Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Det. Steve Thomas and The Ramseys


Below is transcripts from the Larry King Live show in which John and Patsy Ramsey appeared alongside Steve Thomas, former detective who wrote a book alleging Ramsey guilt.

Statement Analysis (and commentary)is in bold type.

P. RAMSEY: You must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a murderer of my child. I want to hear one through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or after I killed JonBenet?

Patsy forms the words innocent people avoid: "murderer of my childwhich indicates guilt.  Even when entering the language of another, it is something innocent people feel disdain towards and avoid.  She said that he called her, and not he said...

Note she uses the word "child", associated with child abuse, risk, etc.  

"I killed Jonbenet". This is a principle in Statement Analysis used in investigations frequently. "You think I did it" contains the words "I did itwithin the sentence. This is something the innocent do not normally do.

An early example of this is when Christ was on trial and told the accusers that their own lips had framed the words that He was 
"King of the JewsHe pointed this out to those who accused Him. Their own words, even when framed in the form of a question or accusation, had literally formed the truth.
An innocent person is not likely to frame words projecting guilt in any form; especially not in an open statement. Here, Patsy implicates herself while challenging the detective. She asserts that he has reasons, 1 through 10 that he should tell her. Then, we have repetition. Repetition heightens sensitivity.

Patsy affirms what she had already said by saying "murderer of my child" when she frames the words "I killed Jonbenet" in her statement. She herself confirms to us by the words she has chosen: first the "murderer of my child" and then "I killed Jonbenet". In Statement Analysis, we listen to what someone actually says, rather than what they want us to think via interpretation. Listen, do not interpret.

It is unusual that one would use both these phrases together. 

notice also the words Patsy uses: "conjures up". Is this what she did in fabricating the ransom note, including building a "suspense novel" like length, complete with overtures of terrorists? Interesting choice of words.


J. RAMSEY: Answer the question. What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that we are capable of this crime?

The defense for the Ramsey pair is not "we didn't do it" but that they did not have a history of violence. 

this common profiling technique popular in the 80's and 90's, that one must work their way up to murder, is no longer used today.  We have cases regularly in the news of murders committed by someone with no criminal history.  

See:  Tammy Moorer

When John Ramsey says, "answer the question" it is not clear if he meant the previous question or the one he now asks.

Note the same principle used above is applied here: John Douglas said, "we are capable of this crime" within his sentence. This is not something we see in innocent statements. This same principle is applied in all statements, so when someone says "just because you think I implicated myself" we note that they were able to frame "I implicated myself" within their objection and is an indicator of guilt. In this particular example, you will find, indeed, that once you search the statement, the subject will have implicated himself.

John Ramsey himself, using the plural, says "we are capable of this crime". Take this statement and look at their actions after calling the police, as well as full analysis of the ransom note at www.statementanalysis.com and decide if John Ramsey has told us the truth.


John Ramsey read John Douglas' book on profiling and had the financial resources and pull to bring in the celebrity author to do a profile of him for his "own" investigation. Dougas said that no one just "graduates" to this type of killing, but would have had a history of violence leading up to killing. This emboldened the Ramseys.

Since that time, a number of  cases have come to light where the killer had no history of violence that suggested the killing. Generally, violence escalates and we often can see a pattern; not always, but enough to see a history of violence and be on alarm. But this does not change the fact that some will kill without warning. When a 17 year old girl killed a school mate recently, it was learned by media that the killer had no history of violence; no school reports, nor anything else that suggested she could "graduate" to this level of violence. If someone accused of murder is not guilty by reason of not having a record of violence, Casey Anthony would be acquitted. We do not have a record of violence by her; nor have we heard any witnesses claim that she was violent to Caylee. Does that negate all the evidence?

My own experience in child abuse investigations tells me that the doctor would have likely suspected child abuse when he saw the constant infections that Jonbenet suffered from, and if Patsy reported the constant bed wetting, but due to their afluence, he likely did not.

When a young girl is being sexually abused, we will likely find infections, along with bed wetting. The fact that she was dressed up in a sexualized manner is difficult to ignore. The doctor should have reported this, and had he done so, Jonbenet may be alive to this day, a sophmore in college.
Steve Thomas didn't have evidence of violence on the part of the Ramseys. What he did have, however, was a history of doctor visits that should have triggered suspicions of sexual abuse and a child protective assessment.


It also should be noted that Jonbenet's death location was staged. 


P. RAMSEY: God willing, if you ever have a child one day, you will know the pain perhaps when someone hands you the child in your arms, and says, Mr. Thomas, this is your child, do you tell me that you are going to look at that child, and -- you just had a new baby, Larry. Could you ever conceive of...

Patsy presses an emotional issue which avoids the topic of murder. In her wording she wishes the pain upon Steve Thomas. This is unusual for a victim, but not for a guilty party who has rage capable of a murder; or the cunning capable of not only a cover up, but an ability to take to the airways. She would have likely said later, "that's not what I meant", but in Statement Analysis, people choose their words in less than a micro second and we do not interpret: we listen to what they say. This is what she said: she wished horrific pain upon him, and judging by the anger they showed towards him, including threats of suit, etc, Patsy gave no indication that she didn't mean exactly what she said.

KING: I can't imagine how anyone could harm a child.

This is what most people do: they project their own beliefs and value systems upon others and struggle to believe that someone could actually kill a child.

