan is kind of an on the spot, doesn’t last very long, but helps you.


Foolishly giving information, not receiving it.

TT: Okay. Now is Dr. Beuf still prescribing all that?


PR: No. Uh, Rebecca Barkhorn, that’s my doctor (inaudible)


TT: Okay. Um, around between thanksgiving and Christmas I know you guys traveled back and for the Atlanta quite a bit to see your folks and stuff. Um, between Thanksgiving and Christmas time, before Christmas, did you guys make some trips back and forth to Atlanta?


PR: We went to Atlanta, excuse me, at Thanksgiving.


TT: Um hum. What about after Thanksgiving before Christmas, any other trips to go back and see your mom?


PR: I, no, I don’t think so.


TT: Okay.
PR Not that I can remember.


TT: Um, I’m, going to talk about the medical stuff. I know you had cancer about three years ago?


PR: It will be four years in July.


TT: Okay.


PR: I was diagnosed.


TT: And you went out to Washington to take care of that.


PR: Bethesda, Maryland.


TT: Um hum.


PR: (Inaudible)


TT: Um, everything’s going okay with that?


PR: Yes.


TT: I know the stress . . .


PR: Thank God.


TT: I know the stress can cause some problems with that. Are you doing okay with that so far?


PR: Yeah, I just had a checkup.


TT: Good.


PR: Everything was great.


TT: Good. Any other medical problems you’ve had other than the uh, the cancer.


PR: Um no.


TT: Any other surgeries? Spend time in the hospital, other than . . .


PR: At times (inaudible) when I was a child.


TT: Okay.


PR: Uh. I had a breast augmentation.


TT: Okay.


PR: You probably, did you know about that?


TT: (Inaudible)


PR: No the world will know.


TT: No. And actually uh, (inaudible) stuff like that, that staying here . . .


PR: Okay.


TT: . . .inside. That doesn’t get out. Um, when did you have that?


PR: Oh, 1982 or 3 or something like that.


TT: Okay, way back.
PR: And then I had, when I was finishing my chemo and they were doing a chest x-ray and uh, suspected a rupture, so I had locally at the (inaudible) hospital I had my Poriocath taken out, which was where I took my chemo and he went in and checked and both breast, whatever those are . . .


TT: Right.


PR: . . .had ruptured . . .


TT: Right.
PR: . . .and so he repaired the . . .

TT: Okay. Spend any other time in the hospital?

PR: (Paper rustling. Patsy’s response is inaudible.)

TT: Patsy, kind of tell me about your, your normal, normal morning routines. You know, how do you get up in the morning? What time do you get up? Get up by alarm clock, the sun? Kind of walk me through what you do normally in the morning?


PR: Now or . . .


TT: Sure. Let’s start now and then we’re, we’ll work back. (Inaudible)


PR: Okay. Uh, now I get up usually a little before seven and uh, get Burke rallied and get him ready for school and get his breakfast and pack his backpack and make sure he has his homework done and tie his shoes and . . .


TT: Get him going?


PR: Get him out the door.


TT: Okay. After Burke gets ready do you get up and shower out and get ready to go for the day?


PR: Uh, sometimes. I mean, I don’t have much that I go . . .


TT: Okay. Don’t have a set schedule.


PR: . . .out to do lately, so . . .


TT: Okay.


PR: Sometimes go back to bed. Sometimes I get dressed.


TT: Okay. Let, Let’s hop way back before Christmas. Kind of walk me through a normal, normal morning for the family, for you guys.


PR: Um, get up and usually I would get up uh, and get showered and get dressed. I didn’t get dressed before I got the kids up, but um, get the kids up and, Burke usually, you know, dresses himself if I kind of lay his things out and that kind of stuff, but I would get JonBenet dressed and do her hair and all that and . . .


We have a critical point.
She gets up, showers and dressed.  Then, she catches herself, and changes the chronological order and reports what she did not do, in the negative.  She knows what the detective is looking for.

On the morning where she made her 911 call (see analysis) she was still in the same clothing she was in the night before; not something a beauty queen likely ever did, or would ever be seen doing, especially since she was on her way out.  This is a critical piece of information for Behavioral Analysis.

It is likely that Patsy Ramsey did not sleep that night.  Even in her own book she did not say that she slept that night. 

TT: Get her ready for school.


He should have remained silent.

 His constant adding of words is maddening to read, but far worse for the Analytical Interview.  He has just gotten important information but he is not thinking about what he heard; only what he is going to say. 



PR: Get her ready for school. Breakfast.


TT: Okay. Did you have to use an alarm clock to get up or you . . .
PR: No.
TT: (Inaudible) hop out of bed . . .
PR: Yeah, I usually just get up.


TT: Kind of hop out of bed in the morning person. Can’t do it.


PL: (Laughs)


TT: Not a morning person.


PR: If you get the kids off to school . .


TT: You know John uh, John had some problems, kind of was in the hospital (inaudible) when you were going through cancer treatments. How did that turn out?


PR: He had paracraditus.


TT: Um hum.


PR: (Inaudible)


TT: Kind of an inflammation around the heart?


PR: Right. And he had bee to Mexico and I will always believe he got something nasty in Mexico . . .


TT: Um hum.


PR: Um, but he, one evening he was grabbing his chest, you know, and I said what’s the matter and he said, oh I have this little chest pain and I said well it must just be indigestion they said that if your having a heart attack your arms hurt and he said well, my arms kind of hurt.


TT: (Chuckle)


PR: In the car. So we took off to the hospital.


TT: Now was that here in Boulder or was that down in (inaudible).


PR: That was Boulder.


TT: That was in Boulder? Okay. How many days did he, did he spend overnight in the hospital.


PR: Uh huh. Yeah.


TT: Just one day in the hospital.
PR: Um, (paper rustling causing Patsy’s voice to be inaudible) one or two.


TT: Nothing permanent though.


PR: No. He took some kind of medication for it and that was (inaudible) . . .


TT: Strong antibiotics and all that and . . .


PR: Yeah. I can’t remember what the name of it was.


TT: Does John have any other major medical problems at all?



PR: No. Well, he had uh, he goes to Mayo Clinic regularly and uh, this past fall he had some prostate tests. . .


TT: Um hum.
PR: Um, but those were all fine.


(END OF PART ONE ON BLOG)



TT: Okay. So he’s in generally good health?
PR: (Inaudible)
TT: Okay. Other than the one or two days in the hospital um, for his paracaditis, any other stays in the hospital for John?
PR: Um, I don’t, not that I recall.
TT: Okay. Kind of a, who handles the finances for the family, the checkbooks, pays the bills, that kind of stuff?
PR: He does.
TT: Okay.
PR: Usually.
TT: John takes care of all that kind of stuff?
PR: Well, I have a checkbook that I write, you know, my kind of, the personal things, you know, like, whatever, housekeepers or household kind of stuff, you know, but, he usually does (inaudible).
TT: And that’s, particularly what your talking about, that’s, those kind of personal . . .
PR: You know like laundry . . .
TT: . . .housekeeping stuff.
PR: . . .and you know.
TT: Is that the checkbook you wrote the check to Linda Hoffman out of?
PR: Uh huh.
TT: Okay. And that’s uh, she was going to borrow $2,000 is that right?
PR: Right.
TT: On uh, the, on Friday the 26th? That’s when she was due back in the house. Christmas was Wednesday.
PR: Right. Oh yeah, I think that’s right, yeah.
TT: Okay. Do you remember if you ever wrote her a check for that $2,000, because I know she talked about it.
PR: Right. I don’t think I did, because I think, I was thinking about that as I walked down the stairs that morning, that I, oh, I’ve got to remember to leave that check.
TT: Okay.
PR: And then everything broke loose.
TT: Okay. She never picked it up or anything. She never stopped by later and got the $2,000.
PR: I don’t (paper rustling causes Patsy’s voice to be inaudible) left that day so I don’t know what happened.
TT: Okay.
PR: I mean I didn’t write the check, so.
TT: Okay.
PR: (Inaudible)
??: (Inaudible) on the break.
TT: Um, tell me about Burke’s normal bedtime routine before Christmas. How does, how does he normally go to bed.
PR: Oh, he, he um, usually does his homework and then puts his pajamas on and sometimes reluctantly and . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: He loves to watch Discovery so he tries to, but he’s suppose to be reading a half hour a night, so we would read to him a little bit or he would read to himself and so he was generally pretty good about going to bed.

82 comments:

Blaze said...

I just popped in and saw this..so happy! Now I'm gonna go read it..thanks for looking at this Peter!

Lemon said...

Observer, you're tedious on the subject of Patsy Ramsey. Absolutely tedious.

Anonymous said...

