Wednesday, January 15, 2014

John & Patsy Ramsey January 1, 1997 Interview Analyzed

I am taking another look at the case of murdered child Jonbenet Ramsey.  We now know that the Boulder Grand Jury indicted John and Patsy Ramsey in "death by child abuse", but the then District Attorney, Alex Hunter, did not sign the indictment.  Indicted for her death, we find linguistic indicators of sexual abuse within their language, and confirmation that Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note are linked. 

Aired January 1, 1997 - 4:34 p.m. ET

NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: And Brian is here, he conducted an exclusive interview today with the child's parents, John and Patricia Ramsey.

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: First of all, from a newsstand point, a couple of item's came out, the Ramsey are going to be putting together their own investigative team, they say, private investigates. This is not meant as any disrespect, they say, for the Colorado authorities. They just want the best mind possible, they say, looking into this crime.

Secondly, they will be offering a reward perhaps as much as $50,000 starting next week. It has been a very difficult week as you might expect for the Ramsey family, a very difficult interview as well, we talked to them for about 45 minutes.


CABELL (off-camera): Why did you decide you wanted to talk now?

JOHN B. RAMSEY, JONBENET'S FATHER: Well we have been pretty isolated -- totally isolated -- for the last five days, but we've sensed from our friends that this tragedy has touched not just ourselves and our friends but many people. And we know that there's many people that are praying for us, that are grieving with us. And we want to thank them, to let them know that we are healing, and that we know in our hearts that JonBenet is safe and with God and that the grieving that we all have to do is for ourselves and for our loss, but we want to thank those people that care about us.

John Ramsey said that they decided to talk now because they have been "pretty" isolated, and "totally isolated" while his wife, Patsy says they decided to talk now because they have been "overwhelmed" by people visiting, even those who they have not seen for years.  

John Ramsey relates to his daughter as "Jonbenet" while she is "safe" "and" with God. 

PATRICIA RAMSEY, JONBENET'S MOTHER: We have just been overwhelmed by the cards and letters and visits and people we haven't seen for years have come to call and be supportive in their -- many of them are parents, and they know and can feel our grief.

RAMSEY, J: But the other -- the other reason is that -- for our grief to resolve itself we now have to find out why this happened.

Here the subject says they most find out "why" and not "who" killed Jonbenet. 

CABELL: There has been some question as to why you hired a defense attorney.

RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.

It is interesting to hear him say that these people, including an attorney, would  help the investigation. How many ministers, family doctors and lawyers are familiar with murder investigations?

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

Patsy says they have to find out "who" did this, while John Ramsey wanted to find out "why"

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

Note the father of a murdered child says they are not angry.  

RAMSEY, P: We can't -- we can't --

RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are .

Note the pronoun change from "I" to "we"

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten note, three pages?

Note above John said ,"we" found the note. 

RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up. We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit.

This is a highly sensitive portion of the statement for Patsy Ramsey:   the Ransom Note. 

In the SCAN technique, the color coding uses blue as the highest level of sensitivity.  It is used in only two causes:  

1.  The leaving of a place
2.  The reason why

In this case, we see that the subject anticipates being asked "why did you...?" in certain aspects and in anticipation gives her reasons why, making it very sensitive.  We see several "blues" together, which is called a "cluster of blues", which is where we focus our attention. 

First, note the order of her answer which suggests alibi building:

"I just gotten up" tells us she needs to explain why she did not read the note and has been something discussed:  that Patsy was in the same clothing she wore the night before and had not gone to sleep.  In her book she does not say she had slept.  

"We were going to go visiting" is not "we were going visiting" 

"It was quite early in the morning" as another reason why she had not read the note;

"I had got dressed" and not "I got dressed", with "had" showing passage of time.  How much time?  The former Miss America contestant was wearing the same clothes from the day before; not something expected.  

Next, she tells us the reason she went to the kitchen and the reason why she took that staircase and the reason why no one was up but her.  This is extreme sensitivity (blues)

Please note the inanimate object (ransom note) was "lying"; often when an inanimate object is given body posture, it is because the subject put it there.  

"kind of dimly lit" continues with giving the reasons why she did not read it.  

The not reading of the note, reported first in the negative, is given many reasons, as if it is of extreme importance rather than just a passing detail, that the analyst should strongly question why Patsy Ramsey would have not only no need to read the note, but why such a strong need to explain why.  This suggests that she had no need to read it because she wrote it. 

Please see analysis on the ransom note itself, indicating Patsy Ramsey as author. 
It was just very early in the morning,

the early hour is repeated; very sensitive to her. 

 and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John.

We note the opening and closing of doors in a statement.  This is often found where there is child sexual abuse.  One should wonder if Patsy Ramsey knew about Jonbenet being sexual abused, and if Patsy Ramsey had been sexually abused, herself, in childhood.  

CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?

RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit.

Note:  John Ramsey only "thinks" he "ran" through the house "a bit" while Patsy tells us that they both ran and why they ran:  

RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

John only "thinks" which reduces commitment.  He allows for himself or others to "think" differently.  

The overwhelming number of mothers say "my son", so when we hear "our", we may question if more than just biological parenting is involved, or if divorce has been spoken about. 

RAMSEY, J: Checked our son's room. Sometimes she sleeps in there. And we just were --

"Checked our son's room" drops the pronoun.  John Ramsey only "thinks" (above) but here, he drops the pronoun entirely.  

RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

This is an example of how speech gives us away.  "We were frantic" is straightforward, though "I was frantic" from a mother of a 'missing' child is expected, but to add "just" indicates that within the subject's mind, at this moment, she is comparing something to "frantic."  With a missing child, frantic is the expected.  The need to compare frantic with not being frantic is not, at all, expected.  This suggests a need to portray, even while she is thinking contrary. 

CABELL: How did you happen later to look in the basement?

It was reported that John went to the basement, so this question is directed to him: 

RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that looked out of place.

Note that "my friend" does not have the friend's name which is less than a full social introduction suggesting a troubled relationship. 

RAMSEY, P: Look for clues I guess.

Since they claimed to have looked for Jonbenet in her brother's room, why would they not search for the child throughout the house?  Since they were "running" in the house, why would they only check one room?  This is unexpected. 

Note "I guess" is to remove himself from commitment. 
RAMSEY, J: Look for clues, asking us to do that, give us something more to do to occupy our mind, and so we started in the basement, and -- and we were just looking, and we -- one room in the basement that -- when I opened the door -- there were no windows in that room, and I turned the light on, and I -- that was her.

