Thursday, December 17, 2015

Remembering Jonbenet: Analysis of the 911 Call

"I am the mother."   Patsy Ramsey

As we look back to the late 90's, we recall the death of a little girl, and the miscarriage of justice which followed.  

The investigation into her death was presented as evidence to a Grand Jury, who, upon hearing all, indicted both parents, John and Patsy Ramsey of "death by child abuse" in the homicide of Jonbenet.  

The District Attorney, Alex Hunter, had done much to disparage, as well as hinder, the police investigation into her death, instead choosing to consult with the impressive team of attorneys the wealthy Ramseys had hired.  

He refused to sign the indictment which, had he signed, would have had both arrested, and put on trial.  

Alex Hunter withheld his refusal to sign the indictment, bypassing the normal route of justice, depriving the victim of justice.  

The Ramsey team hired John Douglas, retired FBI and author, who gave a profile of the killer concluding that the father, John Ramsey, did not fit the profile of a killer who would have garroted his daughter.  

Jonbenet's garroting was staged.  

In fact, in child homicides, those residing in the house will fit a profile statistically.  Douglas' profile was only of John Ramsey, not Patsy, which was presented to the public also with parsed words:  leaving out information about the staging of the death, the ransom note, and the profile of the mother.  

He profiled from the crime scene, not a psychological profile of John Ramsey.  This very limited profile was:

"...In viewing this crime scene, what type person would do this?" without any consideration of statistics, evidence, and most importantly, the autopsy results of how she died, and evidence of sexual assault, taken together.  In other words, 'what type person would sexually assault and slowly torture?" which excludes fathers.  

The attorneys used John Douglas' late 90's fame as a PR move.  It damaged Douglas' reputation and made crime scene profiling look like a caricature of profiling.  

In reviewing the case, it is good to begin with the 911 call and then on to specific analysis of the ransom note, and then finally, the interviews of both parents.  In this remembrance, we will look at all three, along with the language of sexual homicide, of interest to those who are new to Statement Analysis after the murder of Amanda Blackburn, and will help familiarize new readers with Statement Analysis of 911 calls in general.  

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the missing, and later found murdered Jonbenet Ramsey, 6. 

The Expected versus The Unexpected:

If you did not know where your daughter was, what help would you seek from police?

It is likely that you would demand she be found. 

Is that what the caller here wants?

Is that what the caller seeks?

We view the expected, and when it does not show itself, we are confronted with words that are unexpected.  

A 911 call is sometimes referred to as "excited utterance", meaning that it is expected to come from less pre-thought and more reaction.  This is not something we need to evaluate in analysis.  Even in deception, we view content, recognizing that deception does not come from a void. 

We expect, that in an emergency, the caller will get right to the point at hand.  This is judging priority in analysis.  We note that order indicates importance, whether it is a domestic homicide call, or any statement of importance.  

The context:   kidnapping.

The recipient of information:  law enforcement 

We listen carefully and allow the subject (caller)  to guide us.  

Does the subject ask for help for the victim? If she is kidnapped, we expect a biological mother to use the personal pronoun "my" and to express concern for what Jonbenet is currently experiencing.

 It is Jonbenet who is in need of help.  She needs to be found.  We find it, therefore 'unexpected' for a caller to ask for help for herself, or not to show concern for what her daughter is currently experiencing.  

As this is an extremity in life, pronouns are instinctive and possession should be immediate and personal.  

A distant step mother, or non relative caller might use plural, but not a close relative, such as spouse, and not, at all, a biological parent.  

In the Amanda Blackburn murder, this, alone, brought suspicion upon the husband who refused to speak for himself when it came to the victim.  This is indicative of guilt in some form, such as psychologically distancing oneself, or 'hiding in a crowd', or seeking to 'share guilt or responsibility' with others.  

  Is it a cry for help, or is it alibi building?

"Hello, I was sleeping and the door was open..." said Misty Croslin, showing that to her it was a priority that police know that even before she reports Haleigh Cummings, 5, missing, that police know that she was asleep. 

Does the caller use the words, "I'm sorry" anywhere, for any reason?  If so, it is to be red flagged. 