This is outrageous.
People are not allowed to disagree with Peter about this case.
If you are confident in your analysis, why would you care if we disagree?
People are not even allowed to say that the movie references in the ransom note point to a male killer in his 20's.
I won't write another word then if this is all about blindly agreeing.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:01, you hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what it's all about; agreeing with Peter and his minions. There are no reasonable, logical, intelligent discussions here where one can express individual opinions or question opposite opinions;

nor is it about pointing out and questioning follow up evidence, or expert scientific or professional investigative developments in this case or any other case. If you have a difference of opinions or wish to question a comment, too bad, you'll be insulted and eventually deleted or driven off the board.

However, in your final comments, this is exactly what Peter wants you to do: leave. Peter incites absolute obedience among his followers and arguing/disputing among those who do not blindly follow. He boldly proclaims the praises of this Avianom and McClish people he apparently trained under, his idol worshiping gods, much like a cult following and no different than Benny Hinn who prays too and worships at the crypt of Katherine Kuhlman who he claims to get his healing powers from.

These are cult followers and Peter is their god; blind leaders of the blind.

Mom for Moms in Need said...

Wow! Some angry posters this morning. I am a reader of Peter's blog because I happen to agree with Statement Analysis. I happen to believe that Patsy and John definitely had something to do with the nurder of their daughter. I do not consider myself a cult follower, and certainly don't agree with all of his posts, but I believe you cannot argue with SCAN. If Peter wanted to keep you silent, he would not have left your disparaginf comments up! If you don't like what he has to say, you can simply not come to his blog!

Anonymous said...

Mom for Moms,

Actually all of my posts were deleted. Hence, I was silenced on this matter including one post which merely stated the movie references in the ransom note point away from a middle-aged woman being the author. In another post, I pointed out 2 specific examples of analysis above which I felt was biased, gave examples to explain why the areas shouldnt have been highlighted for deception. This was deleted.
One of the reasons I have put energy into analyzing this case is because it is brought up so often here by Peter.
Therefore, my brain thinks about it as it brought up and I am intelligent and have every right to draw my own conclusions.
Anon @ 10:37,
I agree with you. The banning of conflicting viewpoints makes for uninteresting discussion. I use my brain, I am not a sychophant.
Peter is obviously convinced Patsy's lying. Why aren't we allowed to form our own conclusions?

Anonymous said...

One last thing I'll say is that the ransom note is full of lines from movies. This indicates the writer had watched these movies many times and had memorized many lines from each movie--I believe there were about 7 different movies quoted from. This indicates the writer watched each of these movies over and over obssessively to have been able to quickly recall these lines from memory. This makes it very likely the author was a young male probably in his 20's but perhaps even a teenager.

Jen Ow said...

A word of advice to those 'persecuted' by deleted blog comments, lol....

If you posted your opinion without disparaging the blogs writer, and making sweeping insults toward other readers, (or as you say 'followers', 'minions', 'worshippers of false idols, etc.) then your comments may be taken more seriously.

Peter has repeatedly warned that any insulting or inappropriate comments will be deleted. Use your superior intellegence to comply, or don't be surprised by deleted comments!

Anonymous said...

What struck me most about Patsy's interviews, was later, when she described her activities in the laundry room upstairs.

"I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area um, and I remember the ironing board was up I think and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet’s cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area"

It is just a feeling but I think JonBenet died around that time.

Jen Ow said...

So you believe that a movie obsessed, 20 something child killer, stood in the Ramsey's kitchen after murdering their daughter, plucked a pen from THEIR holder, picked up a pad from THEIR countertop, and proceeded to write a 3 page long note to ransom an already dead child that he then left in the basement, assuring that NO ransom would ever be paid..since the bounty was left in the same location as the note??

What was the point of the note, or of taking the risk of writing it at the crime scene, when the child was dead and the body wasn't removed? A kidnapper would stand a good chance of getting a ransom payout if he at least took the body out of the home. After all if the parents didn't know she was dead, they had every reason to pay the ransom (of the exact amount of John's Christmas bonus)...it was a small amount of money!

Even if you disregard SA, all of the guilty knowledge indicators in the Ramsey's language, and just base this one on logic...the Ramsey's are the only ones who COULD/WOULD have written the ransom note! A pedophile or a kidnapper would not stick around the scene of a crime to write a fake ransom note. (Fake due to the content, and the fact that the bounty was dead.)

Alternatively, the Ramsey's needed the note to provide an explanation for why their daughter was dead inside THEIR home. The only way to suggest an outside suspect, and direct investigators to look at anyone other than the people inside the house, was to write the ransom note. It was a ridiculously transparent move, but their status in the community, and the type of liberal community that Boulder was, played in their favor.

They lawyered up immediately, and escaped justice by accusing everyone from co-workers, to friends, neighbors, and home help. All the while hiding behind their attorneys and refusing to be interviewed by LE to help solve their own daughters murder. Yet they did do interviews with the media, while refusing investigators...(attempting to win the hearts and minds of the public).

Everything the Ramsey's did from beginning to end screams guilty. God forbid my child was murdered..I wouldn't be running half way across the country to avoid being interviewed, and 'protecting my interests' as was the Ramsey's only concern! The investigators would be begging me for a break. I would be all over them demanding that they find out what happened to my baby, not hiding and dodging!

Anonymous said...

I have always thought that the most glaring thing that stood out in the ransom note was the $118,000 demand, which was the exact amount of JR's bonus. It is a really odd choice of dollar amount, and only a few people would know the exact amount.

Please people, lets agree to disagree.

C5H11ONO said...

Jen Ow -- Let's add that the child killer also wrote a draft of the letter which was found by police also, before finally putting together the 3 page foreign faction ransom final version out.

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow, re your post @ 12:51; this Peter worship, which he so desperately craves by hurting and demeaning others, has been going on for years. You are not qualified to jump into a matter which you clearly know so little about.

Anonymous said...

Re your post at 2:13 Jen Ow; obviously you know nothing of the vast evidence of an outside intruder that was scientifically and expertly analyzed by professionals with vast knowledge and experience that exonerated the Ramseys in later years.

You are just as thick-headed and biased as your pathetic leader. Grow a brain.

Anonymous said...

Jen, there are 2 different people posting who don't believe Patsy penned the ransom note. I am one, and I did not insult Peter in any of my posts or call him names. All my posts were deleted from last night. I am not anon @ 9:13.

Anonymous said...

Jen,

I understand how the Ramsey's "look guilty" mainly because it seems so unbelievable an intruder killed Jon Benet.
However, this case is not quite as unique as it seems.
If you get interested in criminal profiling, the more you read, the more you will understand they are not guilty.
For example, the serial killer BTK used to break into people's homes and wait for them to come home. One of his victims--her husband was blamed for 5 years for the crime, a crime he didn't commit, because he came home and found his wife dead, and noone believed he didn't do it, but it was actually BTK. Also, BTK
one time hid in someone's house waiting for them to come home, but they took so long to come home, he got impatient and left, but before leaving, penned some psycho poems and left them in the home. He also loved to send letters to newspapers and leave written clues in many places for people to find.
Some killers enjoy writing things for attention, to throw off investigations, to present clues because they enjoy knowing it will get all kinds of people trying to solve whatever puzzle or clue they have written. BTK began writing letters to a newspaper demanding that he get credit for his crimes! How messed up is that?! So, I do believe the Ramsey killer could have written this note for even a reason such as throwing off the investigation as well as even to know, at the time, that people would spend lots of energy trying to "figure out what it meant/who wrote it, etc'. Or, the killer may have even intitially planned to kidnap JonBenet, but still the letter itself may have been written in the hopes of getting attention also if that makes sense.
So, it is not impossible for me to believe that someone hid in their house waiting for them to get home and wrote the ransom note. The ransom note was obviously not written after the killing when the killer would have been feeling extremely anxious. The letter, I believe, was written before the killing because it very calmly written.
There are other killers who have written letters that contain movie lines which leads me to believe that some killers may have the type of mind that thinks it is cool to quote from stupid movies.

valyriew said...

Hey Peter, is it significant that Patsy mentioned one on the things she did for her son to prep him for school in the morning was tying his shoes? Wasn't he 9 or 10? Why would that be said?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:22, there was more than just one other person posting here in defense of the Ramseys. There were several. Peter deleted them all.

Peter can't stand anyone disagreeing with him or anyone who might be just a little more intelligent than he is and becomes so envious of them that he has to get rid of them. This thread is solely for the purpose of glorifying Peter Hyatt and be damned with facts.

Shelley said...





Peter,



I am interested in your thoughts on this interview.

It was with Detective Tom Haney (on June 23, 1998 I think based on what I could find)

There are some points where Patsy issues what appears to be a reliable denial. I think they are involved in some way but not sure that they dealt the actual fatal blows.