Had I had a chance to interview King, I would have asked him if he would have dyed his 5 year old daughter's hair, given her false teeth, and dressed her up in provocative show girl outfits for pagents followed by pedophiles. This may have helped him think outside of his own experiences.

I would have asked him that if he had found his child "kidnapped", would he have called in neighbors, friends, and lawyers after being warned not to call the police;or would he have been so scared that he would have waited for instructions from the police?

I would have asked him if he would have made arrangements to disappear from the scene on a plane,leaving behind his daughter?

I would have asked him if he would have had his lawyer stall the investigation.

I would have asked him if he would have rather spoken to the media than investigators.

I would have asked him if he would have shopped around for a polygraph that was passed.

I would have asked him if he would have then made the polygrapher sign a contract limiting what he can release.


He may have understood a bit more
.

P. RAMSEY: ... doing something to this child, let alone the things that this man is...
"this man". . It is unclear who he is referring to. Is it the kidnapper? If so: I thought it was a "group of individuals" or a "small foreign faction? Note that "this" man is close; "that" shows distance.

Or is "this" man (close) Det Steve Thomas, who was physically close and who has alleged that the Ramseys are responsible for the death of Jonbenet.
".


J. RAMSEY: I've lived with her for 20 years. I know that she loved that child more than anything in the world.

Note that "I" and "her" are distant. He could have said "Patsy and I have lived together for 20 years..." but he did not. He chose to use the word "with" which commonly shows distance.

"My wife and I went shopping" is different from
"I went shopping with my wifeThe subsequent interview revealed that the latter statement showed distance as he did not want to go shopping that day.


J. RAMSEY: We speculate. The world's -- one of the world's leading profilers, John Douglas, has said that this killer was angry with me or was very jealous of me. And this was an anger or jealousy that was acted out against me.

The autopsy showed signs of vaginal trauma consistent with sexual abuse. John may have now inadvertently revealed that Patsy was angry with him, and may have coerced him into helping stage the death scene if indeed, this was an accidental killing during discipline where Patsy then went into cover up mode, sat down for a long time (something an intruder would not do) and wrote a practice note and then the real note. .



KING: Instead of taking it out against you, he kills your child.

J. RAMSEY: Sadly yes.




J. RAMSEY: I am not ruling out any possibility. It's a horrible thought to think that somebody would be angry with me enough to kill my daughter, but I'm not ruling out anything.

The issue of "anger" is sensitive which is seen by John's repetition.

Now we have the motive-this killer was angry with me or was very jealous of me. And this was an anger or jealousy that was acted out against me.

KING: Instead of taking it out against you, he kills your child.

J. RAMSEY: Sadly yes.


And finally who wrote the note-
KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably killed the child?

Patsy was never ruled out as the author of the note. The linguistics point to her: including the now famous "and hence" phrase she used in her Christmas card to the church (the same unique (and improper) phrase is in the ransom note)

J. RAMSEY: I agree.

P. RAMSEY: I would agree with
that.



Notice the weakening of Patsy's agreement. A simple "I agree" would suffice but she gives us additional words which give us additional information: "I would" is future tense; weakening her commitment, and "with" shows distance, as does "that". "I agree" would be first person singular, present tense (the statement by King was present tense) and would have been strong.


KING: It's a strange, letter, isn't it?

THOMAS: Absolutely. It is an absolutely bizarre letter, that the writer knew so much about this family, using Patsy's tablet, a pen from within the home, and...

P. RAMSEY: They did not use JonBenet's name.

This shows familiarity with the lengthy note. Why the absence of Jonbenet's name? The author would likely had struggled due to emotional attachment and not used Jonbenet's name. We saw this often in the answers given by Ronald Cummings. His use of Haleigh's name was limited, especially in the "Cobra tapes" where the investigator repeatedly used her name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the OT, but Charli Scott's ex-BF was arrested for a burglary from last year : http://khon2.com/2014/04/14/ex-boyfriend-of-missing-woman-arrested-for-unrelated-burglary/

Anonymous said...

Peter I find your analysis of this case interesting and very thorough and I respect your opinion on the case. I have noticed that when analyzing this case you do put their words under a microscope. Here is an example:

J. RAMSEY: I've lived with her for 20 years. I know that she loved that child more than anything in the world.
Note that "I" and "her" are distant. He could have said "Patsy and I have lived together for 20 years..." but he did not. He chose to use the word "with" which commonly shows distance.
I find your analysis thought-provoking but the extant of the scrutiny I wonder if you are starting with a bias in assuming Patsy's guilt because you do not subject some other potential suspects in other cases language to this level of scrutiny.

Carnival Barker said...


@Anon 9:58^^

Are you new to statement analysis? I'm not asking that sarcastically. Every word is put under a microscope; that's the beauty of Peter's work.

The excerpt that you questioned was probably the most informative of the entire post. You didn't copy the next line that explains the subtle nuance that makes SA so intriguing and so insightful ...

Note that "I" and "her" are distant. He could have said "Patsy and I have lived together for 20 years..." but he did not. He chose to use the word "with" which commonly shows distance.

"My wife and I went shopping" is different from
"I went shopping with my wife" The subsequent interview revealed that the latter statement showed distance as he did not want to go shopping that day.

Carnival Barker said...


Peter,

How someone uses or doesn't use a victim's name is something that I am always keyed in to. The post a few weeks back about that baseball mom terrorizing her friend through letters referred to the woman's son Dominick as "Dom". Patsy in her ransom letter not addressing JonBenet by her name at all. John Ramsey in this interview referring to his murdered daughter as "that child".