We have two linguistic indicators of childhood sexual abuse:

1.  Opening of a door
2.  Turning on of a light

"that was her"with the word "that" immediately showing distance.  Why, at this point in the story, would distancing language be used?  He did not say he found her, only "that" was her. Note that she is "her" and not his daughter, nor Jonbenet. 
RAMSEY, P: She was --


CABELL (off camera): You were asked shortly thereafter for a hair sample and writing sample, blood sample. Who else was asked for this?

RAMSEY, J: Well, Patsy and I, Burke, our son, who is nine, every family member.

CABELL: Including your two elder children?

RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.

CABELL: Any friends?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know.

CABELL: Now, did you give the samples?

RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.

CABELL: Oh, really? Because the word was that they thought you were too grief stricken. So both of you, you gave samples?


The interviewer did not ask if they had initially refused or delayed the investigation.  

CABELL: Were you offended by that?


RAMSEY, P: It was difficult. But, you know, they need to know -- I mean our hand prints are all over our home, so they need to know if there's -- if there are other ones --

CABELL: The police said a couple of days ago, to assure other residents of Boulder there is no killer on the loose here, you can be assured everything is under control. You believe it's someone outside your home.

RAMSEY, P: There is a killer on the loose.

RAMSEY, J: Absolutely.

In another interview, John Ramsey reported living in a "safe" neighborhood even though a 'sadistic killer' who had broken into his home, and tortured and murdered his daughter. 

RAMSEY, P: I don't know who it is. I don't know if it's a he or a she. But if I were a resident of Boulder, I would tell my friends to keep -- keep your babies close to you, there's someone out there.

CABELL: An FBI spokesman was quoted as saying at this point they don't regard it necessarily as a kidnapping. You think that's a wrong assumption?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know. I mean, there is a -- a note that said -- your daughter has been kidnapped. We have your daughter. We want money. You give us the money; she'll be safely returned.

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.

RAMSEY, J: I guess that's what concerns me because if we don't have the full resources of all the law enforcement community on this case, I am going to be very upset.

Note that he is not angry, and he is not upset though his daughter is murdered.  He is only "going to be" very upset if they do not have the full resources of all the law enforcement community.  

CABELL: Inevitably, speculation on talk shows will focus on you. It's got to be a sickening --

RAMSEY, J: It's nauseating beyond belief.

RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson -- and I mean, America is suffering because have lost faith in the American family.

In another interview, John Ramsey calls the murder of Jonbenet a "tragedy" repeatedly, rather than a murder or a killing.  

Note here the tangent of OJ Simpson

Note the invocation of Deity in any statement:  
We are a Christian, God-fearing family. We love our children. We would do anything for our children.

CABELL: Do you truly think the perpetrator will be found?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. Yes. Has to be found.

CABELL: Do you think it's a single individual?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. In my heart I do.

CABELL: Do you take some comfort in believing that JonBenet Ramsey is in a better place.

RAMSEY, J: Yes. That's the one thing we want people dealing with us to know, to believe that, we know that in our heart.

RAMSEY, P: She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child.

RAMSEY, J: We learned when we lost our first child that people would come forward to us, that sooner or later everyone carries a very heavy burden in this life. And JonBenet didn't carry any burdens. 

Here,  of not carrying burdens, she is "Jonbenet"

What "burdens" would John Ramsey suspect a young child would carry?  There are linguistic indicators here, and elsewhere that John Ramsey may have been associated with childhood sexual abuse. 


Anonymous said...

"Want people dealing with us to know""DEALING WITH"????? I'd have used"helping us"? Just a theory.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
"Want people dealing with us to know""DEALING WITH"????? I'd have used"helping us"? Just a theory.
January 15, 2014 at 7:50 AM

Excellent point. Small, but precise.

I will add it.


John Mc Gowan said...

Please note the inanimate object (ransom note) was "lying"; often when an inanimate object is given body posture, it is because the subject put it there.

I havn't come across this in SA before. I will take note when i see this in future statements.


CABELL (off camera): You were asked shortly thereafter for a hair sample and writing sample, blood sample. Who else was asked for this?

RAMSEY, P: It was difficult. But, you know, they need to know -- I mean our hand prints are all over our home, so they need to know if there's -- if there are other ones -

The interveiwer didn't ask if they had taken their fingerprint's..Is this extra information?..If so, are their fingerprints sensitive to her?

Anonymous said...

RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

I would want to cover as much ground as possible, as soon as possible. "you check on son, I will check........" Why move around the house together checking?

Anonymous said...

"when I opened the door -- there were no windows in that room, and I turned the light on, and I -- that was her."

Why was it important to note there weren't (past tense - room still doesn't have windows) any windows in that room? Was the room selected because there were no windows to have neighbors see a light on in the overnight hours when the body was being placed there. Seems odd that this unnecessary information would be added to his memory of finding his dead daughter.

Anonymous said...

Com'on now Peter. I'm not going to argue or dispute with you or other posters; all most certainly are entitled to your opinions (and personal beliefs) just as I am;

but you KNOW that professional expert handwriting analysis (by more than one) surfaced later than January, 1997, well AFTER the grand jury recommendation; that concluded the ransom note was NOT written by Patsy Ramsey, although it WAS highly suspect with several similarities to her handwriting and areas of statements that appeared that only SHE would have known. NOW, if you want to dispute expert handwriting analysis, fine by me. Not gonna challenge you on it.

However, you might also want to keep in mind that expert, knowledgeable and vastly experienced detectives AND investigators found that there WAS evidence of an outside intruder in and out of the basement that night that was overlooked by Boulder LE (as it tuned out, this would be akin to taking your ((or my)) brain tumor to our mechanic); who claimed there was no evidence of an intruder when there WAS.

I know, your analysis (and personal belief) is that Patsy is guilty of writing the ransom note and that John & Patsy were both involved in sexual molestation of JonBenet, but it also turned up later on AFTER Jan 1997, that there had been many areas of accessibility to JonBenet that would have provided the perfect environment and possibility of her having been molested by someone else when neither one of the Ramseys were around; nor did JonBenet have anyone else watching out for her when she was dropped off alone at so many dress rehearsals, dance & modeling classes and the like.

There were many evil-eyed monsters who could have had access to JonBenet that the Ramseys or anyone else would have never known about, particularly considering that there HAD been recent pervert pedophile intruders into other little girls' bedrooms in that very same neighborhood that LE did not reveal at the time;

as well as nineteen other people who had keys to the Ramsey home, anyone of who could have had duplicate keys made and could have entered that home at will on other occasions while they set up their final kill, including practicing Patsys' handwriting.

I am not challenging your practiced statement analysis methods, but I am saying there IS a good possibility that Alex Hunter was correct AT THAT TIME in not indicting either John or Patsy Ramsey.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I disagree.

When I speak of Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, I am not talking about handwriting experts.