Child injury or death call:

  We expect a parent, for example, to speak for herself, take personal ownership of her child, and ask for help for the child. 

What do the pronouns tell us?  If the caller is on speakerphone with the spouse, we may hear "we", but if it is one parent, we expect "my" when it comes to the child in question. 

Below is the call placed by Patsy Ramsey, from 1996, when she reported that she found a ransom call.  

911: What is going on there ma’am?

This is the best question:  What is the emergency?  It is open ended and allows the subject to say anything.  At this point, we expect a mother to speak for herself (a missing child is a very personal thing to a mother) and if she is on the phone by herself, the expected pronoun use is:  "I"

"My daughter has been kidnapped!" is the single most important phrase, with gets directly to the point.  Even without the name here would be due to the rush for help.

1.  "My daughter" is expected as this is a biological mother and the child is incapable of self protection
2.  "kidnapped" and not "missing" because she is not "missing" but someone has her because a ransom note has been left.  This brief statement should be heard first.  The very first words of the caller's mother speaks to us:  

PR: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please

The expected:  "My daughter is kidnapped."  We expect to hear the pronoun, "I" early and often in this call.  This is a mother calling and she is missing her youngest child.  Our expectation was the pronoun "I" as this is deeply personal (Solomonic wisdom) for a mother of a missing child. 

We note first that Patsy Ramsey, mother of alleged kidnapping victim, uses the pronoun, "we" and reports a kidnapping; not that her daughter, Jonbenet, is missing.   In fact, the use of "we" has not only alerted us that something is amiss, but in her first sentence, she not only fails to identify the victim but tells us:

Whoever the "we"are,  have a problem on their hands.  

This language puts the focus upon "we" having something.  It is not just the avoidance of Jonbenet, but the words leaving her lips, chosen from the brain in less than a microsecond, put the focus upon two people ("we") who have some issue at hand that they must deal with.  

It is, in fact, accurate.  

Jonbenet does not have a problem, nor any issues, but the people represented by the pronoun "we" most certainly do.  Their ordeal now begins, but Jonbenet's is over. 

She is signaling this in her language in the very first sentence.   

The first sentence is always important and sometimes tells us why the statement is being made. 

This call is not about a kidnapping victim, but a circumstance that is weighing upon the caller, who is joining herself with someone else. 

Statement Analysis of the ransom note shows that it is deceptive; it did not come from a "small foreign faction" and that the writer attempted to disguise herself.  In particular, the unusual and it is improper English:   "and hence" (it is two words that are redundant) was used in it.  It is an unusual phrase and what was quickly found out that it was used at least twice, including a Christmas card written by Patsy Ramsey.  We will explore this in full, later. 

We expect a mother of a missing child to immediately say "I" as the mother of a missing child is going to take this very personally.  We also expect her to say her daughter is missing, but here, it sounds somewhat concessionary or contrived:  "we have a kidnapping" not only uses the weak, "we", but also is a conclusion.  

Question:  Is this rehearsed?  By initially declaring "kidnapping" instead of "my daughter is missing", the reader should be considering that this may be staged. 

We look for her to make a request or demand for specific help for the victim, Jonbenet; not just help itself, or in general.  We expect a mother of a missing 6 year old to use the pronoun "I" as this is very personal and enflames the maternal instinct.  The use of "we" is not strong. 

"We have" does not report Jonbenet missing and it sounds more in line with having an event which is not personal to the mother, but to be shared with others.  

"hurry" is unnecessary, making it 'doubly important'; 

"please" is polite.  We do not like to hear politeness in missing persons or kidnapping cases while it is unresolved.  This is similar to praising of police while they have not been successful.  

911: Explain to me what is going on, ok?

The initial reaction of the 911 operator has caused the operator to ask for clarification because she has not said "my daughter is missing."

We look for the mother of a missing/kidnapped child to say the pronoun "I" as this is very personal to a mother and inflames the maternal instinct:

PR: We have a ...There’s a note left and our daughter is gone

Patsy Ramsey resorts to the pronoun, "we" again.  

The pronoun "we" is often used in an attempt to share guilt. (Dillingham)

A broken sentence means missing information, as she stopped herself.  Why?