This theory was the most apparent just recently when Mike McStay and his bad theatrics performed at the press conference following the discovery that his slaughtered family's skulls, including two toddler nephews, had just been found in the desert. After squeezing out his one tear with all his might, he managed to call his father by name, his aunt by name, but NEVER, EVER said the name of his brother or those little boys.

Very chilling and very telling, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Carnival, I appreciate the insight in your comment. What I was noticing is that Peter is very thorough in analyzing the Ramseys' words.
I agree with the "with" part of he analysis.
I don't agree that "I" and "her" are distant. There is no way that I can see they could be closer in the sentence.
In analyzing the Ramsey case Peter is extremely thorough and I have noticed he does not use this same level of scrutiny in all the cases he analyzes.
This is not to say that I disagree with him about Patsy being guilty. I am 95% convinced that she is JonBenet's killer.
Some of Patsy's responses need to be viewed in the context that she knows she was suspected of writing the note and therefore her saying "I would agree with that" is not particularly suspicious imo.
However, Patsy most likely is the killer. I still have yet to hear a theory that seems believable of how John would agree to help her cover up the crime if he was sleeping while Patsy killed JonBenet.
I do think the "and hence" is significant. The ransom note overall is difficult to pin down as being written by a middle-aged woman yet I lean towards thinking it was written by Patsy.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Anon 11:54,

Maybe I can help explain the distancing. Here is the original quote:

JR: "I've lived with her for 20 years".

Now here is the same thought, expressed without distance:

'We have lived together for 20 years'.

(Both sentences express the same notion, but in John's version, he and Patsy are seperate.)


Think of how you might answer this question: How long have you been married?

Would you say:

'WE just celebrated OUR 10th anniversary'. (Close)

or..

'I've been married to him for 10 years'. (Distant)

I hope these examples help. I struggled to understand the 'with=distance' concept at first too, but it makes perfect sense to me now. Peter's shopping example is a great illustration of the concept.

Anonymous said...

So Patsy Ramsey wrote this ransom note to take the money herself and flee out of the country after the murder?

Anonymous said...

Father God, please put our baby back in our lives today, as a father I know I am being selfish and asking that my will be done, I cannot help but ask this thing, I miss my baby so very much and know nothing but sorry and pain, this thing I ask in your holy name.
Amen.

Anonymous said...

Blog rules --- Terry Elvis is off limits. John Ramsey is fair game.

Anonymous said...

noted. just giving example of when saying sorry really means you are innocent.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Anon 1:02

No, she wrote it in an attempt to direct the investigation away from herself and John, and to provide an alternate reason for why JonBenet was dead within her own home, with severe injuries.

Without the 'ransom note', there is nothing to suggest, and no reason for LE to theorize that an outside person is responsible for JonBenet's murder. The Ramsey's knew they would be the first and only suspects when JonBenet was found dead inside their home, so they staged the scene in the basement. (I believe JOnBenet's original injury was the blunt force head injury, 'accidentally' inflicted by Patsy in a rage.) Then she/they wrote a 'ransom' note spelling out what they wanted LE to believe happened.


The scenario they propose is laughable.

It's basically, 'ummm officer, the dead body in the basement was not caused by any of us who were inside the house during the time the brutal murder was taking place. It was caused by members of the 'foreign faction' who apparently snuck into our house, took our daughter from her bed without a sound, stopped on their way through the kitchen to grab a snack of pineapple, and a notepad and pen to use, then made their way through our labyrinth of a basement, (all while we were sleeping feet away, and while restraining a scared 6yo girl from making a sound), committed a vicious sexual assault and murder, then kicked back and wrote this 3 page long novel detailing their citizenship, their respect for the man who's daughter they were kidnapping/murdered, their motive, their demands for certain denominations of money, the vessel they wanted the money collected in, their extensive surveillance, their concern for Ramsey being rested, their threats/warnings/insults, etc.... oh, and of course, they put the pen and notepad back where we always keep them before they made their way out of the house without a trace.

Makes sense to me!

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow,
Thank you for your explanation on the distancing and it does make more sense to me now.

C5H11ONO said...

Jen Ow
You forgot to include that they prepared a "draft" letter first, then penned the "final" version which was left on the stairway that Patsy uses when she gets up in the morning. Not that she actually slept that night.

Anonymous said...

Patsy said she found it "sitting" on the bottom stair I believe?

elf said...

One thing I always found odd is that Patsy Ramsey, a rich woman who I'm sure had a closet full of clothes, put the clothes she had worn the previous day back on. It doesn't fit. The Ramsey family is too image conscious.

Anonymous said...

they surrounded themselves with pics of their daughter all dolled up in sexualized glamour shots.

what parent, or specifically father of a missing/dead daughter does that??

John Ramsey talked about having a favorite pic of JonBenet - one where she's just in shorts and t-shirt looking "normal", loving, young and innocent.

Why go out of your way to say your favorite pic of your deceased daughter is a non sexualized pic when your actions speak differently -- demonstrated by the fact that your home/workplace is plastered with larger than life sexualized images of your daughter?

if the non sexualized image had really been the favorite why wasn't that the image you looked at every day?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:53 I noticed what you are talking about too and find it to be very disturbing.

Anonymous said...