Recall, the Ramseys went through several polygraphers until they finally found one to pass them, and then made him sign a non disclosure contract: he was not allowed to speak nor did they tell us what questions were even asked!

And hence....


Statement Analysis Blog said...


We find this principle quite often in drug cases.

"I saw the bag of pot sitting on the table..."

The speaker often, statistically speaking, is the one who caused the pot to "sit" on the table.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

I would want to cover as much ground as possible, as soon as possible. "you check on son, I will check........" Why move around the house together checking?

Also, why not check the basement?

Skeptical said...

Something I have wondered since I saw the Aphrodite Jones program on this case is did John Ramsey help write the note? In that program, the linguist James Pennebaker said he thought the note sounded as if it had been written by two people. That makes sense to me because of the information the note contained, such as the money amounts and the quotes from the action movies that Patsy Ramsey said John Ramsey liked to watch.

No SA needed said...

Someone leaves a note that a child has been "kidnapped", why would they do that if they had killed her and left her in the basement?
If they were leaving the note to try and get money wouldn't they take the body?
I've always thought the note was written by Patsy, I'm not sure who she was covering for.
She was the one up all night though.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Here I Mark McClish's Analysis on the Ramsey ransom note, or should i say (essay?).

JonBenet Ramsey Ransom Note

An analysis by Mark McClish
Posted July 9, 2001 - part one

John Mc Gowan said...


Pastor Accused in Arson Conspiracy Speaks Out:

Less than a day after Pastor Mark Lewis made bail he was back at the Fellowship Baptist Church, preaching. The 39-year-old is accused of asking three people to throw a Molotov cocktail into the bedroom window of his ex-girlfriend Sarah Nottingham’s parents’ house.

In an exclusive interview Sunday, Lewis denied the allegations against him.

Bare in mind that the journalist asked "Did you do it? and "Did you have someone else do it?" Which are not documented in the article, but are on the vt. His responses are below.

“I didn’t do it … I didn’t have someone else do it. What do you want me to say? That’s the truth,” Lewis said.

Lewis and Nottingham had a one year relationship. Nottingham tells FOX40 when she tried to end it, things got weird.

“Having this power of being a so-called pastor to a church just really fed him to hold that power position,” Nottingham told FOX40.

Lewis was booked and charged with arson, conspiracy and stalking. He would not tell FOX40 how he made bail.

Anonymous said...

Thanks :)

C5H11ONO said...

RAMSEY, J: I know. Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation.

-What’s the difference between a personal friend, or just a friend? Is a personal friend an even closer friend than just a plain old friend. Why did he choose to say personal friend as opposed to just friend.
It is his friend, not his and Patsy’s or a personal friend of ours, but note that this personal friend of only John’s was at the house. This means that John had to have called him to come over. John must have known it was going to get ugly. Also, his friend suggested (not counseled) that it would be foolish to not have not just counsel, but knowledgeable counsel. Oddly enough though John’s personal friend suggested that both he and Patsy need an attorney. (“…counsel to help both us”)

So if this friend was called in to the house, was he called in prior to JB being found? If so, how could they suggest to them that they need attorneys? It was a kidnapping at the time. Why would they need attorneys when JB was presume kidnapped. I would like to know what phone records reveal as to when John called this “personal” attorney friend of his.

RAMSEY, J: Checked our son's room. Sometimes she sleeps in there. And we just were –
-I feel bad for JB. She sometimes sleeps in her brother’s room. I think she goes in there for protection/safety. (I remember watching Helter Skelter as a little girl and I was so terrified of Charles Manson that I would sit in the couch with my dad just hoping sleep would take over before I was sent to bed, because I felt so safe with him. That’s why I think JB did that).

RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that looked out of place.
-I am curious if this is the same “personal” friend that also happens to be an attorney that suggested they get attorneys. If this is the same friend, then I would question why John would have reason to call an attorney friend to come over to his house when at the time his daughter had been kidnapped, not murdered. When the detective sent them on their scavenger hunt, did John ask his attorney friend to come with him? Or did the detective motion to both of them? I bet John was quick to ask this "personal" attorney friend to join him.

CABELL: Now, did you give the samples?
RAMSEY, J: Uh-huh.
CABELL: Oh, really? Because the word was that they thought you were too grief stricken. So both of you, you gave samples?

-I have a step daughter that when she lies she uses “Uh-huh” because she can’t bring herself to say “yes”, then when you ask again, she is able to muster the “yes”. Yes and No questions are the easiest to lie to, and I think this was a situation where John had to say “uh-huh” first before he was able to say “yes”. The interviewer must have known that they initially declined .

I don't know if it's a he or a she.
--What we say in the negative is important. I think she knows who it is.

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.
-Does this mean then that Patsy too wasn’t convinced it was a kidnapping, only seeming like a kidnapping?

Skeptical – regarding the ransom note, I pictured John dictating to Patsy while she wrote and added some quotes of her own along the way. I think that is why there was a “draft” that was found in the garbage. Teamwork.

Boulderite said...

"just" frantic ---
might that be a qualifier, merely describing an enormous amount of 'frantic' - rather than a comparison word?

The friend who was with John when JB was found was Fleet White, who later was reported to have had some discourse with John, which distanced their relationship.
The personal friend who happened to be an attorney was a different gentleman.

If the parents wrote the note to make the crime "seem" like a kidnapping, it is likely they would concur with that scenario.

John Mc Gowan said...

Boulder Detective on the Ramsey Case says she knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey:

This officer was left on her own with the Ramsey's et al in the house for three hours before back up arrived!

Anonymous said...

The first officer on duty that morning was a 22/23-yr old female rookie, on the job two months, who had no training or previous experience. She could have said anything to make herself appear Miz Bigshot, look good, or that might have appeared she 'knew' what she was talking about, when she didn't. She hadn't even been trained to direct school-crossing traffic, much less a kidnapping or murder investigation.

Whatever she said would be the last thing on this earth I would quote or take into consideration. Hell, the flake not only allowed numerous people to compromise the scene, she even asked and allowed John to go searching for JohBenet himself. Doesn't that tell you already that we are talking about an idiot here?

SHE knew who killed JonBenet? Duh....

charlotte from denmark said...

There is one thing that I have wondered about since I heard about the ridiculous ransom note.

Yes, Patsy wrote it. But why on earth did she write so much?! I just don't get it. The more she writes, the more she will give away about her handwriting and style of writing. Obviously she knew this, so why?

She may have been skilled in these things, since they could not match the hand writing after all.

charlotte from denmark said...

Anonymous over here:

For the same reason that Kate McCann is covering for her husband. The fear of losing the other child[ren], for losing status, power and money.

For normal people, like most of us, it is unfathomable that a parent would do that.

I also believe that John killed JonBenet, and Patsy helped himcover it up.