If that was the case, would they be able to issue a reliable denial of personally being involved. Say if they were into something evil and sick and allowed this to happen?

I pasted the part of the interview below that I saw that made me wonder and I put **** in front of those sections.







Detective Tom Haney: "If I told you right now that we have trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of JonBenét, what would you tell me?"

Patsy Ramsey: "That is totally impossible. Go re-test."

Detective Tom Haney: "How is that impossible?"

******Patsy Ramsey: "I did not kill my child. I didn't have a thing to do with it."

Detective Tom Haney: "And I'm not talking, you know, somebody's guess or some rumor or some
 story......"

Patsy Ramsey: "I don't care what you're talking about."

Detective Tom Haney: "I'm talking about scientific evidence."



******Patsy Ramsey: "I don't give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board. I
didn't do it! John Ramsey didn't do it. And we didn't have a clue of anybody who did do it! So we all
got to start working together from this day forward to try to find out who the hell did it!"

C5H11ONO said...

Valyriew, I picked up on the tieing of shoes too, and wondered about it. I'm not sure how old he was, I thought he was nine. Interesting..,

C5H11ONO said...

Valyriew, I picked up on the tieing of shoes too, and wondered about it. I'm not sure how old he was, I thought he was nine. Interesting..,

Lemon said...

Jen-
Word.

Anonymous said...

Tying of a childs' shoes at age nine means nothing.

My own son could not tie his shoes properly until he was age nine; in fact, had been recommended for being held back in the 2nd grade because he still could not tie his shoes adequately so that they stayed tied for longer than a few minutes. THIS was deemed a reason to hold a child back? No way. We would not allow it.

NO, he was not retarded and NO we did not treat him like a baby. The fact is, it turned out that he had a lazy eye problem. Big deal. You people will try to make anything you can out of nothing.

Anonymous said...

Shelley, both Patsy and John Ramsey made reliable denials many, many times.

Eliza said...

Great work, Peter!

Hobnob said...


******Patsy Ramsey: "I did not kill my child. I didn't have a thing to do with it."

Unreliable denial
Additional words weaken the statement here she says I didn't have a thing to do with it."
A strong denial would be i didn't kill Jonbenet first person singular past tense event specific.
What is the IT she didn't have a thing to do with?
It is possible she didn't physically kill Jonbenet, she is however involved in the coverup, ie the ransom note. She knows who did kill her though.

This comes out when the investigator says:

Detective Tom Haney: "If I told you right now that we have trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of JonBenét, what would you tell me?"

He talks about evidence linking her to the death of Jonbenet
he doesn't say she murdered her daughter only that she is linked to the death
Patsy immediately goes on the offensicve and denies killing Jonbenet, The link could be the ransom note. her denial is then flagged as sensitive, she introduces killing into her denial when it wasn't mentioned.

Detective Tom Haney: "I'm talking about scientific evidence."



******Patsy Ramsey: "I don't give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board. I didn't do it! John Ramsey didn't do it. And we didn't have a clue of anybody who did do it! So we all got to start working together from this day forward to try to find out who the hell did it!"

This is jijly sensitive, she goes beuond the boundries of what was asked. He talks about her in relation to scientific evidence and she introduces john, Burkea and pretty much the rest of the world.
And at the start of a sentence indicates missing information, it comes right after john didn't do it and Burke didn't do it.
so explains why something is done, here it is in trlation to all working togeather to find out who did it. What is the it she refers to since she doesn't day who killed my daughter/Jonbenet. She goes from I to we showing inity or hared co-operation.

Anonymous said...

Shelley,

Those are reliable denials issued by Patsy.
I have read the theories which propose that the Ramsey's may have been involved in something evil and sick. However, I think it is more likely an intruder killed JonBenet.
If you read about criminal profiling, you will see the psychological make-up of the writer of the ransom note resembles the minds of other similarly heinous offenders. These offenders, even if intelligent, have often written very emotionally immature communications. The ransom note, I think we can all agree, was written by a very emotionally immature individual who quotes lines from such movies as "Speed" and "Diehard" and several others.
What is striking is that the incredibly heinous nature of the crimes of some of these offenders, if you look at SOME of the communications you will be stumped by the nature of them. For example, BTK made a wordfind which he sent to newspapers. Some of the words in the wordfind were so stupid. I am going on memory, but some of the words were things like "COOL". Some of the words he just put there to convey he thinks he's a cool person.
The common thread is the writer conveys how emotionally stunted they are.
Even with the zodiac, who was bright and very good at creating codes, oftentimes when those codes were finally solved it would just be something stupid that didnt give the "big clue" people hoped it would.
And yes, these types of criminals can be obssessed with very stupid things like stupid movies or even obssessed with trying to imitate another famous killer.
So, if you look at the mentality of the ramsom note writer, you can see they are idolizing and emulating these bad guy characters from movies.

Anonymous said...

Hobnob,
Is it unreliable denial when she adds "I didnt have a thing to do with it." when taken in context? The context being she knows she is suspected of writing the ransom note and/or of being involved in a cover-up?

Jen Ow said...

I apologize, I hit the repky box under the wrong comment!

Jen Ow said...

I have read 3 books on the Ramsey case. I have followed it for years. Saying a credible source has 'exonerated' them, does not make it true. They were issued an apology by the Prosecutor's office (who sabotaged this case from the beginning) as a face saving PR move...a pathetic attempt to justify their subverting of the grand jury indictment.

As to your 10 year old-esque name calling of anyone who doesn't agree with you...super classy!

Jen Ow said...

I have been reading and posting here for years as 'Jen'. I am well qualified to recognize your endless antagonism of Peter and his blog.

Jen Ow said...

I respect your opinion, (my mom thinks they are innocent too), but there are just too many coincidences for me! Sure, other murderers have done weird things...but ALL the evidence along with their guilty behavior, and their actions that were inconsistent with those of a victim (starting from the moment they found the 'ransom note', and did the polar opposite of everything it demanded), along with their OVERT attempts to block and deny investigators access to interviews, accounts and records which are common place evidence collected in any investigation. They may as well have a flashing billboard above their heads saying, ''WE HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE'.

To this day Ramsey is still spending $1000's on attorneys to file injunctions to block the release of discovery and grand jury docs. Would an innocent, 'exonerated' man do that? I think not. If he were truly innocent, he would have nothing to hide, and WANT the public to see how flimsy the evidence against him supposedly was.

But not John, he knows his guilt will be even MORE glaring when the public reads how he held his baby daughter's body out away from him as he carried her up the stairs stiff as a board, like he was rushing stinky garbage to a dumpster (not lovingly cradled in utter devestation after finding her bound and dead), and then he called up his private pilot to ferry him and his remaining family members across the country before his daughters body was even in the morgue!

I defy anyone to read Detective Steve Thomas book, about the Ramsey's behavior and the farce this investigation turned in to, and NOT ask themselves what could possibly motivate 'innocent' people to behave in such a shady, and bizarre way...other than GUILT!

Anonymous said...

Jen,

There are 2 different posters. I didn't antagonize Peter. Maybe the other poster does.

I have gotten my theories about the Ramsey case from my own statement analysis of interviews (done in my head), analysis of the ransom note (I've looked at it from every angle since it's been discussed here frequently) , and reading about criminal profiling and psychology.

Everyone can think whatever they want, but I'm telling you, if you read about the behavior of other criminals who have committed other similarly heinous crime (especially their written communications) you would see the ransom note is a close cousin to some of these types of communications.
It is far more difficult to believe that Patsy "accidentally" killed JonBenet with a violent and powerful blow to the head, staged the crime scene in a very sick manner (with perhaps her husband's cooperation?!) and then penned the note quoting lines from bad guys from bad movies that she just happened to have memorized. Because, if the crime was accidental, why would she have had these movies memorized? She would just have to have happened to have a data bank full of lines from bad movies in her mind.
An emotionally immature male killer however would be likely to fixate on movies such as these and having them memorized would make sense if he planned on being a "bad guy" himself.

Anonymous said...

Oh sorry, Jen, I see you posted at the same time I did. I didn't read your post yet though.

Anonymous said...

OT-

Jeremiah Oliver, missing 5 year old boy from MA. DCF workers fired. Mother and her boyfriend arrested. This is a big story, with a lot of information if you just search his name on the internet. He's missing, mother arrested, DCF workers fired.

Why has there been no action in Ayla's case?

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24276347/house-speaker-infuriated-over-dcf-scandal-agency-received-20-million-boost-in-funding-to-increase-resources

http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/editorial/ci_24764615/horrific-case-jeremiah-oliver

Anonymous said...