4:53

roger

Anonymous said...

Peter, I find it odd that JonBenet's doctor has actually stated that the Ramsey's were wonderful parents, as, regardless of whether or not the doctor believes Patsy or John to be guilty he should have been troubled by the 60 or so visits within a few years for UTIs. He also in his statements did not offer an explanation for all of the UTIs.
In my opinion, this bizarre support for Patsy along with the lack of being troubled or suspicious by the large number of doc visits for UTIs raises the strong possibility of Munchausen by Proxy on the part of Patsy who it seems bamboozled the doctor into thinking she was a wonderful mother.

Eliza said...

The Ramseys' story has more holes than French cheese... I am sure that Patsy wrote the ransom note and that one of them (John, Patsy or Burke) killed JonBenet.

Steve Thomas thought it was Patsy, another really interesting book by Chief Kolar points to Burke.

Having read the analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy I can say that there are quite a few red flags. I remember that she said "I'm the mother" not "her mother", it seemed so off and cold when I read it.

Anonymous said...

I believe Patsy killed JonBenet and it was probably premeditated as there is no way a skull-splitting blow to her head could have been "discipline" resulting in accidental death. It seems like Patsy might have planned all of it and even timed it to be on Christmas to get maximum attention for herself. I still do not understand how John would have jumped right on board to help cover up JonBenet's death unless he is just an incredibly evil person.

Trigger said...

I don't see the death of JonBenet as premeditated or planned.

Patsy could have accidentally killed JB with a blow to the head, in a fit of rage, with something she grabbed that was handy or could have thrown something that hit JB in the head.

Yes, rich people get special courtesies from LE agencies and the media when something as dramatic as this happens in life.

The Ramseys knew that things were going to get tough for them when JonBent's body was found, so they did what anyone who wants to avoid prosecution does, they stage things to add credibility their innocence.

Anonymous said...

it's interesting when the parents find the evidence or leads before the police

Anonymous said...

Trigger, I believe it was premeditated. Patsy even wrote that she some kind of premonition of it when looking at some doll she had bought JonBenet for Christmas (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details) but she stated she had a premonition of her death. JonBenet's skull was hit extremely hard from the evidence. Patsy was one sick lady, and apparently John must be just as sick if Patsy awakened him and he agreed to help her cover things up and not only that but in such a sick and disgusting way and for him to be callous to his daughter's death. I used to think an intruder did it, but I have come to believe it was a premeditated act committed by Patsy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:19
Yep. It is interesting and quite suspicious.

Mickey q said...

The reason he helped cover it up is because he had something to hide that she would have revealed if he didn't go along with the plan.

Heather said...

Peter: I don't mean to thread-jack on the Ramsey SA, but could you please post more on the Oscar Pistorius case? There is a mountain of fascinating statements to analyze because the cross examination transcripts are available online.

I think Oscar's comment (below) could be the most damning thing he has said yet:

"Defense attorney Barry Roux asked his client what he meant when he referred to the shooting as an "accident."

"I mean the situation, and the situation as a whole, it wasn't meant to be," Pistorius said.

It only makes sense to differentiate between "the situation" and "the situation as a whole" if he was referring to the fatal quarrel with Reeva and his relationship with her in general. And his comment, "it wasn't meant to be," would make no sense if he was truly referring to an accident or case of mistaken identity. The word "it" in that sentence has no obvious referent, and the sentence would make no sense if "it" referred to an accident. When he said "It wasn't meant to be," he was trying to rationalize or justify the way he chose to end his relationship with Reeva.

john said...

OT:

Esther McVey speaking to BBC Merseyside about her 'mistimed' tweet during the Hillsborough anniversary service

Although she says she takes responsibility for the Tweet going out at the time of memorial. Does she issue a reliable denial, that she did not sent it herself?.

Statement Analysis teaches us that a reliable denial consist of three components. Anything less than three, or anything more than three is considered unreliable. I have added capitals for emphasis.

1, First person singular.
2, Past tense.
3, Event specific.


Wirral MP Esther McVey accepted full responsibility for a “mistimed” tweet during Tuesday’s Hillsborough anniversary service – BUT SAID SHE DID NOT SENT THE MESSAGE HERSELF.

The above quote is miss leading, so for Statement Analysis purposes, this is the actual quote.

“I didn’t ACTUALLY send the tweet, but I am going to take the full responsibility for that tweet having gone out in my timeline., but I am going to take the full responsibility for that tweet having gone out in my timeline."

“I didn’t ACTUALLY send the tweet"

Oooh, so close Ms McVey, but no cigar.

A barrage of social media criticism has continued to engulf the Tory MP and employment minister after her personal account tweeted “Wirral Labour can’t be trusted!”, with a link to a press release.

The tweet was issued just as shadow health secretary Andy Burnham delivered a heartfelt speech at Liverpool FC’s Anfield stadium.

The MP later tweeted: “Really regret the mistiming of local election press release. Apologies.” But the storm continued yesterday, and Ms McVey took to Radio Merseyside to issue another apology.

john said...

OT:

An article from Wes Clark.

http://www.truthsleuth.com

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to seek out and favor information that is in alignment with their beliefs, and also, to discredit information that opposes their beliefs. This tendency has been researched and documented in psychology for over 100 years, but the concept has been noted for thousands of years throughout history by writers, poets and philosophers. Failing to understand this natural tendency of human nature can slant interviews and misdirect investigations.

