Thursday, October 2, 2014

John Ramsey: Jonbenet, his Daughter, in Statement Analysis


We have published analysis on the CNN interview of John and Patsy Ramsey which is in our archives. 

The Grand Jury concluded:  Jonbenet Ramsey died as a result of child abuse. 

 I agree with LSI that the language shows that Jonbenet was likely a victim of sexual abuse and that Patsy Ramsey knew of the abuse. 

Sexual abuse takes place in all types of homes.  That this was an upper class, or upper middle class home does not discount that sexual abuse took place.  We focus upon the language, which suggests sexual abuse, while the bed wetting and urinary tract infections and constant visits to the doctors also suggests. The sexualized costumes do nothing to eliminate this from our minds. 

Here, we want to focus on how John  Ramsey referred to Jonbent.  This is a specific lesson.

We have already indicated him for deception.  

Parents who abuse their children sometimes struggle with the the words "my daughter" due to the process one must go through in one's mind, particularly in sexual abuse. 

Key is context.

When is she "Jonbenet"?
When is she "my daughter?"
When is she "our daughter"?
When is Jonbenet "she"?

Also, how often will they mention their daughter?  This is another interesting aspect since they were being interviewed about their daughter.  

To whom is given their time?   To whom is dedicated most of their words?

When a child dies due to child abuse, the child, in the ind of the parent, is often now "safe"; that is, no longer a "child" who is at risk.  

CNN Interview:  

CABELL: 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.

He calls the murder a "tragedy" which is not only softer or minimizing language, it is also often something used when something happens that is unintended. A "tragic accident" took place, and so forth.  This is not expected language. 

The Reference:  

1.  Jonbent

In this reference, she is "Jonbenet" who is "safe" and "with God"


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.

Note that John Ramsey wishes to learn "why" it happened, and not "who did it."

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.

No reference to Jonbenet. 

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.

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

He is not "angry" at the murder of his daughter.   No mention of Jonbenet. 

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.

He finished her sentence.  One might, in context, wonder if this was scripted and rehearsed, with Patsy losing her line. 

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 .

He answers with "Yes" which is then followed by "I", "we", "you know" and then settles on the plural only.  The avoidance of the pronoun "I" by the father of a murdered child is unexpected. 

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

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.
It was just very early in the morning, 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.

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.

The "ransom note" was a fake, and it was also foolishly lengthy.  There are many things that would "strike" any father.  Here he feels the need to explain why nothing "struck him in any sense" by two explanations:  1.  He read it very fast  2.  He was out of his mind.  

During the long hours of just waiting around, would he not have re-read it, discussed it, and considered the meaning of the money demand, which matched his bonus?

The answer lacks credibility.  Although it was about Jonbenet, he does not mention her in his answer.  

RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

Here she gives the reason why she ran through the house. Note she did not say they went to search for Jonbenet. 

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

"Checked our son's room" is missing a pronoun.   Who checked his room?  

RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

see above comment about scripting and rehearsing

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

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.

RAMSEY, P: Look for clues I guess.

"I guess" is a weak assertion, yet here, again, we find John pick up her words, as if scripted:

"Look for clues":  

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.

Please note that there are two references in this one answer that are both strongly associated with sexual abuse, the opening of a door, and the turning on of a light.  
The turning on of the light may be a reference to motive (LSI)

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.

He did not call her his "wife" with possessive pronoun "my" in the interview, while Patsy called him "my husband", indicating that Patsy saw her self as close to him, but he did not see himself as close to her. 

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?

RAMSEY, J: Yes.

CABELL: Were you offended by that?

RAMSEY, J: No.

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.

John Ramsey says "absolutely" to the statement that there is a killer on the loose, yet he said he wanted to find out "why" this happened and not "who" the killer out there is. 

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.

Not knowing is repeated, making it sensitive.  
Note that only "if" she were a resident of Boulder she "would" tell her" friends" which is a weak assertion. 
Would she not warn the residents of Boulder, only her friends?

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.

He may be quoting the note; if not, it is distancing language and not expected. 

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.

He  is "going to be" very upset, spoken in future tense, conditional --"if we don't"
He is not "angry" that his daughter was murdered.  He will only get upset if...This very much sounds like a guilty speaker who struggles to condemn himself. 