Anonymous said...

Anons ^ @ 10:40 & ll:57; You can't deny that there were areas of the hoaxed up ransom letter and some of its' content that bore striking similarities to Patsys' style of handwriting as well as those statements that would appear to be known only to her. It would only be natural that most people would immediately suspect that Patsy wrote the letter. But that is not to say that she actually DID write it.

An intruder could have been in that home on other occasions and at least once, spending hours there and familiarizing himself with the home, it's contents, pilfering through documents, AND picking up copies of Patsys' handwriting that he wanted to use in the scheme of writing the letter, raping and murdering JonBenet, and making it appear that it was Patsy (or John) who killed JonBenet and Patsy who wrote the letter.

Patsys' handwriting could have been copied and practiced on many occasions until the perp thought he got it exactly right, just the way he wanted it, more than likely having been written well before he ever got to the home that evening. It has never made sense that any intruder (OR Patsy)would have sat around writing this long letter either before or after he finished with JonBenet. It just. makes. no. sense.

But, it DOES make sense that a child rapist/murderer WOULD make every effort to make it appear that someone else did his dirty deed. If a person is dirty enough to rape/murder a child, they are dirty enough to make it appear that someone else did it, forevermore taking the spotlight of suspicion off themselves and solidifying the evidence that someone else did it right in the childs' own home. It is possible that the intruder may have initially intended to kidnap JonBenet but seeing he had killed her; he left her there, had already left the ransom letter lying on the back stairs, and ran.

It also makes no sense whatsoever, that had either Patsy OR John raped and killed their baby, that they (or Patsy) would have stupidly and calmly sat down and hoaxed up a long stupid crazy ransom/kidnapping letter that was no kidnapping at all, but that pointed the murder finger directly at THEMSELVES and specifically at Patsy; and THEN left JonBenets' murdered body lying dead on their own basement floor, even further pointing the finger of suspicion at themselves.

The Ramseys were NOT stupid people; gullible yes, in those they trusted, but NOT stupid. If either one or both of them had been involved in JonBenets' rape(s) and murder, they (either one) had all night to get her body out of the house, dispose of her elsewhere, clean up and dispose of any evidence, write NO letter and report her missing the next morning. How simple is that?

It is the common sense of the matter that causes me to seriously question what appears to be factoids against Patsy & John, and not those inuendos and implications of guilt that appear so obvious to the average person no matter how trained they may think they are.

The best of sociopathic criminals can deceive anybody, no matter how knowledgeable they may be. Simply put; neither the so-called facts, the fake ransom letter, the people involved, the circumstances as they were found to be, OR the home where JonBenets' body was found just do NOT add up or make any sense against the Ramseys whatsoever. Just my own opinion and not based on any professional analysis.

Anonymous said...

Who really gives a c'rap if the McCanns get upset or angry over the remarks made by the attorney who says they are guilty of neglecting little barely 4-yr old Maddy? They sure as hell ARE guilty.

Just who the hell do these people think they are!? These pieces a shyt also neglected their two baby twins, leaving them ALL alone there in that room together with no sitter or anyone else caring for them. They should have been charged with child neglect right then and there.

Now they're going to be upset, when they had likely already killed little Maddy before they ever went out to dinner that evening.

Somebody, please relieve us all of the misery, pain and the death of a child these two have caused.

Anonymous said...

For real??? I asked someone to please offer an explanation about the dynamics which would explain the Patsy did it theory that implies that John was unaware of Patsy's crime, staging of crime scene and ransom note writing, yet expects one to believe he finds out about all of it in the morning, jumps right on board with such a sick cover-up, while also acting callously towards his daughter's murder? I asked this respectfully, as I do not understand how this dynamic would have occurred. I have thought much about this case and do feel that my opinion and questions are just as valuable as everyone else's.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:08, Yes you are exactly right. There was a serial killer who would commonly gather cigarette butts smoked by other people and leave them near the bodies of his victims to make it look like someone else did his crimes. It is believable a killer did imitate Patsy's handwriting to try to frame her. Reading up on criminal profiling sheds a lot of light in this case.

Anonymous said...

Also I dont understand why my comments on this case get deleted. If my comments are so stupid or "wrong" why not just leave them up as surely people will just think they are dumb/wrong and ignore them. In my opinion it reduces the credibility of this analysis on this case if my comments just get deleted even though they are respectful just because I question the Patsy did it theory.

Shelley said...

When people really think about the whole “expected reaction” Peter always mentions, SA aside…..imagine if you lost your child to a brutal murder.

Would you be on national television days later? Talking about how you are a good family and are Christians? And how this touched lives?

What does that tell you? What was their focus?

Think about it…

Was it dealing with their grief? NOPE

Was it about finding the killer? NOPE

Was it about justice? NOPE

What was it about? They wanted to tell the whole world that they are good people and are Christians.

And oh, that this “touched lives”. TOUCHED LIVES? Brutal murders do not touch lives!

My husbands sister was killed years ago. It took him a good week to just get out of bed.. I had to force him to eat. To shower. It was months before he could even crack a smile. He lost 30 pounds and was sad every day all day. I think it took him about a year to really get back to somewhat normal.

The McCanns were also like the Ramseys. A few days later at what would be your childs birthday…. Would you be laughing and smiling?

Or would you be still so overcome with fear of where your child is and what she may be going through that you would be searching.

These parents are really showing us who they are and what their priorities are.

Not getting justice.

Not finding your child.

So how people still believe in their innocence baffles me.

Shelley said...

Dani Kekoa… Interesting information…

Now, I have a question…

Do you think the Ramseys are innocent then? Or do you think they were part of this sick group with Pastor Bob?

I have always thought that Patsy wrote the note. And that the parents were possibly involved in something sick. Like a group of some sort.

And maybe they allowed their daughter to be the victim.


Anonymous said...


My thoughts: This is a sick and nonsensical theory.

1) Even if true, this still does not explain WHY the Ramseys would have left JonBenets' dead body lying in their own basement so they could become the suspects in her death. NOBODY in their right mind would do such a thing!

2) Nor does it explain why Patsy would write a hoaxed up ridiculous kidnapping letter, which was no kidnapping at all, in her own handwriting that would cast suspicion and blame on herself.

Anonymous said...

The person who made the comment about why would Patsy write such a long ransom note knowing that with each additional word it becomes likelier and likelier her handwriting would be identified had an extremely good point.