If you enter an interview for instance with the strong belief that "this person did it and he/she is going to lie about it", everything he/she says during that interview will be filtered through that belief. This can cause the investigator to miss information and evidence that may support the individual's innocence or truthfulness, either intentionally disregarding the information or actually not perceiving it because their mind is primed to find evidence and information to support their existing beliefs. This happened in a recent exoneration case, when upon review of the interview transcripts, it was evident that the interviewer didn't pick up on critical information during the interview that the would have made it obvious that the individual was innocent and telling the truth.

As basic as it seems, it is important to enter interviews and to conduct investigations with the primary goal of seeking the truth. If we have preconceived ideas about the investigation from the beginning, or about the veracity of the individual we are about to interview, we can get off-course within the interview and misdirect the investigation. This can lead to suspended cases, wasted time and money and miscarriages of justice by targeting innocent people.

Of course, as you move through an investigation and develop leads, evidence, witnesses, and other sources of information, you will see patterns and develop theories and ideas of what happened, how it happened and who was likely involved. The key is...don't be married to your theories.

As a professional investigator, interviewer or interrogator, your main goal is to seek and illuminate the truth.

Red Ryder said...

John, thanks for the article. I imagine in a low stakes event like a cash theft it would be easier to let go of ones preconceived notions than in a murder where there is strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
I guess it's like most things that are worth doing, the more training and practice one does, the easier it becomes.

Red Ryder said...

Hi Trigger! I was wondering about your rage hitting theory in the death of Jon Benet. Did Patsy have any history of anger issues or control issues tht hat were know ? Thanks:) I know the basics of this case (the letter, the pineapple) but haven't read up on the parents much.

john said...

Hi Red Ryder ,

He is very good. I don't know if he is trained in SCAN.

I think Peter is going to to invite him on his Blog radio show.

Don't quote me on that though. lol :-)

AnnieMouse said...

Was there every any of their former friends or people in the area that thought something was odd at home after the fact?
I haven't read any books on the case, just always thought she was killed by someone in the family due to the ransom note being so obviously written by Patsy.
Where hasit been written that Jon Benet had so many utis? I find it odd her doctor didn't refer her to a pediatric urologist if she had 60 in her short life.

Anonymous said...

Anniemouse, The info about the 60 UTIs is the main evidence that people have cited to support the theory that Jon Ramsey was sexually abusing JonBenet.
The number of UTIs should have been troubling to the doctor, but the doctor has spoken out and said they were wonderful parents and even defended JonBenet's involvement in beauty pageants saying something to the effect of it was only one part of her life and she talked about liking normal kid activities/hobbies.
I don't believe JonBenet was referred to a specialist. It makes you wonder why the doctor didnt seem concerned about the large number of UTIs when he was the very person who SHOULD have been concerned because of the fact he is a doctor!

Annonymous17 said...

"I am not ruling out any possibility. It's a horrible thought to think that somebody would be angry with me enough to kill my daughter, but I'm not ruling out anything."

So it's a horrible thought that someone hates you that much. Compared to, oh, your daughter being sexually assaulted and murdered? What a creep!

"She loved that child more than anything in the world."

This seems incredibly distancing: "that child" and more than "anyTHING" sound very cold. He couldn't even say his daughter's name.

trustmeigetit said...


Anon 5:50 stated “JonBenet's doctor has actually stated that the Ramsey's were wonderful parents”

This is true. But I previously posted a comment made by the doctor. He was asked about sexual abuse of JonBenet. He denied it, but with many many qualifiers. To me it screamed deception. See below for the excerpt from the transcript from a clip on Nancy Grace.

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.

Then as far as an accident…. The family maid stated some things that if true, really point right back to Patsy. See those statements below. I think she also said previously that Patsy would often scream at JonBenet if she wet the bed. That alone is concerning to me. She was still young and it happens sometimes. There is no reason to blame kids for this. It is not bad behavior. So that stuck with me.
Then below are a couple of things shes stated. I don’t know if the words in quotes were her exact words since this site is not set up as question answer but bullet points. I will include the link below. She is sure Patsy killed her. If those are her exact words, while I am not strong with SA, she seems to be truthful to me. Any other comments would be appreciated.

1 A Swiss Army knife was found in the basement room where JonBenet's body was found.
"Only Patsy could have put that knife there. I took it away from Burke (JonBenet's older brother) and hid it in a linen closet near JonBenet's bedroom. An intruder never would have found it. Patsy would have found it getting out clean sheets."
2 The blanket wrapped around JonBenet's body had been left in the dryer. There was still a Barbie Doll nightgown clinging to the blanket, so it had to have come out of the dryer recently, she said. Only Patsy would have known it was in the dryer, she said.

So this tells me a 2 things…. Assuming she is being truthful….. That JonBenet likely wet the bed that night and Patsy likely got clean sheets from that closet. And that she would not otherwise have had that knife since it was in a place outside of the norm.

http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

Anonymous said...

Trustmeigetit,
I agree, the doctor's statement is sensitive with all the qualifiers. The larger question is why did he neglect JonBenet's medical care by not, at the very minimum, referring her to a specialist? UNLESS there was no need because Patsy had Munchausen by proxy and was fabricating most if not all of the UTIs and bringing JonBenet in to get attention for herself. Otherwise, it is inconceivable why she would not have been referred to a specialist! ANY doctor would have done so! Did the doctor prescribe dozens and dozens of rounds of antibiotics? Something is very off with JonBenet's presenting symptoms and frequency of symptoms and the lack of referral to a specialist.

trustmeigetit said...