"We have a..." sounds like a repetition of the first line, which would suggest rehearsed or coached words.   This means that the operator has already spoken to Patsy Ramsey, the mother, without the mother reporting her daughter missing.  It appears that this was her third sentence which still does not report a missing child. 

 This is the mother of a missing child calling:  we expect maternal instinct to use the pronoun "I" strongly, and ask for help for her daughter, wondering what her daughter must be going through (if she was with kidnappers, particularly a "small foreign faction" holding her.  

Please note "our" daughter is gone. 

The use of the plural "we" is explained by Christopher Dillingham, who states that his research has shown that those who wish to share guilt will instinctively use the plural pronoun, even when speaking only for oneself.  Any parent of a teenager, just like every teacher in school is familiar with this principle.  

Please note that "our" daughter is used when there is a need to 'share' ownership.  This is often seen when step-parenting (or foster/adoption) is involved.  When "our" is used by a family that has no reason to 'share' the child, it may indicate looming divorce.  

A parental instinct to protect is powerful.  Humans are highly possessive, and learn the word "my" and "mine" even predating speech as a toddler.  It is difficult to imagine a stronger bond than mother to child, which is why "my" is the expected. 

Patsy Ramsey's use of the pronoun "we" and "our"  goes against maternal instinct.  

Next take notice that Patsy (the subject) says that there is a "note" here.  This is her choice of wording for the ransom note, and should remain consistent in a truthful statement, unless something in reality changes.  

The reason language changes is that reality changes; with emotions having the greatest impact upon language, especially to cause a non to change.  If there is no change in reality, deception may be present. 

"please" is polite. 

*Note the order showing priority:  the note comes before the daughter.  

Also note that there was a note "left", with the word "left" an unnecessary word giving additional information.  The subject (Patsy) is emphasizing the note.  Why would this be necessary?

Priority:  Here is what we have thus far in the call:

1.  We have a kidnapping.
2.  Hurry, please 
3.  We have a... (broken)
4.  There's a note left

These four things are mentioned before reporting Jonbenet missing.  

5.  "...our daughter is gone."

Question:  Would it take you to point 5 before telling police your daughter was missing?

See:  Misty Croslin's 911 call on missing Haliegh Cummings. 

"There's a note left" is passive language.  Passivity in language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility.  Here, "there's a note left" removes all traces of responsibility. She does not even say "they left a note"

Passivity:  "a not was left" is passive voice, rather than "I have" or consistent with her own plural "we have"; but "there is" is both passive and distancing language and is not expected as this is her own daughter.  

This is a very small signal that should cause investigators to wonder if the caller knows more about the ransom note than she is letting on.  

With passivity we have concealing of identity and/or responsibility.  

As an unknown author, passivity should be regarding the writing of it; this is about its location and something this awful, this personal, and this close, should not have distancing language associated with it.  

911: A note was left and your daughter is gone?

Please notice that "note was left" is reflective language, using the subject's language. The 911 operator reflects back the words and the order. 

The note is mentioned before the daughter which indicates the priority is the note more than the daughter.  For those of you who believe Statement Analysis and know that Patsy Ramsey was deceptive in the investigation, this is a good indicator of what she was worried about:  she must make them believe and she is not thinking about the child, but the note.  As author of the note, it would cause her concern.  

PR: Yes.

911: How old is you daughter?
PR: She is six years old she is blonde...six years old

Patsy Ramsey goes beyond the question; she repeats the answer (sensitivity) but adds a physical description in strange terms:

"she is blonde" rather than "she has blonde hair"; when one is described as "blonde" it is often a view of appearance, like "brunette" or "red head" describing someone who's appearance is of importance. 

This may give insight into how Jonbenet was viewed by her mother, even as the child was dressed up like a sexualized Las Vegas showgirl.  At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child. 

Please note that several pictures of Jonbenet suggest bleaching or coloring of the child's hair. 

911: How long ago was this?

PR: I don’t know. Just found a note note and my daughter is missing

Missing pronoun. 