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

RAMSEY, J: It's nauseating beyond belief.

But not untrue, just nauseating?

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.
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.

Not "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.


41 comments:

Anonymous said...

what if you are asked an absurd question? Or a question you think is not a question as much as a slur?
Some questions do not deserve an answer, let alone a denial. If I were the Ramseys and a reporter asked me if I murdered my child, I'd be like "F*** You". I wouldn't dignify the question with a denial.
A professor once asked/implied that I had cheated on a test. I did not. I thought the implication was preposterous. I did not deny it. I responded with sarcasm. "Yeah, I been cheating all year in all my classes, thats how I got a 4.0. And while were at it, those near perfect SAT's...yeah I cheated on that too" (adding under my breath, you're a moron)

Anonymous said...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/30/WH-on-Secret-Service-Lie-Its-Up-to-Journalist-To-Figure-Out-If-Info-is-Accurate

I wouple love to see this White House statement alalysed. Seems to me he's saying white house lies often.

Deejay said...

As you always say Peter, rereading gives more information.

What struck me this time was the lengthy meandering information Patsy gave right up to finding the note. She gave little information on anything else. Almost to prove "See, I knew nothing". I'm not sure after that kind of shock, I would have even remembered getting up or dressed. (plus she was wearing her clothing from the night before - so getting dressed was important to say. ) I might talk about my shock that I could sleep through someone taking my child. Beat myself up for not waking or hearing something. Wishing time could be turned back. So soon after a shock- I would NOT be able to say my sweet six year old 'was in a better place'. Patsy was so enmeshed with her daughter that all she could say was that she was glad Jonbenet would not suffer the loss of a child- JUST like Patsy herself!!

In thinking about my child, I would probably have talked about the desperate search- Looking outside for clues about a car, even driving the neihborhood, or asking someone else to do that. Combing my mind for people who we had bumped into, etc. I would say to police, 'Please look at me first, I'll tell you anything- then let's get on with finding that horrible dangerous person.'

Patsy's weak assertion that she would warn her friends meant that it was people who knew them that had to worry about their children- not strangers!!!

The jumps in every time he thinks she will 'mess up' the script. For this amount of cooperation- they both were involved.

Vance Holmes said...

This statement reads, "We have published analysis on the CNN interview of John and Patsy Ramsey which is in our archives."

Note the pronoun -- we.

Last week, when Al Sharpton said his civil rights organization, the National Action Network, was engaged in conversations with the White House -- the pronoun "we" was called into question and prompted the following words:

If the White House asked your opinion, would you say "we", or "I"?

[FTR -- The National Action Network includes thousands of people.]

Deejay said...

I would also be agonizing if my child suffered or was scared, as at age six presumably nothing terrifying had ever happened to her before.

Instead Patsy says her suffering is over...

Peter Hyatt said...

Dear Vance,

I had help.

thank you,

Peter Hyatt

Jen Ow said...

Everytime we revisit this case, something else stands out to me as logically foul.

This time, as I read Patsy's long-winded lead up to finding the 'ransom' note, and that it was addressed to John, and how she only got through the first line or so with 'we have your daughter', it hit me....why didn't she assume the note was about JOHN'S daughter, Melinda??

It was addressed to JOHN, and he had an adult daughter who was traveling to meet up with them that day. JonBenet is never identified in the ransom note, so if you were truly stumbling on this note for the first time, reading it addressed to John, and then revealing 'we have your daughter', wouldn't it seem more likely that someone had 'kidnapped' the adult, who's out and about available to be kidnapped, and not the 6yo you supposedly believe is asleep in her bedroom!

However, Pasty describes running straight to JonBenet's room, no mention of any confusion, or question as to which daughter the note is referring to.

I wonder if years later the Ramsey's ever thought that they should have just staged an accident instead of a murder, and called 911? They got away with murder, on a national stage, even after the grand jury indicted them...so if they had staged an accident instead, we probably would have never even known their name.

trustmeigetit said...





I have noticed something while watching the verdict reading in cases where SA has noted deception.

The person on trial….that has shown deception (with SA) and possible guilt often takes that “guilty” verdict VERY well. While those that were later found to be innocent were clearly distraught after hearing the guilty verdict.