I have seen comments that some think that Peter is being biased. Not just this post, but many posts… Comments that he is somehow personally motivated to be more critical with Jon Ramsey vs others. I have also seen comments insinuating that he has refused to look at Terry Elvis with the same level of scrutiny.
To that I wanted to comment.
1st. This sight first and foremost is about Statement Analysis. Terry has not shown signs of deception in his words. Jon has over and over and over.
2nd If you really follow this blog you know that Peter applies the same rules to everyone when there is deception in their statements. If you don’t follow his blog and you are making these comments then you are doing it with out any actual knowledge so your comment makes no sense.
3rd. Terry Elvis and Jon Ramsey are in no way in the same category. Terry has fought to find his daughter. He has made every effort to support LE. Jon on the other hand stated DAYS after his little girl was brutally murdered that he was not mad. Jon has done nothing to seek justice for his daughter’s death and has done many things to hinder the investigation.
4th This is Peters blog. He really can do what he wishes with regards to posts and comments. If you don’t like it, go write your own blog. That too is your right and if you don’t like the comments you can delete them. This is just a blog. It’s not a company and there is no obligation to anyones comments.

If you don’t agree, find another site. Those that come here enjoy this and all this bashing on Peter or analysis is just a waste here.

Anonymous said...

the doctor want to cover his ass. if he admits to overlooking problem he gets one hell of lawsuit

Anonymous said...

i like wes clark article thanks for posting

trustmeigetit said...


Anonymous at 12:41 said “why did he neglect JonBenet's medical care by not, at the very minimum, referring her to a specialist”




I have 2 possible theories…..
Being that he works in small town, with wealthy parents, he may have been intimated – I mean if cops and the DA will protect them, I am sure a Doctor would too
It could be he was just as sick. This is not unheard of. I mean, even priests molest kids. There is no job immune from the evil. If he too was a child molester he would never turn them in


And for those asking why Dad covered for mom if Patsy did it.

The theory that seems most plausible to me is….

She wet the bed, mom freaked out (she was likely also intoxicated from the party and over tired added to her stated history of anger). Got the clean sheets out, in anger killed her. Offical cause of death was “asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma”. To me, while I am not a doctor, I picture her screaming at her and chocking her. In the process of the fight I am sure JonBenet would have put up, her head could have raised and hit the ground again very hard (if you picture a woman Patsys size on top of her). That is a lot of possible force for a small child. I think she then panicked when she stopped breathing. At that point the damage is done. She can not call 911 and claim accident. I think Jon has molested the child and Patsy knew. It’s possible that if he didn’t go along, he could have taken the fall instead if mom turned in him… SO they may have been bound together by this.
I think then they realized they had to have a story. The could not just leave her this way. I think they then decided to clean up, stage this to look like something totally different by adding in the rope etc….
I don’t think they slept at all. I think the whole night was a mad panic to clear themselves, clean up the mess, stage the scene etc…
I think too either this happened in the basement (Burke may not have heard anything) or he may have been conditioned in a house of abuse to stand by his parents innocence. Kids who grow up in abusive homes learn to keep their mouths shut. Not always, but it is common.
Also, I don’t think the DNA means they are innocent. It just means someones DNA came into contact with her undergarment. But that does not mean Patsy didn’t kill her. There are so many possibilities of what caused that DNA, could be innocent and could even be someone else did something bad to her that night. But that to me does not excuse Patsy.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:03,
Sure. But why did the doctor overlook it in the first place? It takes very little effort to just say "I am referring her to a specialist. Here is the name of the specialist I recommend."

Anonymous said...

Also, I agree the doc could have been as evil as them, however that fact still would not explain why he would not refer her to a specialist.
The fact that Patsy was bringing JonBenet in for all those visits meant that she was seeking medical treatment for the infections. If anything, the doctor not referring her to a specialist could have led to complaints by Patsy about the doctor not taking the appropriate steps to help JonBenet and the doctor could have been disciplined. The only thing that would make sense about the doctor neglecting to help JonBenet by referring her out of his office to a specialist would be if he himself was actually involved in molesting JonBenet.

Anonymous said...

I expect the Ramseys found themselves a doc who would overlook it if they sugested that's the direction they felt was best, there are lots of docs who will listen to patients/parents wishes in making decisions, esp rich parents.

Anonymous said...

there's all types of corruption and persuasion between patients and docs. also maybe doc considered himself qualified to treat without outside help. specialist isn't always one way ticket to solution. ramseys were obvs excellent at getting people in power on their side.

Anonymous said...

Anon, the frequency of the UTIs would indicate something was going on, whether some which required a specialist's input.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I tried to delete part of what I wrote. It should say the frequency of UTIs would indicate that something was going on which requires a specialist's expertise and input.

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt it indicated JOnBenet was being sexually abused by her Father, and no doubt her parents killed her, at least one of them and the other closely involved.

but I also think it's not shocking that a doc did not send jonbenet to a specialist, for one -- I've never been sent to a specialist with a cronic med issue -- I always have to push for more solutions than doc is offering to get a refferal. I don't think docs are quick to reffer to specialists if patient/parent is discouraging of the idea., who's gonna get paid if the doc reffers the patient away? not the doc.