Jen,

I read your post, and I agree, the Ramsey's behavior is and was offputting in many ways.
However, they did know, pretty much immediately that they were being considered prime suspects, and I feel they knew that law enforcement was inept and was not considering other possibilities, so maybe it was just self-preservation when they got a lawyer, etc.
The case is maddening and many ways (I think we both probably agree on that) and it would be great if it finally did get solved.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:24,

That case is a few towns over from me. It is heartbreaking. The mother's boyfriend, it is reported, was a violent gang member who terrorized the family.
The mother put garbage bags over her windows and she could be heard screaming in terror for her life because of the boyfriend (this was in newspaper).
Jeremiah hasn't been seen since Sep 14 (I think). I am thinking the father did it. People around here are hoping she hid him with a relative. But the case is being investigated as a possible homicide and it does not sound hopeful.

Anonymous said...

It's so awful, whatever happened, but I am happy that there have been arrests, and DCF being held ac accountable for there lack of action and following procedure.

For anyone not familiar, apparently Jeremiah's sister spoke out, regarding abuse, and not knowing where her brother is.

Anon, you think his father did it, or the mothers boyfriend? Or are they one in the same?

Jen Ow said...

I'm posting on my phone...when I hit reply the comment box appears at the bottom of my screen for some reason, and twice my comment has shown up under a different comment that I was responding too??

Sorry again! There is a certain someone who never misses a chance to insult Peter's photos, articles and generally everything about this blog that they apparently just CAN'T walk away from.

Just fyi: If you want to use a screen name, you don't have to create an account...just click on the 'name/url) option and type in a name, you dont need a URL.

Anonymous said...

OT:

President Obama rued the rollout of the healthcare website as his biggest mistake of the year during a White House news conference Friday, underlining the extent to which the issue has overshadowed everything else during a dismal 2013 for the 44th president.
Asked about his worst error, Obama said that he had stressed the need for consumers to have “a good experience, an easy experience” in the run-up to the launch of HealthCare.Gov.
He continued: “The fact is it didn’t happen in the first month, first six weeks, in a way that was at all acceptable. And since I’m in charge, obviously we screwed it up.”


LOL! Way to take responsibility!

Anonymous said...

"I did not kill my child". She calls JonBenet her "child" instead of JonBenet or "my daughter". The word "child" is often associated with abuse.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I meant to say the mother's boyfriend. It sounds like he had the whole family terrorized. My hope is that the mother hid him with relatives. She had told his daycare worker in June that it would be his last day there bc he was going to live w his grandmother in FL.
The bio Dad thinks the mother may have hid him.
Boyfriend was a Latino gang member who would stalk and threaten to kill people he was mad at. Sounds like LE never did anything about his stalking and threatening behavior nor his child and spouse abuse. Nor reports of his drug dealing. I say fire all of them! They are all useless! I hope to God the mother hid the boy. She may be too scared to tell bc she knows the boyfriend and his gang members can go after her.

Sus said...

Anon 9:58,
The lines are from Dirty Harry, Ransom, and Speed. They are an obvious attempt at staging...to think "what would a criminal say? Oh, I heard this in a movie."

The statement "Don't try to grow a brain" is said directly to John. It uses his name, as do the two following sentences. After beginning the letter with the impersonal "Mr. Ramsey", the writer uses phrases John would know with his name. And basically threatens him to go along with the plan.

The letter is full of nurturing statements and gives "instruction" and "advice" rather than demands.

Patsy Ramsey wrote the letter in the comfort of her own home. The letter gives away that at the time of writing, JonBenet was already dead and the scene staged in the basement.

The letter also set the stage for exactly what happened. "Don't call police, FBI, etc or she dies." The Ramseys proceeded to call the police and many friends.

Last, look at how the letter is written. It begins with WHO is writing it...the representatives of the small foreign faction. This is the most important thing to the writer...to create an identity...not we have your daughter, we want money. The person writes in the journalism style of who, what, when, why. Patsy was a journalism major. The person writes in old-style letter formation with a salutation and closing, and indented paragraphs. So did Patsy.

Patsy wrote the letter.

Anonymous said...

Sus,

There are lines from about 6 or 7 movies. I have read a breakdown of which movies they come from.
I will post more when I have time later to address your other points.
The Zodiac killer (they never caught him) also sent communications which contained lines from stupid movies.
I will address your other points (all good and important points) a little later. Just pressed for time right now.

Jen Ow said...

Great post Sus! When talking about this case I often forget to mention the basic details about Patsy's background, and it's relation to the note, (there were other punctuation idiosyncrasies that are linked to her background in journalism, but I need the handwritten copy in front of me to remember them).

I get SO upset by the Ramsey's behavior and their perversion of justice. I shkeeve when I look at that picture of Patsy, (posted in the article) with her fake 'woe is me' face..holding the flyer for her dead daughter, offering a reward for leads...a reward they KNEW they would never be paying.

Anonymous said...

One basic mistake Sus and Jen are making in their analysisis thinking the note was written after the killing and not before.
The style and length reveal the note was written by someone in a calm, composed state of mind. This type of composure does occur pre-killing in some of the most sadistic, psychopathic killers. An example would be the poems written by BTK while becoming impatient hiding in the home of one of his potential victims while waiting for her to come home (luckily he left before she returned home). Pre-killing this guy had the composure to write poems. After he would kill, BTK would lose his composure and become extremely anxiety ridden while fleeing the scene of his crimes.
Why do people think that a woman (Patsy) who supposedly "accidentally" killed her own daughter would have far more composure post-killing than an experienced sadistic serial killer?
The ransom note was written by someone in a fairly relaxed state of mind whose brain was in a calm state--the hand-writing is steady, the letter is lengthy, detailed and organized, and the writer also has sharp memory recall to be able to recall lines from 7 different movies. All of these facets indicate the note was written pre-killing before the killer would have become very nervous and anxiety-ridden.

marietje said...

Peter, can you please analyze these words by Dan Kavanaugh, some see as a POI in the McStay family murders. Thank you. http://www.cbs8.com/story/24277118/mcstay-murder-mystery-who-is-dan-kavanaugh.

Jen Ow said...

The language of the letter reveals that it was indeed written after JonBenet was dead. It refers to her remains, and repeatedly pre-explains why she will be eventually be found dead. There is an extensive analysis of the ranson letter on this blog if you are interested.

Also the fact that the ransom note specifies that the DAUGHTER is the kidnap victim shows that it was written after her death. If an intruder were lyng in wait to victimize the family, they would not have prior knowledge that they would even be able to access the daughter (what if she slept in her parents bedroom that night). It makes no sense that a letter specifying the eventual victim was written before the crime..or that a serial killer/random intruder would even know that this family had a daughter to kidnap.

Anonymous said...

Jen,
I believe the letter was written before the killer killed Jon Benet as a decoy to throw off cops and give the killer some time to get away.
It is amazing to me that the Patsy blamers think that the ransom note writer is "nurturing". Really? So, after she accidentally kills her daughter, she is trying to be nurturing to John in the fake ransom note?! Noone picks up on the sarcasm in the lines about "make sure you're well-rested"???
And yes, an intruder could have known who lived in the house and that JonBenet lived there--she was paraded around in beauty pageants, they gave tours of their home to groups, they had a giant christmas party at their home. A killer could have been in the house during one of those events/tours and familiarized themselves with the layout of the house.

Anonymous said...

Jen,
Another possibility with the ransom note is that the killer did initially plan to kidnap JonBenet for ransom.
One of the main indicators for this is the demand that the money be divided up in a specific way and also demanding unmarked bills. Take a look at the Lindbergh ransom letter (if you're interested). Those kidnappers similarly left a note demanding the money be divided up into certain denominations bc they wanted to split the money up between themselves. (Some of the bills were "marked" and that is how one member ended up getting caught.)
Now, ask yourself, if Patsy Ramsey was frantically covering up her killing her daughter, does it make sense to not only leave a ransom note (even though the body was still in the house) but to also pretend to be the leader of a group of kidnappers amongst whom money needs to be divided up? The motivation for this had to be that an individual kidnapper either did have a partner in crime or was trying to add legitimacy to his ransom demands, that he is one of a group of people resonsible for the kidnapping.

Anonymous said...

i disagree guys. if you have problems thinking of how to word things, it is easier to come up with a line from a movie. me and my buddy used to do that all day long, everything we said was a line from a movie, drove our boss nuts. you don't have to watch a movie 4-5 times to memorize a line, sometimes lines just stick with you for w/e reason.
if that reason is because you can relate, then it may be telling if a profile was worked up on the movie quotes.
and what more desperation than to have killed your child while molesting them, to give you calmness and focus to write that(how many times).
the rush or gratification, the adrenaline build up to commit the crime is not there as it would be in a planned murderer.
so i think an "accidental" killing, the murderer would be able to do exactly what the parents did in this case. jmo

Jen Ow said...