Patsy Ramsey may not have been ready for this question, "how long ago was this?" as she should know exactly how long ago she found the note.  It should be burned in a mother's memory.  To say, 'wouldn't a mother under trauma lose her memory?' is to seek to excuse.  An innocent mother of a missing child is on high alert, with adrenaline flowing, with clarity and 'fight or flight' responses in 'fight' mode, like a mother bear robbed of her whelps.  

Please note the dropped pronoun:  "just found a note...".  When pronouns are dropped, there is a decrease in commitment.  Recent studies have verified what was taught in analysis for decades:  when pronouns disappear, there is a lack of commitment and more people that drop pronouns are likely to be deceptive.  She did not say that she "just found a note."  She did not lie.  Lying causes stress and here she can communicate about the note without saying "I just found a note" or, consistent with her other sentences, "we just found a note."  The pronouns do not lie. They are instinctive and reliable.  She drops the pronoun and does not commit.  We shall not do it for her. 

She did not want to say, "I just found a note" because it would be a lie.  "Just found a note" does not say who just found it and is a way of avoiding a lie.  We hear this in children who lie, just as we hear it here. 

The "note" is repeated, but consistent from the first mention of it.  It is a "note" that was "left"; this should not change. 

Please also note a change from "our daughter" to the more natural "my daughter".  What caused the change?

A change in language must reflect a change in reality; otherwise it is an indicator of deception:  the subject is not working from experiential memory and has lost track of the words used. 

Is there any change in reality?  The following is critical:  

"our daughter is gone" but "my daughter is missing."

The shared daughter is "gone" but the personal and up close "my" daughter is missing.  

Is there a difference between Jonbenet being "gone" and Jonbenet being "missing" in reality?

Note the word "just" in context may mean "sudden" and refer to time. 

911: Does it say who took her?

The passivity earlier gives a 'gray' feeling to the listener; that is, there is not clear forceful information coming from the caller.  The use of "we", the avoidance of telling us immediately who was kidnapped, and the self censoring all come together to give even untrained ears a warning signal.  

PR: What?

Note that she answers a question with a question.  What is sensitive to Patsy?  The question is "who took her?"  The operator asks this unnecessary question again: 

911: Does it say who took her?

PR: No.  I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.

Please note the answer to the question, "does the note say who took her?"

a.  No, even though it says a "small foreign faction" took her.  
b.  I don't know. 

Note the pronoun "I" is now used. 

Note that the note says she was taken by a small foreign faction. 

Please note that the "note" that was "left" has changed language and is now a "ransom note". 

What has caused the change in language from "note left" to a "ransom note"?

The language, if truthful, should remain consistent, unless reality has changed causing the language to change, such as insurance adjusters see:

"My car sputtered so I pulled over.  It would not start.  I left the vehicle on the side of the road. "

The "car" while driving (even if sputtering) changed into a "vehicle" when it would no longer drive.  You can bet that after it is repaired and running, the owner will call it "my car" again and not "the" "vehicle. "

"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.  It was a "note" and now has changed reversing the trend of the law of economy where we go from longer to shorter.  

"The ransom note" to "a note" is an indication of deception.  Once identified, "a" turns to "the" as articles are instinctive.  By this time, we know that the caller is deceptive

This is seen in time measured in seconds.  She has spoken but a few words and we know the caller is deceptive. 

When something does not come from experiential memory, it is easy to lose track of what words were used, even simple nouns.  Here, there does not appear to be any change in reality, judging by the context. This is a strong indication that the caller is being deceptive about her daughter. 

911: It’s a ransom note?

Please note the reflective language of the 911 operator, instinctively picking up on the change.  It was just a "note" but now it is a "ransom note".  What is the difference between a "note" and a "ransom note"?

The answer is found in reading it.  In reading it, it demands money, but previously, she said, "no" that she did not know, and "I don't know" but by identifying it now as a "ransom note" we have deception on the part of the caller. 

PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please

The subject tells the operator what the "note" and now "ransom note" says.  She is referring to the end of the ransom note now. 

 Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for the victim.  We look to see if the caller asks for help for Jonbenet, herself.  Sometimes guilty people will ask for help for themselves, but not for the victim.  Sometimes the words "I'm sorry" slip into their language indicating it was on the mind.  

911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...

PR: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.