Now, there is some difference I think with “pre-meditated” and just pure evil (serial killers, those that do it for enjoyment) vs someone that did it in the heat of the moment. A heated argument, heat of passion etc.

For the likely guilty… It is almost like they were hopeful they would get away with it, but accept it to some degree. They know they did it. They choose it or accept the evil in them.

Where in the other cases where the person snaps, or maybe even cases where they were abusive but didn’t meant to kill…. While they know they were guilty, they still feel remorse or at the least, some regret even if it is only about how they are affected.

I don’t think it’s always the case and I will be watching more closely now, since I do watch a lot of trials on dateline etc… But it’s something that I have started to notice. That sheer lack of total panic when those words “guilty” are read. And as a person who has never committed a crime, a guilty verdict would be my worst nightmare…

Where I think if you can commit murder, that guilty verdict is something you were already somewhat prepared to accept.



I also see John's lack of anger as guilt. Just as in a verdict. If you are truly innocent that verdict would be the hardest thing to accept. You would be out of your mind.




Anonymous said...

Wow, so many red flags in the transcript. Would a parent need to wait for the police to tell them to search every corner of the house for their daughter? An innocent parent would think to do so on their own, there would be URGENCY - your adrenaline would be running to the max.

I agree with Jen, it could have been John's older daughter as the note was addressed to John and said the word "daughter."

Had the Ramsey's staged an accident rather than a homicide, they would have to address the sexual abuse which would been revealed in an autopsy.

Anonymous said...

I've always suspected that Patsy had a lover, whom she would entertain once John fell asleep after taking his nightly sleeping pill. Perhaps JonB woke up, and interrupted them?

trustmeigetit said...

Just an FYI, for those that are still not quite sure…

The maid that worked for the family stated she was sure Patsy had killed her.
Link with the details if you wish to read.

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


There were a couple things I will highlight for those that done want to read the whole thing. The main thing that stuck out to me, if this was true, was the knife. If it was in the closet, it was said the bed was recent wet… mom would have been in that closet and would see the knife.. But I will past it below.

FROM THE MAID

* 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.


* 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.

* An intruder never would have found the door to the basement room where JonBenet's body was discovered. It was too difficult to see unless someone knew it was there, she said.

"I don't believe Patsy meant to kill her. I truly believe it was an accident that just continued,"

Anonymous said...

All excellent observations from the above commenters. I agree the lack of daughter confusion is bizarre, the maid's comments implicate Patsy's involvement, John's lack of anger, grief, or any normal emotion is weird. I agree the first, normal thing is to frantically search the house, the garage, the neighborhood. Why wait until the police say-- look now? Also it stood out to me that Patsy references without need the Susan Smith case and OJ case-- both domestic violence cases.

Anonymous said...

The credibility gap in which a kidnapper sits in the house (in which he has murdered his victim) and writes a long note, and a practice note, is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Pak31 said...

In response to Patsy's comment about JonBenet never having to deal with the death of a child or cancer etc., there was another mother of a murdered child recently who said the same thing. I can't remember who it was or if she was involved in her death. I do find it odd though. Why would you look at your child's death and say "well at least she'll never have to deal with this or that"??? It's like she's making it ok that her daughter died because now she won't have to face bad things in her life? NO, most parents who lose a child say that their son or daughter will never marry or have children or finish college, etc. They look at the rewarding things in life their children wont' do. Patsy almost seems to be making her death a positive thing. Odd. I really wish, of all the cases out there, that this one would be solved. I really would love to know what exactly happened in that house.

Anonymous said...

They PROBABLY killed JonBenet, but I am still not CONVINCED. I wish it could be an open and shut case ending with Patsy did it. Unfortunately, I see nothing in Patsy's language ever that incriminates her FOR SURE. There are subtle things wrong in Patsy's language that don't quite suggest guilt. I feel like the things criticized in Patsy's language, it just depends what lense you are looking at her language with. If you think she is innocent, she will sound innocent. If you think she is guilty, there are subtle things that can be criticized. But I am just not convinced they did the crime. Solving this crime is like trying to solve a rubix cube, each time you think one side is coming together to match or make sense, you find there is anothing side to look at that makes no sense or less sense now that the one side of the cube is making sense. Hence, why the case has never been solved I am assuming!