Anonymous said...

cronic ailments can be considered a phase -- eps in kids. the doc could easily have considered himself equipped to handle situation. docs are not selfless saints,

Jen Ow said...

HI Red Ryder, (and others interested in the Ramsey case)...

You guys should check out Steve Thomas' book Jonbenet. I have read several books on the case, (Perfect murder, Perfect town, JohnBenet, and the Death of Innocence) and his is the best. He actually investigated the case, and questioned Patsy when she finally showed up for her interview months later. He details information not widely known, about the INTENSE steps taken by the Ramsey's to derail and hinder the investigation. It is available as an e-book.

He also details how Dr Buef played a significant role in helping the Ramsey's circumvent justice. Buef arrived on the scene almost immediately, and provided medication to sedate Patsy. He later intervened when investigators tried to question her, saying that she was too emotionally fragile and medicated to be interviewed. This resulted in months going by before the Ramsey's were interviewed by LE. I find it curious that Buef showed up on the scene, and interfered with the investigation, especially considering the high number of visits, and his insistence that the Ramsey's were 'wonderful parents'. His actions seem to indicate that he felt the need to cover his butt, anf theirs.

Anonymous said...

I always had this casual theory that Jonbenet was victim of a group of adults. That Ramseys had little horrid sex parties where a number of adults would watch/participate in abuse of Jonbenet. and this explains why somebody elses dna was found on her but both parents speak and act like they are guilty. doctor could have been a regular "guest". It's out there but also maybe no more out there than what might have happened/been going on.

Anonymous said...

Anon said "chronic ailments can be considered a phase--esp in kids". Really?! Where did you get this information?
Could you give an example?
The doctor neglecting to refer JonBenet to a specialist showed profound neglect. UTIs are painful, excessive (40 in 2 yrs?) and recurrent UTIs in a kid is NOT normal. The doctor obviously was not able to handle the situation on his own, and there is way he could have thought he was able to. Do you think by number 30 he was thinking hmmm maybe this kid should see a specialist or do you think he thought wow, these UTIs are under control. No problem with this kid experiencing a very abnormal number of UTIs along with suffering chronic pain, fevers, etc besides the fact the UTI can spread to the kidneys! His not referring JonBenet to a specialist is very suspicious imo. The Ramseys wealth or social influence would not have been challenged by saying I am referring JonBenet to a specialist. This doctor couls have been disciplined or even sued for his neglecting to follow through in any kind of responsible way with addressing JonBenet's ongoing health problems.

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow, Interesting.
The doctor's behavior is profoundly disturbing on many levels. Using SA on the doctor's statements that I read a while ago I saw deception.
The "covering his butt' theory makes sense only if one can explain why he neglected a referral in the 1st place. Referring them to a specialist would not have meant he was accusing the Ramsey's of sexual abuse. It simply would have meant he felt tge frequency required expertise from an expert. His neglect to refer her out of his office points a finger AT HIMSELF. It presents the possibility he was involved in molesting JonBenet.

Anonymous said...

- 4:04 , I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against - or think I am arguing for or against.

in my experience docs have neglected to do much about recurring uti's - i remember in college having a number of female friends who always got them and health services was pretty useless. so my "reference" is just knowing friends to whom docs said this to. that said -- I'm in totaly agreement that the doc should have done much more. And it could indeed mean he was literally a participant in her abuse,. or it could mean he was paid off in some way to look the other way. or simple a bad doctor who realixed he could get in trouble after the fact. it would be interesting to figure out which it was -- if there are indeed indications of direct participation I wouldn't be surprised.

Anonymous said...

Anon, Sorry I didn't mean to misinterpret what you meant. It's a little different with college health services and also if it is a grown woman with several UTIs as opposed to a kid with 40 UTIs returning to her primary care doctor who does not refer her to a specialist.
I am not sure what I am arguing for. I believe Patsy had a relationship with her and JonBenet's doctor which seems to contain elements of Munchausen's by proxy. Does this mean Patsy fabricated the UTIs. No. But the way in which the problem of the UTIs was allowed to persist without any adequate attempts at treatment (involving a specialist) indicates the doctor and Patsy were allowing JonBenet to continue being sick over and over again without ever seeking to address the problem effectively. For Patsy this would mean more attention from a doctor. For the doctor, it suggests he may have been harming JonBenet.
The fact that this doctor made a house call to sedate Patsy raises further suspicions imo of what his involvement may have been.

Anonymous said...

In my humble medical knowedge - based on some real info i'd rather not list out , recurrent UTI's are very tough to treat if they do not initially respond to antibiotics. western med really has no "fix" for recurrent UTi's. specialist or not. if a doctor were to take further action he'd likely have to acknowledge that there may be a deeper problem causing the infections -- meaning abuse. I think for that doc to have taken further action would mean in essense accusing the ramseys of abuse. clearly he should have done just that -- but for whatever reason being neglect of participitation he didn't. but thinking that a specialist could "fix" it with some medecine, that only specialist have access too - I have doubts of that, I think the only way you fix it is stop the abuse.

Anonymous said...

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_0c1e322e-c656-11e3-b27f-0017a43b2370.html

charges dropped against one of fake posters

Anonymous said...