If you are interested in the ransom note, you should check out the analysis. Without the note in front of me, some of the standout things are:

Notice that the writer slips multiple times from plural pronouns, to singular pronouns, denoting that the writer is one person pretending to be 'a group of individuals', (Patsy later uses the word 'individual' or 'individuals', repeatedly when refering to her daughters murderer in interviews, this is soft respectful language, no anger or disgust).

*Also note that the pronoun changes occur when the writer is 'advising' John, or giving directions.

Many words are devoted to threats and attempts to convey that the supposed kidnapper is in charge...yet the writer provides no directions for delivery of the money that is supposedly the point of this note...because they knew it would never actually happen. Even more notable, after over stating their total control, the kidnapper turns over the control of the timing of the delivery/exchange of the ransom to the Ramsey's, stating in a very akward way (while using an unusual, gramatically incorrect phrase 'and hence', which Patsy was proven to have used in another document)...'if they monitor them getting the money early, they might call them early to arrange and earlier pickup of the money 'AND HENCE', an earlier return of their daughter'. So, basically this ruthless kidnapper is saying 'follow my directions or your daughter dies..but as far as the MOST important part of this whole situation, where I/WE get the money, and you get your child back...that part is up to you.' (It would be comical if a little girl wasn't dead.)

There are plenty more punctuation and content that point directly to Patsy, with her journalism background and speech patterns/phrases that she uses in her book and media interviews, but I need the note in front of me to be accurate in reciting them.

Another important thing to recognize is the longwinded nature of the note is an attempt to persuade the reader that it is real. What you see as a sign that several were involved in a real kidnapping plot, (the directions for the money, etc.) is an attempt to convince the reader, that the note is legit, (ie. they have only seen this done in the movies, and in the movies THEY always tell them how they want the money).

Ask yourself why an intruder or kidnapper would need to persuade that a real kidnapper exists, and wrote this note. If the kidnapper was real, and planned to take Jonbenet, wrote the note before the killing as you suggest...all they need to say is 'we have your daughter, pay us $ xxxx or she dies, bring the money to xxx tomorrow by 9am...no cops'. They dont need to tell WHY the child was taken (they respect John, but not his business), WHO they are (a foriegn faction), WHAT they are going to do (behead her, monitor them, etc) , and HOW they should prepare for the dropoff (be well rested, bring an adequate size attache,etc).

If a real 'kidnapper', or intruder wrote the note for ANY reason, all they need to include is 'we have your child, here are our demands', and leave it at that. (and of course actually TAKE the child). But since the writer (Patsy) KNEW that Jonbenet was going to be found inside the house, they (she and John) WAY over did it with details to attempt to convince LE that 'someone else' was responsible.

Sus said...

Exactly, Jen. And as far as being written calmly, I don't think so. The letter writer gets more and more desperate and emotional as the letter goes on. The letter, which began with "Mr. Ramsey:" also ends more personal by calling him John, I believe three times. It is like you can see the facade fade away if you read carefully.

wildpitch40Pointhunter, yes you should go to Hailey's funeral. Be in uniform. An innocent mother would have thanked you over and over. said...

I also agree Patsy had guilty knowledge of what happened. I saw her on Larry King where she could not remember specific details of that morning. Patsy and John both told Larry to read their book. Larry asked them didn't they write the book. Then Larry gave them an out by saying how chaotic that morning must have been. I was in a tornado with my mother and sister 50 years ago where the house was ripped out from over our heads. I can remember to this day all the events of that day from the moment it started. I don't know what happened to cause their joint conspiracy, but they both knew.

Anonymous said...

Jen,
All good points, but please look at the Lindbergh ramsom note sometime.
These guys were dead serious about getting the money (and did get it) but leave no instructions about where/when to leave the money in the initial note.

Jen Ow said...

K-I'll check it out, thanks!

shelley said...

Anon 11:57...


Not there was never any proof but some believed dad (Limbergh case) was behind the kidnapping...... he actually hid his baby in a chest like a week before (dont recall details) and let his wife freak put looking for the kid. Was famius for jokes that to me are not funny.

some speculate that he attepmted to fake a kidnapping again and possibly dropped the baby by accident and got some others to help in a ransom to cover...

again who knows but he too had alot of power and connections..

could be more similar than we realize.

shelley said...

Would love to see if there was any similiar red flafs in daddy Lindbergs statements.


anyone care to analyze. Ill paste more as im limited with space.


This was during trial.

 Q. About what time was that? 
 A. That would be about 9:10 or 9:15. 
 Q. Was it the sort of a noise that would come with the falling of a ladder? 
 A. Yes, it was, if the ladder was outside. 
 Q. Finally, at about ten o'clock in the evening Miss Gow spoke to you about the child, did she not? 
 A. About ten o'clock. 
 Q. Where were you then? 
 A. I was reading in the library. 
 Q. What happened, tell us, then? 
 A. Miss Gow called to me in a rather excited voice and asked me if I had the baby. 
 Q. What happened from then on? 
 A. I immediately went upstairs into the nursery and from the appearance of the room I realized, and from the appearance of the crib I realized that something had gone wrong. 
 Q. What was the appearance of the room that indicated to you that something had gone wrong, Colonel? 
 A. As I entered the room, of course I at first and immediately looked at the crib. The bed clothing in the crib was in such condition that I felt it was impossible for the baby to have gotten out himself. I knew that neither my wife nor Miss Gow had taken him because Miss Gow had asked me if I had him and my wife was upstairs. The clothing was standing – the bed clothing was standing stiffly enough so that the opening where the baby had been was still there, the clothing had not collapsed. 
 Q. Was the clothing in that crib still affixed to the mattress by pins, if you know? 
 A. As I recall, it was. 
 Q. I see. Did you see a note in the room, a paper or what? 
 A. Yes, I am not at the moment certain whether I saw that note at that time or the next time I entered the room. 
 Q. I see. 
 A. But, either the first or second time; I came back very shortly. 
 Q. How much time intervened, would you say, between your first visit into the room and the second that you refer to? 
 A. I should say not over five minutes. 
 Q. At any rate, on one of those occasions you found the note there? 
 A. I had found a note unopened on the window sill on the southeast corner of the room on the window facing east. 
 Q. Did you find it or was your attention directed to it by anyone? 
 A. No, I found it. 
 Q. Was the window open or closed? 
 A. The window was closed. ome of lindberghs testimony.



shelley said...

1st ransom note of I think 10.....



Have 50,000 (and the dollar mark after it) dollars ready, 25,000$ in 20$ bills, 15,000$ in 10$ bills, and 10,000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you where to deliver the mony. We warn you making anyding public or for notify the police. The child is in gut care. Instruction" [or indication, I don't know which it is] "for the letters are singnature" [not signature singnature, s-i-n-g, singnature – I want you please to remember that]. Then you find these two circles and as indicated there, somewhere within them, as you see them better than I can describe it, this red fire ball or blotch and at these distances three holes Singnature three holes. That is his signature – singnature.

shelley said...

 Q. Now, Colonel, of course you found your baby was missing and you found that – did somebody want to see it – the bed clothes in the room and the baby's room had been disturbed. Did you notify the police? 
 A. I – shall I describe it, what happened to it? 
 Q. Yes, please. 
 A. I immediately went into the closet in our own room adjoining and got a Springfield rifle which I kept there and stood at the top of the stairs, called to Mr. Wheatley and asked him to call the sheriff at Hopewell. That was the nearest officer of the law that I knew of. As soon as I found that his telephone call had gone through, so that the wires were not cut, which I had expected, as soon as he received an answer from the sheriff so that I knew that he was coming, I went outside on the road north of the house. 
 Q. With the rifle? 
 A. With the rifle. It was extremely dark that night, I could see a very little distance, and I walked on that road probably for a hundred yards. I then returned to the house. Before I went on the road – I jumped – 
 Q. All right. 
 A. I went ahead a little bit. After Mr. Wheatley had made contact with the sheriff at Hopewell, or with the Chief of Police, I then went downstairs – before I went out onto that road – and called the New Jersey State police and Colonel Beckenridge in New York. Then I took the rifle and went out onto the road. 
 Q. And who is Colonel Beckenridge? 
 A. Col. Beckenridge is my friend and attorney in New York. 
 Q. Your friend and attorney? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q. You say you went out with this rifle and then returned? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q. Then what did you do, if anything? Had police come? 
 A. Very shortly after that, Chief Wolfe arrived. Meanwhile, we had touched nothing in the house, in the nursery room. I left instructions not to touch anything there. I myself had not touched the note. And after Chief Wolfe arrived, we began looking around the house outside. 
 Q. You are talking of Chief Wolfe of the Hopewell Police? 
 A. Of the Hopewell Police, yes. We went around the side under the nursery window, - that is on the east side of the house; and as I recall now, it was Chief Wolfe who, with his flashlight, found, located the ladder lying quite a few feet in approximately a southeast direction from the nursery window. 
 Q. That was either Chief Wolfe or Williamson? 
 A. Yes. I remember clearly seeing the ladder but I am not certain at the moment who was holding the light.  We walked through there on the planks which had been laid over the mud on the east side of the house, and we found both footprints and the imprints of the end of the ladder approximately under the southeast window of the nursery; but offset slightly to the north. So that the ladder was actually resting slightly to the north of the window itself. 
 Q. And you found imprints of that ladder there? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q. And you say footprints; did you find Mrs. Lindbergh's footprints there? 
 A. The footprints that I saw at the time were of a man. 
 Q. I see. Did you see any of her footprints? 
 A. I don't recall seeing any of hers. 
 Q

Anonymous said...