Anonymous said...

Jen asked

"I wonder if years later the Ramsey's ever thought that they should have just staged an accident instead of a murder, and called 911? They got away with murder, on a national stage, even after the grand jury indicted them...so if they had staged an accident instead, we probably would have never even known their name."

You seem to be asking why did they plan such a convoluted cover up to their crime that led to years of scrutiny and condemnation by others? One possible answer is that they did not in fact choose such a convoluted coverup because they actually did not kill JonBenet. I am not saying I believe they did not kill JonBenet, however what you are wondering is quite relevant as that is ONE of many things about the case that make me personally doubt they did it.

Also, good point about the reaction to the ransom note saying "we have your daughter".

Buckley said...

I agree that that part makes no sense, but if it were true the "abductor" was in the house, it's natural for Patsy to assume it referred to the daughter in the house.

"We love our children. We would do anything for our children."

Why children plural? Why would we even expect this statement?

I read the analysis that Sapir wrote on this interview. It's choppy and concludes things based on too few indicators.

http://www.lsiscan.com/ramsey_s_t_v__interview.htm

Jen Ow said...

I understand why you have doubts, and I agree it's a very complicated case.

I am convinced that the Ramsey's are responsible for JonBenet's death, for multiple reasons. Of course SA, and I've also read several books on the case, including Steve Thomas 'JonBenet', (which is a great one to start with, if you are interested). The only conclusion I can draw based on the circumstances, and the behavior of the Ramsey's, is that they are guilty.

There are far too many things that have convinced me to fully discuss here, but I have debated my Mom on this case for years, and I was finally able to convince her with a few simple questions:

Why would an outside perpetrator write a 'ransom' note (an extremely long one, using paper and pen from inside the home) then leave the ransom dead WITHIN the same location as the note?

(A. They wouldn't...they would have to remove the body to have any chance of collecting the ransom. Therefore the ransom note IS fake, there was no intention to collect a ransom. The sheer length of the note suggests a need to persuade, which also weakens it's veracity.

2. Who has a reason to leave a fake 'ransom' note?

(A. Certainly not an unknown perpetrator, as it is in his best interest to leave the scene of the crime immediately, making his best effort to leave behind zero evidence of his presence. A child rapist/murderer has no reason to leave behind a novel explaining their identity, their motive, their feelings, and their plan.

3. Who WOULD have a reason to write out a virtual script...detailing the identity, motive and plan, of the supposed perpetrator?

(A. Someone with a need to direct the investigators attention toward the 'suspect' described within the note. The Ramsey's needed a way to explain why their daughter was dead from violent injuries, inside their own home. An explanation which pointed away from them, and their son...the only known people in the home at the time of JonBenet's death.)

4. What are the lottery like odds that an outside perpetrator who behaved in such a bizarre and counterproductive way, (leaving the blueprint of his plan, retrieving clothes from the dryer, and new panties from the packaging, using materials from within the home to fashion their weapon, etc.) would just happen to chose the Ramsey's as their victim...people who ALSO behave in such a bizarre and counterproductive way?! (Such as doing the exact opposite of the 'ransom' notes instructions by calling in friends, priests, LE, etc. moments after 'finding' the note forbidding it, lawyering up and refusing to provide interviews to LE for months, but they gave interviews to the media within days of their daughters funeral, performing extensive legal maneuvers to block SOP investigative measures like phone records and credit card/banking records, as well as performing 'counter-investigation measures', such as hiring counsel to interview and speak for, (read: block access to) peripheral family members and friends as far away as Georgia and Michigan to control the flow of information to LE...and on and on it goes!)

Even if I could find a way to explain away the 100's of bizzare Ramsey behaviors, I find it unbelievable that true victims...parents who's child was tortured and murdered in their own home...would behave like they were guilty, and obstruct/prevent their daughter's killer from being punished, unless they had a reason to do so.

Jen Ow said...

Sorry, I forgot to address my response to Anon 12:58!

Sus said...