The 911 operator may have been about to ask her if she was the mother. 
Note "please" still does not ask for help for her daughter, who is alleged by the mother, to be in the hands of kidnappers."

"I am the mother" and not "her" mother, or "Jonbenet's mother"which is distancing language from the victim.  This, too, is most unexpected and we ask:  why does she distance herself from her child?

This is a linguistic hint that the mother knows her child is dead by the time she made this cll.  

911: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?
PR: Please.

Who is in need of help?  Is it Jonbenet?  Patsy and John?
For whom does she ask for help?

911: Do you know how long she’s been gone?

PR: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my God Please.

Critical portion.  

Extra words give us additional information.  

Please note the question is answered about how long she has been gone:

a.  No
b.  I don't  

The subject gives two answers; the first is "no", but then she adds the broken sentence, which indicates missing information. 

Pronouns do not lie and are reliable for the analyst. 

Please note that "we just got up" is additional information. 

 What is the purpose?  The time has been sought by the 911 operator.  This sentence, "we just go up" is very very important.  By offering this, it shows that she is concerned with alibi building; making sure, even without being asked, that police know that they just go it:   Attempt to lead police into thinking that they were both asleep.  

She does not say that they were sleeping.  What does the inclusion provoke?

"We got up" would cause investigators to think that "we", John and Patsy, were likely up all night.  There is no reason to offer this information.  Note the pronouns. 

Why use the word "we" when this should be something very personal to a mother, who, if her daughter was kidnapped, would be filled with sole purpose:  saving her daughter.  The word "we" is not expected here, and should be viewed under Dillingham's research:  the sharing of guilt. 

But also note the importance to the caller that the police believe that they both just got up.  

This is not asked in the question.  The operator did not say "were you sleeping?"  It would be presumed that they were sleeping and not that they would be awake and allow their daughter to be kidnapping.  It is, therefore, needless information.  

This sentence is very very important. 

What do we make of needless information in Statement Analysis?  We recognize how important it is to the subject, who included it, therefore, it is vital to our analysis. 

It represents a need to persuade.  It is needless information, therefore, doubly important.  It is alibi building and because it was offered, has suggested that they were up all night.  

Please note that it was learned that Patsy Ramsey, known for vanity, was in the same clothes that morning that she was in the night before at a party.  We have linguistic indication that she was up all night, and then we have the clothing confirming the wording and the need to persuade that in order to "get up" they would have had to have gone to sleep.  She did not say they were asleep and we will not say it for her.  It is likely that they did not sleep that night. 

Question:  Why would a parent need to tell police that she and her husband were asleep during a kidnapping since it could happen no other way?

Answer:  Because they did not go to sleep.  

Note the inclusion of divinity as another signal of concern; one of many.  

911: Ok.
PR: Please send somebody.

Who does the subject want to come out for her kidnapped daughter?  The FBI kidnapping team?  A whole army of police to rescue Jonbenet from the small foreign faction who have her?

Answer:  "somebody" is singular.  What was the expected?  Begging?  Pleading?  Demanding?

"Please find her!   FIND HER!  FIND HER!"

911: I am, honey.
PR: Please.

Note that in this call, there is not specific request for help for the victim.  

911: Take a deep breath (inaudible).
PR: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).
911: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?

(Patsy reportedly said "Help me, Jesus" repeatedly here.  See note below)

It is believed, according to police, that at this point, the call did not disconnect and Patsy Ramsey spoke to her son, Burke, whom she later said was sleeping. Detective Steve Thomas found this vital because it showed that Patsy was lying, from the beginning.  

It is, however, not necessary, as this initial contact with police showed deception. 

In fact, for those new to analysis:  This is an indication of a 911 call that is 'overwhelmingly deceptive.'  It is useful for training as most deceptive callers are not this blunt or readily evidenced.  

Trust the pronouns. 

Pronouns and articles are used by us more than any other words and are engrained within us from the earliest days of speech.  Pronouns can solve crimes all by themselves.  

When parents are seated together, speaking as one, they will use the plural, but in a time of emergency, there is no "sharing" of a child, but maternal instinct, measured in words dating back to the time of Solomon's display of wisdom using analysis, indicate the closeness between mother and child.  