If one reads about communications written by other sadistic killers, one will understand that Patsy did not write it, rather an emotionally immature, attention-seeking male in his 20's or possibly even his 30's wrote it.
Many aspects of the ransom note point to this:
1) the length of the note--having read it over many many times, I believe this note was meant to bring attention to the case as well as the killer himself
2) the numerous quotes from movies (there are 7 different movies quoted from) show emotional immaturity as well as a male mindset and also show a similar psychology as revealed in communications from other sadistic killers who often write things 1) to draw attention to themselves
2) regardless of their intelligence level oftentimes these writings reveal no major clues to crack the case: in the Ramsey ransom note, it is nothing more than a ruse to throw people off and actually to this day people are trying to understand it. My guess is that it was written as some manifestations of the killer's desire for attention (he knew the note would be published etc and he knew people would try long and hard to figure it out)

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:26, I disagree with your item #1. The note was meant to bring attention to the Ramseys, specifically Patsy as being the writer of the letter with either or both as the murder suspects of JonBenet; and not on himself.

In Item #3; the writer of the ransom note goes to great lengths to make SURE the Ramseys are the suspects. IMO, the killer has reveled in his success of getting away with writing the fake ransom letter and in killing JonBenet without ever becoming a suspect; this would be his ultimate pleasure and not any attention he may have gotten as he never got any.

The rest of your theory post has a lot of merit IMO.

Shelley said...

To Anon that responded to me.

There is still the fact that if this death was not intended but rather an accident that occurred as a result of abuse….Either by them or someone they allowed to abuse her. And let’s face it that is not a new concept. This happens more than we would like to know.

In that case, if this was something they did or allowed…. Well, what do they do?

I got caught lying to an ex-years ago about something that was just minor. I still recall the day I was caught and I panicked and tried to lie my way out. That lie led to more which spiraled out of control when I tried to then explain this or that…….. When in all reality, it was not worth all that and I could have told the truth and just death with him being mad for a while.

Peter is right, lying is stressful!

But the point is that people do not think clearly when they get very stressed.. I did not. And I did not have a dead body on my hands. If they were responsible, this is more than a lie. This had the potential to put them in jail for the rest of their lives. If they are guilty.

So I think it’s very possible that they panicked and initially thought the ransom note was a good idea. Thinking the cops would think the child was taken and maybe hoping they could figure out where to put the body later.

But when the cops arrived, it could have been clear they would search the home so then Jon took action so they didn’t find her.

It’s very possible this was just a stupid move they made in a panic that lead to more bad mistakes.

I don’t think anyone can think clearly in a case like that if they were responsible.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:54,

I do agree with you that the ransom note writer was attempting to frame Patsy.
However, I think much can be gleaned from the content of the letter about the psychological makeup of the killer. I intuitively feel the ransom note was written for attention--it is startling how if you look at other communications written by deranged killers, the Ramsey ransom note will come to mind. The zodiac killer for example (who was never identified or caught) wrote many communications, some in code. Other killers have not wanted to be identified but have written communications so that they could read about themselves and read all about people trying to figure out their communications. Some of these communications have contained lines from movies.
What strikes me about the Ramsey ransom note is that the writer does seem to be, on some level, entering a fantasy of himself being a kidnapper demanding money. So, what I am saying is that yes, I do believe he attempted to frame Patsy with the note, but simultaneously it seems he was entering into a fantasy in which he was a kidnapper demanding money.
Certain areas within the note, such as his very specific breakdown of how the money should be divided etc. picked up, bring an attache, has always struck me as being written by someone who actually was fantasizing about kidnapping for money. This writer is vividly picturing the money itself, John's trip to pick it up, the delivery of the money, how the money will be carried etc.
But absolutely, Patsy was framed. The demanding of John's exact bonus amount is strong evidence that she was not the writer but was being framed. There is NO WAY she would have been stupid enough to incriminate herself (had she been the killer) by demanding John's exact bonus amount as this is like her announcing that Jon Benet's killer/ransom note writer was her or someone extremely close to him that would know that info about his bonus.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:16 a.m., I cannot answer your questions (good ones), and do respect your opinions. I agree, these are valid questions. I question if there IS an acceptable answer to the many questions that are still unanswered since the Ramseys were judged by many to be guilty from the first day.

Some questions simply cannot be answered, and in others, people become very agitated when they are already set in their opinions against John & Patsy Ramsey; being so convinced that they are guilty in JonBenets' death regardless as to what handwriting experts have published, any logic, or proof of an outside intruder and DNA that exists; that they will not consider that they both Ramseys might have been innocent.

People do not like to be wrong. But guess what? We don't know if they're wrong, nor do we know if we're right.

Anonymous said...

Could John have been the one who framed Patsy?

Anonymous said...


You fail to realize that JonBenets' decomp odor would have already started to set in long before John found her body in the basement. It only takes up to 90 minutes for decomp odor to set in a deceased body. The child had already been lying there dead for hours.

What's shocking is that LE hadn't already detected the odor as it certainly would have already become prevalent during the early to mid-the morning hours. IF they'd had an investigator worth a toot they would have.

After the decomp set in, there would have been no way this decomp could have been concealed, and the Ramseys would definitely have been charged had they removed her body, with them leaving decomp odor behind.

I repeat: It makes no sense whatsoever that either one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet and left her dead body lying in their own basement so they could be accused and arrested for killing her. Further, it makes even less sense that there were other 'group' participants in JonBenets' rape and murder who would have risked being suspects, particularly in leaving her deceased body behind.

Even a drugged out dope head has sense enough to get rid of the body as quickly as possible.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:13; you make excellent points. I agree with entirely.

Iknow whoIam said...

Hey, Anon at 8:05 -
You don't have to be an investigator to Detect the obvious odor of human decomp.
If the odor had permeated the area, anyone present would have noticed.

Anonymous said...

This just in:
new evidence in Isabella Celis case?

Anonymous said...

Oh, @9:32?

Are you saying that JonBenets' body had no decomp odor after several hours of lying dead on the basement floor? She would be the one exception in the history of mankind who did not start decomposition after 90 minutes? Then you need to write an academia for ignorant scientists.

Of course she did! Her decomp was also very likely on the floor where she had been laid near the Christmas tree.

Whoever said one would have be an investigator to detect the obvious odor?

You can bet on it, it was there and up to LE to sniff it out, with or without cadaver dogs.

Anonymous said...

Dani; if you are so sure about this as you claim to be, why is LE not taking action against this Bob Enyart? According to your allegations, there should be no question that he obviously and blatantly killed JonBenet and would be easy pickings for LE to prosecute. Why haven't they?

I'm not referencing some goofy numerology imaginations that some troubled minds like to fantasize bringing tgether and whoop an' holler over; I'm talking about the bare facts that the man killed JonBenet. With the facts and the evidence, why isn't this man charged and put behind bars?

Anonymous said...

Dani, I googled those links as you suggested. I also googled Bob Randolph Enyart, the man, individually, and viewed many of those videos.