Shelley,

There's a special with John Douglas exploring the question of whether Lindbergh was behind it. John Douglas feels that he wasn't. I agree. But thank you for posting this interview! I am very interested to look at it carefully.
Also, if you're interested, I have noticed similarities in the Angela Harry letter (Ayla case) to the events that were reported to have happened within the Lindburghh house the night his baby was kidnapped. I actually feel whoever gave Angela the info was modeling some of the info on the Lindbergh case (see wikipedia for this description of the events that transpired the night Lindbergh baby was kidnapped.)
Again, thanks for posting the interview!

Shelley said...


Then moms testimony upon learning her child was missing.



 A. She did not bring it, she went down to fix it, and after I had taken my bath, Miss Betty Gow came in to me through the hall door and asked me if I had the baby, and hearing that I did not, asked me if my husband had the baby, and I sent her downstairs. I then went into the baby's room through the connecting passage. This was after ten o'clock, shortly after ten o'clock. I went into the baby's room through the connecting passage, looked hastily at the bed, found it to be empty, came back into my room, where I met my husband and Miss Gow. My husband went into the closet to take out a rifle, and we all three went into the baby's bedroom and searched it. I was still in the baby's bedroom when Mrs. Wheatley came upstairs, and I went with her back into my own bedroom and got dressed and we started to search the house. 
 Q. By that time I suppose Colonel Lindbergh had notified the police? 
A. He had spoken to Mr. Wheatley and he had gone outside with Mr. Wheatley to look around the house. I don't know what he did downstairs. 
 Q. When you left that room at about 7:30 o'clock, did you observe whether or not the east window, that is the casement window I think it is referred to, was closed? 
 A. All the windows were closed when I left that room at 7:30. 
 Q. At 7:30. And there were shutters on the outside of the windows, were there not? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q. Were they drawn and closed? 
 A. Miss Betty Gow and I closed all the shutters on all the windows before I left. 
 Q. With particular reference to the east window, was it possible to lock it in addition to closing it? 
 A. It was not possible to lock it. We both pulled on it and tried to lock it. 
 Q. But the window and shutters of the room in that nursery were closed, as I understand it? 
 A. Closed when I left. 
 Q. You haven't seen that child since the first of March, 1932, have you? 
 A. No. 
 Q. And when it was revealed that the child was missing, did you join with Colonel Lindbergh in an appeal to the person who had the child for its return? Did you join – 
 A. What do you mean by that? 
 Q. Did you make a statement asking the person who had your child to return it? 
 A. I joined with my husband – 
 Q. Colonel Lindbergh, yes. Did you on another occasion soon after the child was found missing make a radio appeal and statement giving the baby's diet? 
 A. I gave out the baby's diet. 
 Q. Do you recall whether or not you gave it out in the form of a statement or whether you personally spoke over the radio? 
 A. I did not speak over the radio. 
 Q. On the night when you walked into that room did you observe whether or not the room had been changed, its appearance had been changed at all from the time that you had seen it at 7:30? 
 A. I saw no change in the room at all. I noticed no change. 
 Q. Did you notice the bedclothes? 
 A. The bed clothes were apparently untouched, as though the child had been taken out. The pins were still fastening the bed clothes to the mattress. 
 Q. Had you had pins affixed from the bed clothes to the mattress? 
 A. I left the baby before he was completely put in for the night. 
 Q. I see. But when you did get there, Mrs. Lindbergh, you found the bed clothes affixed to the mattress by pins? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q. About how large were the pins? 
 A. They were large safety pins. 
Q. And they were still securely fastened, were they? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q. How about the windows in the room? Do you recall their condition? 
 A. I did not look at the windows. 
 Q. You did not? Do you recall seeing any paper note there? 
 A. No. 
 Q. Now when you went in there who had preceded you in there, do you know? 
 A. As far as I know, only Miss Gow. 
 Q. I see.


Anonymous said...

This is from wiki: The description of what happened the evening the Lindbergh baby was found missing from his crib shares many similarities with the Angela Harry letter description of what happened after the evening Elisha (kind of a "nurse-like figure" found Ayla missing. Notice even the times are the same.
At 8:00 PM on the 1st of March 1932, Betty Gow, the nurse of the family, put Charles Lindbergh Jr., then 20 months old, to bed in his crib. She wrapped the baby in a blanket and fastened it with two large pins to prevent him from moving during sleep. Around 9:30 PM, Charles Lindbergh Sr., the baby's father, heard a noise that made him think that the slats from the full orange crate in the kitchen had broken off and fallen. However, at 10:00 PM, Betty Gow returned to the baby's bedroom to discover that he was not in his crib. She asked Mrs. Lindbergh, who had just come out of her bath, if the baby was with her.

Not finding Charles Lindbergh Jr. with his mother, the nurse came down to talk with Mr. Lindbergh, who was in the library just below the baby's room in the southeast corner of the house. Charles Lindbergh went immediately to the child's room to see for himself that the baby was gone. As he searched the room, he found a white envelope on the window sill above the radiator.

Lindbergh took his gun and went around the house looking for intruders. In 20 minutes, the local police were on the way to the home, along with the media and the family's lawyer. Later that night, one tire print was discovered in the mud caused by the rainy weather conditions earlier that day. Shortly after the police had begun searching near the perimeter of the house, they discovered three pieces of a ladder in a nearby bush that appeared intelligently designed but crudely constructed.

Anonymous said...

The similarities include
1) times
2) figure (nurse-like/nurse) who finds baby missing
3) going "downstairs" to see if father has the baby
4) violent action taken by father immediately (Lindbergh grabs gun and rushes outside. Justin bursts through the baby gate, breaking it.). I also wonder if the Dips/Derek got the inspiration for the "broken gate" from the Lindbergh story's "sound of broken crate".
5). Also both father's "rush" to baby's room to see if baby is gone.

Shelley said...



Thanks Hobs. I did kinda think that may be the case with those denials but I am still learning so was not positive. The lack of the childs name was what I wondering about.



Also, I agree with Jen Ow who said “I would be all over them demanding that they find out what happened to my baby, not hiding and dodging”



I would be on a mission to find who killed my child. I would be consumed with revenge and grief.



The one main thing that sold it for me, was what he said during the CNN interview just days after his child was found brutally murdered.

“Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on”



First of all, no man should ever feel “not angry” at something so horrifying. And then to add in the same sentence “because we have got to go on”.



So you are not only not angry, but days later are already focused on “moving on”.

This is not natural.

I know me and my husband would be on a mission to find the person responsible and hunt them down.

Anything less in my book is just unacceptable. That child was tortured.

If you are not angry and out for revenge, especially that soon… There has to be a reason.




My husband lost his sister in Iraq 6 YEARS ago. To this day just hearing her name brings tears and to his eyes. Jon Ramsey was fine DAYS later. His sister was in a car that was bombed and likely died instantly. She was not tortured, yet the fear of the pain she may have experienced haunts him.

Jon seems to be just ready to move on.

If that was my child, I know my husband would turn into the Hulk and would tear down walls to find the person who did it.





I also didn’t understand Jons comment “touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people”



This did not touch lives!?!?!?!?!

Someone bringing a poor family food and presents at Christmas “touches” people. Taylor Swift tweeting with the dying little girl as it was her last wish “touches” people.

This was a brutal murder of a child. This haunted people! This should have been their worst nightmare.



And, to have this be the reason you “decided to talk now” shows that he was trying to look like a good person.





***************************************



For those still defending them ….