I agree with Peter and others analysis that Jon Benet was sexually abused by John Ramsey and killed by Patsy Ramsey. Furthermore, in every interview John Ramsey provides evidence that he was disassociated from his family from the time of his first daughter's death. In other words, the happy family they portrayed was false and John didn't have a father/daughter relationship with JonBenet. Patsy showed signs of a personality disorder. But it was important to them that they be seen as a happy American Christian family, even more so after JonBenet's murder so they were not accused. I believe they truly thought their false face would hold up and they wouldn't be suspected. Maybe because they believed it themselves.

Sus said...

Notice when John is asked if he is convinced an outsider kidnapped JonBenet. His answer centers on what a loving, gentle family they are. And that they lost a daughter before. He has a need to convince the public.

This same theme plays throughout the interview. Patsy says America has "lost faith in the American family" and implies that is why people are suspecting them. She then also emphasizes what a Christian God-fearing family they are. Meaning "Look the other way. We're good people."

Patsy's "forever" explanation of finding the note in answer to whether it was three pages long is telling.
1. Hmmm. Long ransom note and who loves to talk?
2. Patsy is slowing down time before getting to the inevitable...finding the note.
3. She repeats that it was "early morning" , each with a qualifier, "quite early morning" "very early morning". Why is this important to Patsy?
4. Patsy can't say JonBenet's name. She ran to "her" room, she pushed open "her" door, she was not in "her" bed.
5. "Pushed open her door" can indicate sexual abuse, and I find it interesting she connects it to screaming for John.
6. She screamed for John yet in other testimony said it wasn't unusual for JonBenet to change beds and rooms. Why didn't the scream wake Burke?



Sus said...

John's take on the ransom note is so unbelievable as to border on crazy. This is one of the reasons I believe he and Patsy were such liars, so false, they had a sense others had to believe their nonsense.

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

John R: "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."

Nothing in a note which says they have his daughter and will kill her stands out to him. Then he remembers his audience (I mean) and gives his explanations (read it fast, out of his mind). Finally, he comes up with one thing that stood out...don't call police.

Remember, the note actually said not to call police or other LE or his daughter would be killed. The first thing John told Patsy, obviously without thought, is call the police.

Notice later in the very same interview, he gives other details from the note he read too fast to recall. When he wanted to prove it was a kidnapping he could say, "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".

Patsy follows that statement with...
"It SEEMED like kidnapping to me."
This is unexpected. What about finding your daughter murdered in the most horrific manner, laying in your own basement, seems like kidnaping? It seems like a loss of your daughter, Patsy?


Buckley said...

I'm not 100% there. I believe Patsy wrote the note. I believe John and Patsy covered up what happened. As for who actually killed her, I lean towards Burke. The Ramseys seem so united in this cover up- and it seemed to strengthen their marriage. I'm far from convinced that 2 such ego-centric people, one who allegedly killed her daughter, one who allegedly sexually molested his daughter, could maintain the united front they did for years. It falls into behavioral "If it were me..." Category thst I try to avoid on here. That they unite to cover for their troubled son just explains a lot of the behaviors to me. The strangeness of how she was killed, the secret basement area, the immature way she seemed to be molested in the end.

The statement of Patsy's that ""We love our children. We would do anything for our children." Reads to me like a confession of cover up.

Anonymous said...

Jen, VERY interesting points.

However, I believe regardless of who wrote the note, that it was written before the crime was committed. The relatively calm tone and length along with the imagination within the note "be well rested" etc. indicate the write was relatively calm and mentally going through the steps that John would have to take to collect the money. In other words the write was too calm cool and collected for it to have been written after the crime.

I believe the ransom note was fake regardless of who wrote it. One possibility is that an outside perpetrator also did some "staging" of the crime, the note being the staging. Perhaps it was to throw off police if only for several hours and allow the perpetrator more time to get away.
The way the Ramsey's reacted in such a way that would have unwittingly "cooperated" with the ransom note writer's intention to bide him more time is certainly an unusual coincidence. And one thing I find very suspect is Patsy's theatrics which goes along with what you are saying that she is guilty.
Patsy, if she is guilty, and she probably is, is a very good liar and so is John Ramsey, and this in and of itself is something that is rare and unusual that BOTH parents would be so diabolical, in cahoots, and such careful and convincing liars.
I do tend to think they are guilty. I would say despite their careful lying, their behavioral indicators make me suspect them along with the many doctor visits Patsy took JonBenet on. Something was greatly amiss in JonBenet's life, and I believe there are indicators Patsy's mothering may have been very pathological. I believe that if Patsy did it it was not accidental but premeditated because one thing I believe about the ransom letter is that it was written before the crime.