What I see here is no one making these allegations but YOU; not a single other person or entity has made the first allegation against this freakin' weirdo so-called 'preacher' BUT YOU. It is obvious that you and your husband have had a long running loud and vocal hatred for Enyart that is
borderline sick within its' own right, whether he is guilty of those allegations you make or not.

I can't even find one LE investigation of him as a suspect in the Ramsey matter in any way, or of him being a suspect in re the death of JonBenet Ramsey. Why is this, since you purport to have such a strong case against him? Why is LE not listening to you? Do they just view you as some sort of looney-bin? Are you?

I see here a woman (and her husband) who relentlessly harasses, harps and hounds your allegations against Enyart; and who is obsessed with the man, to such an extent as to be consumed and possessed with attempting to force 'someone' to bring him down in the matter of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

Why are you so obsessed with this? What is there for you to gain? Anything, other than self-praise and notoriety if it turns out that you are right in your allegations against Enyart?

Whether you are right or wrong in your highly-charged various and assorted allegations; IMO, I think you need to learn what behavior modification is all about and practice it. It's really not that hard to do.

Anonymous said...

Some info on the case for those that think they are innocent. Not always possible to know the truth. But I doubt all these are just total fabricated lies.
People please research before assuming these 2 monster parents are innocent. Just because they are wealthy and smart does not mean they are not evil.

C) It is clear from the statements of both Detective Colson and Char Blazer that the Boulder authorities were very interested in a connection between the death of Jonbenet Ramsey and what appears astonishingly to be organized pedophilia on a national level, perhaps with a criminal Government license.
(13) The William Morris Agency has close ties to NBC News. This Agency is responsible for placing the likes of stooges Tom Brokow and Brian Williams at NBC News. It was NBC which broke the current JonBenet Ramsey story.
The William Morris Agency also represents up and coming child models and had solicited a contract from the Ramsey’s for the 'services' of JonBenet. It should also be noted that in early 1996 the Denver Police had been investigating a Denver Child-Porno Protection ring linked to and run by none other than the Wm. Morris Agency and FBI Div. #5 (FBI Special/Black Ops).
John Ramsey ran a company called Access Graphics with offices in the Philippines, Amsterdam, Holland and Denver, Colorado. Access Graphics did business with the Wm. Morris Agency and had service contracts directly with what is commonly known as Iran Contra. Access Graphics major bank accounts were parked at the noted Iran Contra money-laundry Silverado Savings and Loan and administered by none other than Director of Silverado, Neil Bush, George W. Bush's brother. Ramsey was also on a list of witnesses never subpoenaed by former Iran Contra Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. It can now be reported that Ramsey had either knowingly, or unknowingly, pimped his daughter out as a prostitute to the Wm. Morris Agency who were taking these child 'Models' and using them to provide sexual services for pedophile's in Government, Industry and so on in addition to their Modeling shows (shows often displayed in video footage in the many news specials on JonBenet's murder).
(14) Search warrants also turned up nude photos of the Ramsey children - and not baby pictures.
(15) In the three years prior to her death, Jonbenet made 33 trips to the pediatrician, diagnosis was "yeast infections". Yeast infections for a child of four to six years old? I've been told that is not possible.
(16) It is impossible to navigate the Ramsey's home in the dark without prior knowledge of it's layout due to it's complicated, unusual four-story design and odd placement of light switches. An intruder could not have done so without making undue noise and awakening the Ramseys.
(17) The supposed 'intruder' shoe print on the floor of the wine cellar in soft, white, dirt like substance turned out to be the delineation of a shoe print with a clear impression of the words

Anonymous said...

"HI TEC". This is known to be a common police footwear product line, and police personnel had been in this room after the discovery of the body and before the crime scene processing and was eventually identified as the shoe print of one of the Boulder Police. A second shoe impression was also found in the white powdery substance. Although not as visible as the “HI-TEC” shoe impression, it was a distinctly different print and eventually was determined to be John Ramsey's.
(18) The Ramsey's ex-housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, testified to the Boulder County Grand Jury that Patsy killed her daughter.
(19) John Ramsey left the house during the very first part of the investigation - presumably to get a paper.
(20) One of John Ramsey’s first acts was to call his lawyer - not the act of an innocent man. Detective Linda Arndt, the only police Detective on the scene in the hours prior to the discovery of the body at 1:05 p.m., remembers Mr. Ramsey’s demeanor when he initially greeted her as not distraught nor even upset, but cordial. Arndt says that the Ramsey's did not spend those morning hours in each other’s company, but that Patsy stayed in the sunroom with friends and John stayed mostly in his den, and read his mail in the kitchen. Very, very unusual behavior for a couple who have just experienced the murder of a child. Typically, they cling desperately to each other.
The Ramsey's (behavior) exhibited some element of blame, condemnation, as if accusing each other of knowing of the crime beforehand and doing nothing to ultimately stop it. Thirty-seven minutes after finding JonBenet's body, a detective overheard John Ramsey talking by phone to his pilot and arranging a trip to Atlanta that evening for himself, his wife and son. Det. Sgt. Larry Mason told him, “You can’t leave". He seemed surprised.
(21) There is a considerable amount of trace & DNA evidence linking Patsy directly to the murder of JonBenet, contrary to the lie that was circulated beginning in 2005 - that DNA had exonerated the Ramsey's.
(22) Ainswoth's report noting duct tape in the basement closely matching duct tape used during the strangulation (JonBenet's mouth was taped).
(23) Pam Griffin states that Patsy admitted writing the practice note "for an innocent purpose". An innocent purpose???? No one does such a thing unless they intend to carry out a crime of this nature.
(24) Round marks, consistent with shape of cigarette, found on JonBenet's neck and jaw appeared to have been caused by a stun gun. The Ramsey's had a stun gun.
(25) The Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyzed and confirmed that the wooden stick used with the ligature rope in the garrote for the strangulation is, in fact, the paint brush handle from the broken paint brush from the painting supply tray owned by Patsy Ramsey, a critical second piece of weapon evidence that came from within the house. It was also noted that a portion of the

Anonymous said...