The pronouns bring  initial doubt to the caller's veracity, which then the change of language confirms:

This is a deceptive call to 911 that does not ask for help for its victim.  

She is reported to have said "help me, Jesus" in the background, highlighting the principle that a guilty caller does not ask for help specifically for the victim, and will often ask for help, for herself.  

There is distancing language as the name is not used until asked. 
There is alibi building with "we just got up";
There is priority seen with the "note", having not read it, but then changing it to a "ransom note" which demands payment for a child.  The "ransom note" is, here in the 911 call, sensitive to Patsy Ramsey, connecting her with it. 

The 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey is a deceptive call. 

The first thing you know about the Jonbenet Ramsey case is from the 911 call.  The other, Patsy Ramsey, deliberately withheld information about what happened to her daughter, of whom she has shown an awareness that Jonbenet is dead, and not in need of a mother any longer.  


GeekRad said...

Wow that really is textbook Statement Analysis. I didn't follow the case in any depth, just what was reported in the news. Whatever happened to Alex Hunter?

Unknown said...

Amazing .

Trishapatk said...

I remember the case well and my husband and I always found the statements made by the Ramseys to be "off" - neither of us knew a thing about Statement Analysis but we would compare it to what kind of thing we thought would be more expected. I suppose that is one important aspect of Statement Analysis though. Everything seemed "off" We were intrigued and found it frustrating that more couldn't seem to be found that would point more directly to the Ramseys. The "ransom note" was almost as close as O.J."s blood in the driveway and the victims blood on his socks ... or one of the gloves behind his house ... But technically speaking it doesn't "prove" who committed the crime.
O.J. did everything but sign his name in blood at the crime scene - and got off on technical lack of proof or simply finding obscure ways to cast doubt on the evidence. With the Ramseys there was less evidence pointing directly to them but there also wasn't any pointing away from them. I found it very frustrating and appreciate Peter's analysis now. It helps me see that we were onto something even though it sometimes it seemed as vague as intuitive.

Anonymous said...

What does it take to get Indiana to release the 911 call of Davey Blackburn? I'm guessing it's not like Florida, with the sunshine laws.

Anonymous said...

THAT time of year again?

Wouldn't it just be easier to focus on heat and ac business and convincing others their homes are haunted or the government has an interest in 24/7 surveillance?

Not like stanking around gawking that the Bed,Bath and Beyond for god's sake!

Juliet said...

I think I have not read an analysis of the 911 call until now as it would have removed my doubts as to the parents' involvement, if I had - SA is such an eye-opener. It's so OBVIOUS once it's broken down, that Patsy is not wanting help in finding a kidnapped child. I was one of those who couldn't comprehend that wealthy, seemingly 'respectable' people could be capable of either killing, or covering up the unintended death of their child, or of willingly misleading the police - also, until more recently, I was not aware of the statistical probability of parental guilt in the death of a child. Plus there was the niggle of the unexplained DNA on JonBenet's clothing, for which there must be an explanation, just not one that has been found. The ransom note was always suspect -I can't believe how stupid/gullible I am capable of being. There's nothing 'respectable' about the Pageant scene either; at least it's not only the eccentric, obsessive, competitive mother thing which i thought it was, and which It seemed I would need to be American to understand. Since I saw on satellite TV (whole new worlds) some of what the pageant world is like, and how the poor kids are treated like dolls and playthings, I have formed a quite different view of the Ramseys, though that, in itself, did not convince me of their guilt - more how irresponsible they were in making JonBenet even more vulnerable than such a young child already is, by possibly drawing towards her the attention of paedophiles - that factor seemed to lend weight to the idea that there may have been an intruder in the house, lying in wait, when they returned home that evening. It probably should have signalled just as strongly that there was something not right in the parents' perception of their daughter, John just as much as Patsy, as he allowed his daughter to be made-up and put on display not only for the amusement of his wife, but for the admiration and judgement of strangers, with marks out of ten.