Anonymous said...

I find his feeling weird:
"...we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note..."

Eliza said...

Very interesting discussion...
I'd like to offer my point of view regarding why the Ramseys didn't stage it as an accident. The injuries in JonBenet's body could be so severe that nobody would believe that it was an accident. Especially, if she was strangled before the hit in the head (unprobable IMO). Then, there is the issue of sexual abuse. If a ME would figure that out, this would mean trouble. So, maybe they decided to play the "intruder" card and claim that he molested their daughter.

Doubtful said...

I wonder if Burke will finally speak out after John Ramsey dies?

christy said...

Peter, what does this mean please?: "When a child dies due to child abuse, the child, *in the ind *of the parent, is often now "safe"; that is, no longer a "child" who is at risk. "

Eliza said...

Christy, the way I see it, parents know that now that the child is dead, he/she will never be abused again. So, the child is safe, in a better place, where no abuse exists.

Eliza said...

My comment did not go through, so I am rewriting it.

Christy, the way I see it, parents know that now that the child is dead, he/she is not in danger anymore, because there will be no more abuse in his/her life. So, the child is safe, in a better place, where no abuse exists.

arabella said...

I think the parents were involved (I cannot say for sure), especially after reading this. However, what about the prints found on the linen (if I'm not mistaken) that was eventually ruled out from belonging to the parents?
Buckley pointed out that the molestation that occurred during Jonbenet's murder seemed to be immature. I recall reading that it was by a foreign object, such as a pencil. As if the perpetrator was unsure of what to do, but had a perverse interest. This is strange to me, if it were in fact the father committing the sexual abuse.
I realized after reading the SA'd interview, and all these comments, that John revealed something I think was extremely important - >bb<. If John was sexually abusing Jonbenet, I think she would try to hide by sleeping in her brother's room, where he would not enter. This could be a >b<"marble">b< as Peter once said.
I originally wondered why opening doors and turning on lights are references to sexual abuse. After pondering it, I came to the conclusion that it is because these things often would occur in cases of sexual abuse. Take this case, for example - when Jonbenet is asleep in her room at night, John would come in, open her door, and turn on the lights before abusing her.
I have never heard of these recurring doctor's visits, especially about UTIs, since reading this. I would like to do more research on this, to make sure it is a verified fact.

Green Leaf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Green Leaf said...

I think you have made a really smart observation.

Green Leaf said...

I agree. Patsy's reference to Susan Smith was really, really stunning. Why would she bring that up? There shouldn't have been any reason for her to connect that with their loss.

Green Leaf said...

I agree the ransom note was written before the murder.

Green Leaf said...

I agree the ransom note was written before the murder.

Green Leaf said...

I agree. Patsy's reference to Susan Smith was really, really stunning. Why would she bring that up? There shouldn't have been any reason for her to connect that with their loss.

Green Leaf said...

I think you have made a really smart observation.

Green Leaf said...

This is a brilliant observation. I'm surprised I have never seen this before.
Why, indeed, would Patsy Ramsey not first suspect that John's daughter Melinda had not been kidnapped? Especially since she had to believe their daughter JonBenet was safely asleep in her bed.
The only answer that makes sense to me is that the "ransom note" was found inside their home, so she must have been frightened that someone had been inside their home. Also JonBenet, being HER daughter by John, would have been the daughter she'd have been most concerned about.

Pokernoob said...

It was someone much smarter than any of you idiots. The police didn't have to make known all the letter, They could've taunted the killer, draw him out, or get every ones DNA from boulder, if that didn't work, line up all the suspects, Tell them if you confess you will get life in prison without parole, Start shooting them one by one,if no one confesses, then at least you have 200 less pedophiles on the streets.

Harry Worth said...

House break-ins were at a premium, where the Ramsey's lived. A house like theirs would need a top of the range alarm system. The alarm wasn't tripped before they came home or after they went to bed!

Neighbors heard a child scream around 12 o'clock, which came from the Ramsey house.

The Ramsey say they heard no scream.