paint brush handle, appearing to be from the top, is unaccounted for. No fingerprints were ever found on any portion of the paintbrush:
(A) Prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., presented to the grand jury shocking evidence that they feel shows the rope used to strangle JonBenét was purchased by her mom Patsy. A sales slip indicates that Patsy bought a thin nylon rope at Boulder's McGuckin hardware store. Patsy paid for this rope with an American Express card. The sales slip doesn't name the items, but it shows a $2.29 purchase rung up in the section of the store that sold nylon ropes. The price of a nylon rope at the time -- $2.29. Realizing they were on to something explosive, authorities bought up all the 100-foot packs of quarter inch Stansport nylon utility rope sold at McGuckin's. They compared the McGuckin ropes with the one used on JonBenét and it matched. Tests run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation convinced the police they had the right rope. This was vital evidence since investigators never found the remainder of the murder rope in the Ramsey home.
(B) JonBenét had been gagged by duct tape so they asked Patsy's art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview months earlier, Patsy had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of Patsy's McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JonBenét was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape. Experts determined it had been manufactured in November 1996 -- only a few weeks before the child's grisly death. Four fibers on the duct tape have been linked to the red and black jacket that Patsy wore the night before.
When Patsy greeted officers at 6 a.m. she was wearing the same jacket she had just worn to the Christmas party. Patsy maintains that she dressed that morning prior to finding out that JonBenet was missing. However, Patsy was fully dressed including face make-up when she met the police after the 911 call in the same clothes she wore to the White's Christmas Dinner the night before strongly indicating she never went to bed the previous night. Why would she lie about that?
(26) Judith Phillips, took some of the most poignant pictures of JonBenét. She believes the case against the Ramsey's has been delayed by politics and DA Alex Hunter and wants the Colorado Governor to appoint an independent prosecutor.
Scott Gibbons, neighbor, who had also heard the horrible scream somewhere around midnight has made the same claim concerning playing politics and obstruction by the Boulder County DA. He says it was an inside job. This was not a random killing. There is no way parents could possibly sleep through a scream such as he heard, and the murder of their child. "Despite all the talk of an intruder in the district, I was never afraid for my own kids. You can put all the 'spin' on it you want, but if an 'intruder' came into my home, and a scream of that nature was heard by several of the neighbors, I'm responsible for the death of my child. Period".
(27) Early in the investigation, sources say detectives probed John Ramsey's many visits to Amsterdam, Child-Porn capital of the world, suspecting a link between child porn and

Anonymous said...

Oh for heavens sakes! I am NOT a troll. I've been posting here frequently off and on FOR YEARS.

Look, I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong. I'm saying YOU are the one who is insanely obsessed with Bob Enyart and YOU are the one who needs to make all the calls you try to drag others into, to your little hearts' content.

I'm not getting dragged into this insanity, whether Enyart is guilty or not, and I don't see anyone e4se here getting involved in it either. Besides, it's up to LE to handle the JonBenet case, not me, not you, not any of us; whether they ever do it right or not. NOT our problem.

I will add, you are as goofy as a poor old junk yard dog who has been left tied up on the end of his heavy chain too long; sitting there calling journalist Chelsea Hoffman a fraud among other things! I am starting to question your sanity. You do not know this for a fact to be true.

Give it a rest, get a life, before someone decides to have you committed to an insane asylum. Just, it won't be me, I don't have time to mess with madness. To me, you appear more likely to be some goofy nut case stranger on the interwebs. Bye now.

Kellie Sue said...


I looked at some of the Bob Enyart info and my only question is this, if there is absolutely no truth in what he's being accused of why hasn't he had those websites taken down?! If someone were making outlandish allegations against me on multiple websites I'd take legal action to have them removed. Wouldn't you?

Shelley said...

On Friday evening, February 14, 1997, KUSA-TV aired an interview with Dr. Beuf.

Anchor: JonBenet Ramsey's pediatrician says he is convinced she was not sexually abused.

And, he says, he told Boulder Police investigators that when they asked him.

He said he would only talk with one media person and that person was Paula Woodward.

Woodward: He said he wants the information he has as JonBenet's pediatrician out in the public, but he's appalled by media coverage and so will only talk once.

Dr. Francesco Beuf says he saw JonBenet 30 times in 3 years. He said the last time he saw her was five weeks before she died.

Woodward: When you talked with the police, did they ask you about sexual abuse of JonBenet?

Beuf: Yes, of course they did.

Woodward: What did you tell them?

Beuf: I told them absolutely, categorically no. There was absolutely no evidence - either physical or historical.

Woodward: And that's from seeing her 30 times in 3 years?

Beuf: About that.

Woodward: What else did they ask you?

Beuf: Oh, they asked many of the same questions you've been asking: relationship with her parents, what sort of child she was, if there was any indication of depression and sadness.

Woodward: And your answers?

Beuf: Only as appropriate. If she was sick, she wasn't feeling too well. If her mother was off being treated for cancer, she was sad at that.

Woodward: He talked with us in the treatment room where he saw her five weeks before she was killed.

Was she an ordinary kid?

Beuf: No. I think she was extraordinary in the amount of charm that she had. And sweetness was the quality I appreciated most.

Woodward: Where you aware of how much she was in beauty pageants or whether she was?

Beuf: I don't know how much she was in beauty pageants. When she was here, I think I heard it mentioned a couple of times. In the last year that she was doing it, it just wasn't a big deal. The big deal was how she was doing things with her friends here. How she was going to Michigan with her parents. Just the fun things in life. The beauty pageants just didn't seem to be at the top of the heap by any means.

Woodward: Tell me what she said to you.

Beuf: To be honest with you, I can't remember. I just remember it made me feel good to see that much happiness and niceness in one spot.

Woodward: Thirty visits in 3 years. He said her parents were good about getting her in and it wasn't an abnormal amount of visits.

Do you think JonBenet was sexually abused?

Beuf: I do not think she was sexually abused. I am convinced she wasn't sexually abused.

Woodward: Dr. Beuf also treats JonBenet's 10 year old brother Burke Ramsey. He describes him as a neat kid. Likes to play video games. That he's very bright and trying hard to deal with something he can't fully understand yet. Dr. Beuf says Burke Ramsey is just another nice kid whom he likes.

Shelley said...


This would be great for analysis.

Too long to post as a comment but it's the transcript from the Rameys on Barbara Walters. Barbara asks a lot of point blank questions.

Boulderite said...

Ok, so the 2 lengthy posts from the lunatic gal blaming some mysterious Bob Enyart dude have disappeared like Baby Lisa - never to be seen again.....only to be replaced by THREE lengthy (but informative) rantings from "Anonymous".
.....The Ramseys had a Stun Gun?
who knew?

Ivy said...

I've read Peter's analysis of this interview on other occasions, and I'm reminded how useful it is to go over statements again and again. The things that jumped out at me reading it this time, is just how weird it is for Patsy to say she didn't read the letter from the supposed kidnappers of her daughter. It makes zero sense. I can sort of see her not fully taking it in in the moment she realized JonBenet is missing (it's long) and wanting to take immediate action (look for her, call police) but to deny having read the note from the people who took her/murdered her when you claim you're trying to figure out who did this/why? They called police and then waited in the house for hours before finding JonBenet. You expect anyone to believe that in that period of time you didn't read the message from the people who took her? Wouldn't that just be of paramount importance? The leaves the question of why someone in that circumstance would deny familiarity with or even interest in so critical a piece of evidence. Not wanting to answer questions about things in the note? That's part of it. I think a lot of it is also disassociation: "Write it? Why, I didn't even read it! I couldn't even begin to tell you what it says" "Oh, the ransom note that proves an intruder murdered JonBenet? You know, I've just been so distraught, I haven't had time to read it."