Anon, With my limited knowledge, I must say that I know firsthand from my own experience when I was pregnant, there are ways to address UTIs that only a specialist would be able to help with. There are procedures that can be done by a specialist as well as obviously the specialist would be the one who could determine what was causing them, for example some kind of underlying physical problem as well as a specialist would need to determine which medications, followups etc would be best suited. Because if the risk to the kidneys and the incredibly large number of UTIs either a cause would need to be found or she should have bern given daily antibiotics. The doctor was absolutely jeopardizing her health by not providing a specialist recommendation. It would not be implying guilt on the Ramseys to refer her to a specialist. One important thing to consider is that Patsy was bringing her in for medical treatment. She was not hiding the fact of the recurrent UTIs, but rather readily bringing them to the attention of physician. For her to persistently seek medical attention 40 times means that she is not hiding the UTIs. So, it's worth asking, why was the doctor seemingly keeping the fact of JonBenet's very large number of UTIs confined to only his own office and therefore his own knowledge?

Anonymous said...

ah well - different experience.

one thing i'll agree, UTI's are the devil.

Eliza said...

Has anyone read A.J. Kolar's book "Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet?"?

I found it really interesting and as good as Steven Thomas' one. Kolar was in charge of the investigation after Steve Thomas and he seems to believe that Burke had a lot to do with his sister's death. He claims that the marks on JonBenet's body (who some thought that were stun gun marks) are a 100% match to a toy-train that Burke owned.

Anonymous said...

A little off topic, but over on the SATMAI page which I go to occassionally because sometimes useful info is discussed there is a screen shot of one of the I believe fake texters Garret announcing that tomorrow a paving company is coming to sealcoat an area around Peachtree Landing on both sides of ramp and up to the road. Should they be doing this kind of thing at a crime scene? Perhaps it is harmless, but it does not seem like a very good idea. I don't understand also since that is the place she vanished, the crime scene, I would think the place itself would bring up upsetting thoughts. Why are they fixing it up?

Anonymous said...

wow that IS weird. shes still not found ya they should preserve any chsnce if finding clues. ...... what exactly is sealcoating for? and what is the other site full name?

trustmeigetit said...

I didn't know that doctor came to the home and sedated Patsy. Was he a family of child doctor. That is so not normal. I've never heard of the doctor coming to help the family.

Also not the first time I heard the theory that these parents were involved in really sick stuff.

It's frightening to imagine what JonBenet went through. No child should ever know that fear or pain,

Anonymous said...

Anon it's the "SM and TM Are Innocent" FB page. I checked it out just out of curiosity. Mostly it is opposition not supporters of the page on there, but sometimes good factual info is posted bc of arguments.
I am not sure exactly what sealcoating is but it was the fake texter Garret who announced it and then he was also commenting on the page itself about the sealcoating. I think it is a BAD idea. If that is where LE believes she was killed, it is a crime scene, and should remain as is! Especially there is irony in someone who was charged with interfering with the investigation (those charges were dosmissed for him, not yet for the other guy) announcing the news about PTL being sealcoated. I just do not believe PTL should be touched in any way until Heather is found.

Anonymous said...

It is amazing to me that this is still "unsolved" after all these years. Unprosecuted is my opinion, not unsolved.
One question I have though is about the chronic UTI's. Physiologically, why would sexual abuse Cause a UTI? Because consenual sex doesn't cause chronic UTI's,
The worst thing a person can do is murder someone. I have no problem calling the ramseys murderers. But, I don't think there is evidence to say sexual abuse either. The autopsey denied evidence of chronic sexual abuse. She was abused at the time of her death, but it there was no evidence of that occurring prior to her demise.
Isn't is enough to call them murderers, why the need to say pedophiles too?
I also think its wrong to beat up and the doctor and wonder if he's a molestor too. That strains credibility amongst otherwise intelligent and thought provoking commentary.

Anonymous said...

If one of them are the murderer, and she was abused at the time of her death...

With that being said, I've never followed her case closely, so I don't really have a firm opinion. I'm pretty much just going on snippets that I read here.

I do think it's odd if she had that many UTI's, no further diagnostic testing was done (maybe it was?). I do think it's odd that her doctor gave medication to Patsy, unless that was Patsy's doctor also, or unless there was a person relationship between them and the doctor. I don't necessarily think the doctor was abusing JonBenet, but I do think it was strange for him to not look further into her UTI's, and I think he knows that and was covering himself for not doing so.

Anonymous said...

Anon, There was obviously something wrong and there is a need for much suspicion as JonBenet had 40 UTIs, a doctor who wasn't addressing the problem and who was also showing up at the house to sedate the mother after JonBenet was found murdered most likely by the mother. This is not your average doctor or your average doctor's behavior. My guess is that there was more than one person abusing JonBenet (whether sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse).

Anonymous said...

thanks 10:33. i looked at garrets fb page and hes interesting. he sounds like a reasonable minded guy telling people to stop the online petetions etcand just focus on heather. he also said he doesnt know how two poeople could allegidly fool so many people. i took that to mean hes not convinced moorers did it but that may not be what he meant. anyway i agree sealcoating crime scene is awful idea!! anytime theres feesh cement after girl goes missing i feel like im watching awful lifetime movie about man killing girl and getting whole community to believe hes innocent while they stand over her dead body unknowingly. ya sealent bad idea

Picking at nits said...

@Peter's original post: Casey Anthony was acquitted.

Sorry, this sort of thing drives me crazy.

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Peter:

Wanted you to see this, hadn't seen it anywhere else:
http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/11/three-little-words.html

Thanks.

Love your blog!