I have a question for you……. If you are married and have kids…. (The rest may not be able to put themselves in the mind set of a parent)

But let’s say you found your child like that. Your child was brutally murdered. You know they suffered and were now gone. And your spouses response DAYS later was “im not mad, I just have to focus on moving on”

Would you sit back and think that was totally acceptable?

Anonymous said...

Shelley; without using statement analysis per se', you have astutely made some of the best common sense points I've ever read here on the subject of Johns' reaction to JonBenets' murder.

I have never believed that John or Patsy were guilty in JonBenets' death because it made no sense for either of them to kill her, write a long rambling stupid nonsensical ransom note knowing she is already dead, and leave her battered body lying in their basement only to have themselves accused of her murder.

Bear in mind, John & Patsy Ramsey were not stupid people; had either of them killed her, either one or both had all night to remove JonBenets' body from the house, dispose of her and any/all evidence without writing some stupid letter, then could have easily reported her missing/kidnapped the next morning; (or not report her missing at all until they reached their holiday destination, or not until they came back from Mich). Who would have been the wiser? Little Burke possibly, but they still could have easily hoaxed up a simple kidnapping had they been the ones who killed her.

I felt that had either of them killed her they would never have taken the drastic measures they were accused of taking by writing the ransom note and leaving her body lying there, knowing that by doing so they would be the prime suspects in her murder. It.just.makes.no.sense.

I know I'm repeating myself, however, surely they weren't so stupid they wouldn't have realized that anyone doing such a thing to their own child would only bring suspicion down upon their own head and would have gotten JonBenet out of the house had they killed her.

Consider the common sense angle Shelley; the lowest mentality walking among us, (there are plenty of examples in the missing child cases we discuss every day), including dope heads, alcoholics, breeder moms who kill their own babies, their abusive boyfriends and killer pedophiles, know to get the dead child out of the house, hide the body and deny deny deny.

But the Ramseys were so stupid they left JonBenet lying dead in their own basement, Patsy wrote up a stupid non-pertinent ransom note, then they pretended they didn't have anything to do with it? Now you tell me, does this make any sense at all? Of course it doesn't.

But I will add, your post causes me to pause and give consideration to the excellent points you have made.

Anonymous said...

Excellent points anon.
Just to add one point about John Ramsey's comments in question.
I watched a video interview of the bio Dad of the little girl killed by Jerrod Metsker (this case was discussed a few days ago on here). The interview took place a day or two after his daughter was killed and one comment he made was "Her mother is pretty broken up about the whole thing, but all that matters is she is with Jesus up in Heaven". Personally, I feel this to be an odd comment. However, I attribute it to him being in a state of shock. Perhaps John Ramseys comments came from him being in a state of shock also.
Shelley, all I can say is if you learn about the behavior and examples of written communication from heinous offenders, you would come to understand the Ramseys are innocent, as the writer of the ransom note shares a similar psych profile with these other offenders as well as their communication--emotionally stunted, bizarre, and in many instances the communications themselves are, at times, unnecessary ramblings. Some killers like the Zodiac left many of these--you will be surprised at how emotionally stunted, some contain quotes from movies. It is eye-opening as to what kind of psych profile a lot of these killers have and how it manifests itself in written communication.

Anonymous said...

You too have made many excellent points in all your posts, Anon @ 8:12; especially with your analysis of references of quotes from seven movies that were made in the fake ransom letter. NO WAY did Patsy Ramsey have time to sit around watching bizarre movies all day and night or memorizing quotes from those movies or any other movies.

Patsy Ramsey was a busy woman; responsible for running a large and busy household, constantly on the run driving and keeping two children in school and involved in all their extra-curricular activities, and keeping abreast of their numerous family and social activities.

Patsy was so constantly on the run that she frequently dropped JonBenet off at her various dance lessons and recitals, voice and modeling lessons, dress rehersals, and meetings for selections and fittings with costume designers.

It's really sad as Patsy was not aware of who might be hanging around at any number of these places where JonBenet was being dropped off; while she assumed little JonBenet was being watched by her managers and instructors when she clearly was not.

Couple this with the known nineteen people who had keys to the Ramsey home, as well as numerous workmen and deliverymen who came and went as they pleased while remodeling was in progress, some who could easily have made additional keys, and it all adds up to the Ramsey home being used more like a grand central station.

There could have easily been any one of several 'strange men' keeping an eye on the Ramsey home and their lifestyle and comings and goings, who could have been in and out at will on more than one occasion as he snooped around and laid his trap for little JonBenet and made his sick plans to have it all pinned on John and Patsy.

What amazes me is that there are still many who will not consider the distinct possibility that there WAS an outside intruder who raped and killed JonBenet and left his sick ransom letter lying there that he had already had plenty of time to practice writing like Patsy before he ever got there that evening.

In fact, this pedophile killer had all evening to hide, practice and write the ransom letter as he waited for the Ramseys to return from their Christmas dinner party. IMO, it is a fast jump to conclusions and too cut and dried to point the guilty finger at John or Patsy Ramsey when there were so many others who had the opportunity to enter, rape & kill little JonBenet, and likely did.

Shayna said...

My two cents on why they didn't use the entire night to dispose of her body....Patsy couldn't stand the thought of "being denied her remains for proper burial." It was in the "ransom" note.
I believe Patsy, in anger, struck JB with her Maglight flashlight (found at the scene) before midnight on 12/25. (That's the death date the parents had written on her headstone.) I think Patsy coerced John into finishing JB off with the garotte in the basement room. Then she could claim she didn't actually kill her with the 5" long depressed skull fracture found on autopsy that matches Patsy's Maglight.

Anonymous said...

Good post Shayna. When did Patsy have time that morning to put her makeup on? I am far from rich as are my friends, and we would never get up getting ready for a long flight from Colorado to Michigan and put the same clothes on that were worn the day before. I am of the opinion she never went to bed. Whatever happened occurred before she washed up Christmas night. I read John Davidson's book. I am deeply respectful of his work, however if I remember correctly, his opinion was that John didn't do it. I don't remember, but I don't think he was of certain of Patsy.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:00 on 12/15, I really don't think there is much help for your kind of twisted logic. You are in a mind set of pious self deceit and false judgments of others without one spec of evidence to go on in the blatant sick accusations you make against innocent others you don't even know. You do not have the ability to weight right and wrong thinking, or actions, nor do you care too. God help those you do know who would dare challenge your false allegations and mental abuses.

It wouldn't matter what common sense logic; either past, present or future, whether it be clear cut evidence or speculation for any common sense that might be pointed out to you, your mind cannot be reached. Anyone who gets in your way would be fodder for the poisonous mental abuse you would dole out against them and be damned with the evidence.

I grew up with people like you, preset in their twisted judgments and no amount of proof could ever reach their twisted mind set. You rejoice gleefully at seeing people punished for things they did not do. Little did I know that the world is full of people just like you.

BTW, where is Burke now? What is he doing? Wouldn't he be approx twenty-six years old+ by now? Where are all those rapes by paint brush handle while girls curl their hair that he would have committed during the ensuing years since he raped and killed JonBenet? Wouldn't he be in the looney bin or sitting on death row by now? Where is your proof positive? Bring it.

Anonymous said...

P.S... Anon @ 9:00 p.m., you are WAYYY off the wall in accusing Patsy of being too over protective of JonBenet. Being over protective would mean never allowing someone out of your sight and this is not the way Patsy Ramsey lived.

If Patsy had been even 'normally' protective of her beautiful little daughter, she would not have been so trusting in allowing nineteen people to have keys to her home, some of these workmen and other strangers; would not have been giving strangers open house tours of her beautiful home; and certainly would not have been dropping her precious child off unattended and not under her watchful eyes at her many pageant recitals, dance/voice/modeling/dress rehearsals and other extra-curricular activities.

In her (and Johns' too)simplicity, never thinking that some sicko killer pedophile might be lurking and molesting her baby during some of these excursions, or that one might be plotting to rape and kill her child right in her own home; Patsy was too trusting of others, but certainly NOT over protective.

Had JonBenet been MY daughter I would have never let her out of my sight even once around people I didn't know, and most definitely not left in the care or supervision of strangers. If nothing else, I would have hired a trustworthy female manager to drive and stay with her everywhere she went if I were too busy to do it myself; and there would have been no strangers or anyone else with keys to my home!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 12:56 p.m., 12/25; I couldn't agree with you more; however, we might as well forget about it.

We're never going to reach a meeting of the minds, or any logic or plain common sense thinking with these "she must 'uv done it" people who repeatedly confirm their twisted thinking without looking for any reasonable evidence. Even acceptable denials by the Ramseys, made many times over, have been left out of their analysis while they harp on the few they consider not acceptable.