This reminds me a bit of the Christie statement repeated in the press conference that he didn't ask any questions of his staff after the emails came out. He just had someone else fire them after finding out they lied. He gives as an excuse that he doesn't want to be accused of interfering with an investigation or whatever, but that's pretty weak, coming from someone who is assuring people this won't happen again and that he's trying to get to the bottom of what happened. Again, if your closest aides grossly abused their power in such way, lied to you about it, and created this total crisis/taint on your office, wouldn't you want to hear what their explanation or story was, even if you were dubious of its veracity? Not asking the staff member(s) what happened allows him to say he doesn't know what happened. Or as Peter suggests of Patty, he doesn't need to ask questions because he already knows the answer.

Anonymous said...

I believe the note,written by Patsy?,asked for the same amount of money that John had recently acquired....who else would know that? Then---who writes a "practice ransom note" before the real thing,as I recall.What outsider would take the TIME to do such a thing????

Anonymous said...

I've always believed Patsy wrote the note and wasn't there a "practice draft" before the final edition?Also the $ asked for was same amt John had recently acquired? And what outside bad guy would take the time to write all that drivel in the first place!!!!!!!!

Rose said...

The only reason I can think of that a kid would go to the doctor 30 times in 3 years is either if her mother has Munchausen by Proxy, or if the kid is chronically ill. I have never heard of a healthy kid going to the doctor on a monthly basis. That is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Shelley, Thanks for posting the interview with JonBenet's pediatrician. I actually find some of his responses to be odd in the way he talks about JonBenet.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a fan of parsing the Ramsey statements. It is not an indicator of child sexual abuse when you're talking about searching a home--you actually do open doors and turn on lights in a dark room. (Fleet actually reported that John saw something wrong in the windowless room before the light was turned on.)

I have friends and close personal friends. This family had about 30 people in their home at a party a few days before Christmas. Not all of them would be considered "personal friends". The Ramseys were transplants to Boulder. They became close friends with the Whites, but many of their closest friends remained in Atlanta.

Patsy's wearing what she wore on Christmas is easily explained. She was going to get the coffee made and the kids fed before taking a shower and getting dressed for the trip. How is that mysterious? I would have more trouble thinking she brutally killed her daughter and greeted the police in the clothing that she was wearing when she allegedly committed the murder.

Finally (and I can't emphasize this enough), the Ramsey's comments during any interviews are tainted. THEY'VE BEEN COACHED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS BEFORE THEY'VE EVER GAVE ANY INTERVIEWS. You think their attorney would send them into an interview cold? John's referring to JonBenet by her name or as "our daughter" could be the result of coaching or listening to how his attorneys referred to "your daughter" over and over again. These weren't casual conversations. The Ramseys had to appear sympathetic and innocent.

I personally have more of a problem watching the corners of John's lips when he's proclaiming that he didn't kill his daughter during that first CNN interview. For me, that was a tell, but I might just be seeing what I want to see.


Anonymous said...

I think it was an intruder. I think he entered the home the night before whilst the Ramseys were at the whites xmas dinner. If he was casing the place, he would have seen them leave and would have been in the house for hours before they returned and this would have been when the ransom note was written. I think originally, it was going to be a kidnapping/ransom. He hid under the guest bed, giving perfect view of their return and close to JBRs bedroom. I think a stug gun was used and the ransom note left on the stairs on his way back through to the basement. I think the killer struggled to get her out of the house and she woke and screamed (neighbours heard a scream between midnight and 2am). This is when he hit her over the head. Realising that she was unconsious, he probably decided then to abandon the kidnapping plan and kill her instead, so he made the garrotte, killed her and left the way he came in, forgetting about the ransom note. I think it was a young offender and I think the paegents and the Ramseys community standing was what attracted the killer. People forget that Patsey Ramsey had ovarian cancer and knew she had limited time with her daughter. Most people think, in a situation like this, they know exactly what they would do. Doubtful. Easy to be sitting here judging. The panic, the disbelief, just imagine every single thing you said and did being picked apart whilst experiencing this horrible scenario. Personally, my heart goes out to the Ramseys. I cant imagine what they went through. John has lost 2 of his daughters, his wife, his career, his fortune that he built from scratch and still does not know who killed his daughter. Everyone commenting here might like to consider how they would react, being picked apart and losing everything if this happened to you. I once lost everything and I can tell you, I was angry for a long time. Generally, most people dont give a shit as its not happening to them and they cant, in their wildest dreams imagine what it is like. All they can do is stand there and judge, like its their god given right to have their fucked up opinion regardless or how inaccurate that might be or the damage it may cause. Why, cause people cant wait to tear someone down who is doing better than they are. I hope you all feel real good for the (lack of) support afforded to this family. Assholes.

Unknown said...

Unfortunately, while in some cases it gives comfort to people, the "g-d card" is all too often used in cases where there is no alibi in order to create one. "yes we have no alibi, but are a loving Christian family, so we couldn't have had anything to do with this". Also while again it can be sincere among those seeking comfort, stating that someone is " with g-d" also can serve as a placeholder for faking anger.

Anonymous said...

I think it's strange that they didn't ask Burke if he heard anything. I think it's strange that they weren't afraid that the kidnapper was still in the house, after all they had no idea when that note was put there, could have been a couple of minutes ago. I would also expect John to run outside to see if there was a sign of the intruder. I also think it's strange that they are not horrified by what their daughter must have gone through, so close by, that must be just unbearable.

Anonymous said...

I realize the Ramsey home was a very large residence ( about four times larger than most homes ). I can only say that had a child / person come up missing in my home I would have in a frenzy searched every inch of the house and premises , every nook and cranny , fireplace(s) , garage, basement multiple times , even if there was a ransom note and I was led to believe the person had been taken . I also don't believe my son would have been allowed out of my sight if my daughter was missing , even if it was to go with friends / neighbors ..that doesn't seem natural . I think even with confusion and the uncertainties of the hour a person would have to have their remaining child with them . Too much showboatin in that house and not enough keeping their lives more private . The Ramseys said it was not unusual for them to leave multiple doors unlocked .I always figured it may have been a young relative of someone who worked for the Ramseys and had overheard talk such as what John's bonus was . There were something like ten people who had keys to that residence and a house that large with multiple levels probably should have had an active alarm system in place .