I want you to know how much I appreciate your pointing out the seven movies that some of the lines in the bizarre fake ransom letter were taken from, and how they correlate to the writings of other prior sick murderers; I did not realize this previously. If possible, can you state what are the names of those movies and which lines were used in the letter?

However, we might as well make up our mind in trying to show (or prove) any logic or innocence where the Ramseys are concerned; face it, we are batting our head against a brick wall my dear.

Vita said...

Video Audio of Patsy being interrogated, June 1998.

As she was quoted here, reliable and or unreliable denial discussed.

http://youtu.be/nlxJRb5T_XM

The video is 2:33 in length, you can see that it was redacted, that the footage has been spliced.

@ 1:00 the investigator, makes a statement yet he begins it with the word, " IF" and ends with an open question.

If,, I told you right now that we have trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of Jonbenet, what would you tell me?

PR: " that is totally impossible"
PR: " do a re-test"
JH: " how is it impossible?"

PR: " I did not kill my child"
PR: " I didn't have anything to do with it"

JH: continues @ 1:40, I am talking scientific evidence

PR: I don't give a flying flip how scientific it is

Stop. This is almost 2 yrs later, the investigator introduces to Patsy " If" I told you right now that we have trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of Jonbenet, what would you tell me?

She was responding free will or she was responding in defensive mode? wouldn't a parent respond instantly if they were innocent, no wrong doing, what evidence? Therefore the accused could present an argument. As in if someone accuses and or makes false allegations upon someone, it's up to the accused to prove that person wrong.

She glazed over it, yet escalated her defensive body language and tone. Her deflecting, his question was not heard? she cherry picked his said? she hearing only there was scientific evidence linking her. She not to respond, okay tell me what this so called evidence is? as this would lead to discussion of the evidence.

Wouldn't this evidence perplex her to ask, tell me more? as this was bottom line LE attempting to weed out, to find Jonbenet's killer. She didn't ask, she tuned out, steered away.

1:51 PR: John Ramsey didn't do it, and we didn't have a clue of anybody who did do it.

Stop. Again she is defending to the 9's, upon a speculation? that she chose not to ask of the scientific evidence, she irritated yet not to ask? makes no sense. She two is speaking in past tense. Is this her mimicking her own self of past interrogations?

PR: My life has been hell from that day forward
PR: and I want nothing more than to find out who was responsible for this
PR: Okay?, I mean, I want to work with you, not against you

@2:10 PR: Okay?, this child was the most precious thing in my life

@2:28 PR: You know, quit screwing around, asking me about things that are ridiculous, and lets find the person who did this

Seconds before, this child was the most precious thing, quit screwing around asking me about things, to her "evidence" she feels ridiculous.

Wouldn't you want to know of this evidence? even if he was bluffing? she to call his bluff?

He did not state anything outright with certainty, he asked IF I told you we have trace evidence that links you to Jonbenet's death, what would she say. His introduction, I do believe he expected her to go off on him, tell me what evidence!

- She avoided, she didn't ask for proof, she didn't ask what evidence. This evidence he to introduce, she not to ask was his unexpected. Had she responded to his allegation, she would have been in control.

She to interrogate him. He would have to answer to her, within discussion of the scientific evidence. If you were her, would you not want to know these findings *2 yrs later? This not her interest? as he did say, linked to You, Patsy. She alone with the investigator, no John, no one else to counter her.

The topic here within the letter written, it to be riddled with one liners from movies. Patsy to be battling cancer, she at times wasn't she bedridden? due to treatments and or pharma prescribed. By this time, some communities had cable as a paid service, and or then was VCR's, renting movies a trend. Thinking out loud.

Sus said...

"Wonder why Patsy didn't react with that sort of passionate denial!"

The same reason she and John refused polygraphs till much later, and only by a polygrapher chosen by their attorneys.

Kellie Sue said...

Amen Sus! Unexpected reactions from John and Patsy. And that's what tells the story. Everything else is just details. Details that can be borne out by SA.

shelley said...


To the anon that said.....

"BTW, there is one other thing I might add Shelley; you asked why John Ramsey could be so forgiving and not wild with killer rage to to find JonBenets' rapist/murderer just days later?

Many truly Bible believing Christians believe in forgiving those who hurt and persecute them, as Jesus told us to do. That John would have a forgiving attitude does not surprise me at all"



I am sorry, religion has no place here. His childwas brutakky murdered. As a parent and a man your instincts should be anger. It's not about anything else at that point.

Younare either not a parent or can not imagine beibg in that place.

So until you are, dont tell me you would just thank god and calmly go about your life.



shelley said...

God also told Abraham to kill his kid.

So would do as you were told?

And yes he was only testing him as I have been told my whole life.

But based on the bible Abraham did know this and it was not until Abraham was about to kill his kid that god stopped him.

I dont believe in the bible. But I promise you, god told me to kill my kid... I am not conforming.

But then my sons safety and happiniess is more important to me than my own. I would protect him with my life and avenge his death.

But thats the kid of parent I am.


shelley said...

Also.....
To th3 person that said Jon Ramsey could not be responsible because he is religious..


have you forgotten about the priests that have molested kids? Or do you think all those kids lied?

Also check out the case about the murder of Irene Garza..

anyone that says someone is innocent because they claim religion needs to realy wake up.

for years religion has been a cover.

And you are the exaxt person these murderera love. You are blind by the fact they go to church.

wake up.

Cops kill
priests molest
Teachers rape

titles dont mean innocence

And for those that hate Peter... you hate him for one reason... you are one of the murderers or are a supporter.


There is no reason for you to be here if you dont by SA.



Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla's remains


Peter, Matthew 18 and Listen! from Genesis have held John Ramsey hostage for a long time, he has been unable to defend himself and JonB. from slander, and unable to prove Patsy the murderer.



This was important evidence that you withheld.



Instead you led Avinoam to me, you and Avinoam stalked me at my job, Avinoam moved into my neighborhood and viciously stalked me using electronic surveillance, he bugged my house. He's using information he's obtained through his position of power to try to threaten me, it reveals how I need an interview with the FBI! He's been trying to silence me! He's afraid that John Ramsey will sue him for slander! He's built his entire business on the dumb Ramsey note! Matthew 18 proves John is innocent and he's has also been a hostage to Patsy's lies! Avinoam is attempting to hide the truth!!! I need an interview!

Anonymous said...

Lets just say the intruder came in while they were at the white's Christmas party. While he was waiting he decided to write a ransom note. The Ramsey's come home and im sure they didn't go to sleep right away. Burke himself admitted that he stayed up building his train set. Correct me if im wrong but wasn't the train room right in the same area where her body was found? So the killer was down there just chilling in a corner somewhere while Burke put together his train set. Burke goes to bed and the intruder waits patiently until he is sure everyone is sleep. (Only he cant be sure cause the house is so huge that anyone of them could have been up without his knowledge.) He's confident enough now that everyone is sleep so he head to Jonbenet's room. Once there he's able to subdue her and remove her from the room. This intruder is walking through the house carrying the body of a child he just kidnapped. He does not know if he will encounter one of the other inhabitant of the house along the way, but I guess he don't care because he find his way safely to the basement. I'll also note here that Patsy stated that she leaves Jonbenet's room door Ajar in case she wake up she can hear her. So Patsy can hear if JB wake up but she cant hear an intruder walking up and down the steps that lead to her bedroom. The "Intruder" likely spent hours down in the basement with Jonbenet. This alone is not typical intruder behavior. An intruder's mission is to get in and get out without getting caught. The autopsy noted that she wasn't strangled till 45 mins to 2 hours after the head blow. I find it hard to believe that an intruder would spend 45 mins to 2 hours with his victim in the basement of the house he kidnapped her in. What if Patsy or John would have woke up for a drink of water, and while heading to the kitchen decided to check on Jonbenet. This would have alerted them long before the ransom note did. I doubt an intruder would risk hanging around so long and getting caught. Once he was done with Jonbenet he was faced with two choice 1. Get the hell out of here 2. Go back and leave the note on the stairs. The intruder apparently chose the last option. He didn't leave the note before taking Jonbenet because Patsy would have saw it on her way to bed that night. It would have been foolish to leave it while he was still in the house because as stated before someone could have woke up and been tipped off while he was still in the house. The only logical time I could see him leaving the note is before he exited the house. What are the odds that an intruder just murdered someone, and have the option to leave but decides to go back in and place the note neatly on the steps. The note placement in itself was odd. Most intruders would leave a note on the victims bed or perhaps the kitchen table not at the bottom of stairs. Patsy admitted that she use to leave notes there for her housekeeper. Hmmm coincidence?

Peter Hyatt said...

Either it is deceptive or it is one major anonymous-length coincidence!