To the simple, often relatively poor and unsophisticated people who seem mostly the sort on the tv show, spending much of their income on pageant expenses, winning seems somehow to bring a sense of 'status' for them, and their children - so one is drawn to thinking, well, they have no understanding of what real achievement might be, or how to nurture their children's real sense of self-worth. it's a sad old world - It doesn't add up, as I didn't think the Ramseys, well-off and influential as they were, would be quite such simple folk, or that the tawdry world of child pageants would find a welcome in their dinner table circuit's conversation, or that Patsy would want to associate with the less successful seeming people who push their children into the pageant circle. Or maybe we have been shown a selectively edited view here, which highlights overweight people on tight budgets, overspending, and bullying their kids to the point of despair, then upbraiding them for not winning (difficult when you're four, have no clue what any of it is about, and nearly passed out from tiredness and toxic overload from the hairspray and make up). I don't know - it's very strange, but as Patsy grew up as part of the pageant scene herself, perhaps she was mentally stuck in it, didn't broaden her horizons, didn't much consider that there were much healthier and worthwhile activities in which JonBenet could compete.

lynda said...

Wow. I had never heard the 911 call before and she really was "guilty" from the get go.I haven't made my way thru your entire blog yet so this is new to me..thanks Peter.

Vance Holmes said...

It's clear that Patsy was lying during the 9-1-1 call and that Patsy wrote the ransom note, but that does not mean Patsy was the killer. The autopsy revealed that Jon Benet had been violated. It was also determined that the child likely suffered abuse at times prior to the night of the murder. There was a lot going on in that house, so I have no reason to pin this murder on Patsy.

tg said...

After watching a 48hours/dateline/2020 (don't remember which) I believed the brother to be the perp. I know he was young but it just made sense to me that the parents united in defending him and covering up the crime i.e. garotte/note. While I know it happens, I have a hard time wrapping my head around one parent abusing while the other looks away.

I've only read PH's recent document on the case.

Deejay said...

There is speculation that Patsy pushed her down the marble stairs, or hit her on the head. The parents then staged the murder scene to hide the child abuse and make it look like an intruder. (Although they forgot critical things like adding footprints in the snow) No real intruder has ever sat in a house and written a 3 page ransom note....

The brother was only 9. He probably did not do anything. Although the parents did not want him interviewed since he could have contradicted their story in places.

Stephanie said...

Peter has done a great job analyzing Patsy's 911 call, but this case has always been like a rubix cube to me. You think you have everything lined up and but oops...that one square doesn't line up. The problem for me with this case is that assuming Patsy did it, and I am very willing to assume that, there are serious logical fallacies that come up.
Let's assume Patsy killed Jon Benet. Now, let's get inside her head. What exactly could she have been thinking assuming her mind works logically? If Patsy thought that she would stage the crime scene, then her mind went into action planning how to stage the scene to look like a sexual homicide by an intruder, and it is clear she went to considerable and disturbing lengths to do just that. OK, so then what happens next? She decides, alright the scene has been staged to look like a sexual homicide by intruder, so what should i do next? I will write a fake ransom note saying Jon Benet has been kidnapped by a small foreign faction.
Do you see what I am asking?
The fact that Patsy would have had a coconspirator in the form of John Ramsey, in other words, she would be running her plan by him makes it even more bizarre/ Why would he have said "OK Patsy, that makes sense. You (or we) have staged the crime scene to look like a sexual homicide by intruder. So next, we won't break a window or do something that would logically support the idea of an intruder looking to commit sexual homicide, or something, anything that will contribute to supporting the idea that an intruder came in looking to attack Jon Benet, we will instead write a ransom note saying Jon Benet was kidnapped by a small foreign faction.
Peter's analysis of the case has always been excellent. However, I just can't make sense of it being done by one of the parents bc I don't logically understand how or why they would have come up with such a bizarre plan to try to cover their tracks. What they allegedly did makes no sense!

tg said...

"The brother was only 9. He probably did not do anything."

unfortunately, it happens.

tg said...


"Peter's analysis of the case has always been excellent. However, I just can't make sense of it being done by one of the parents bc I don't logically understand how or why they would have come up with such a bizarre plan to try to cover their tracks. What they allegedly did makes no sense!"

unless they're covering for someone they both care a great deal for...just my thoughts.

Boston Lady said...

Jon Benet was such a beautiful little girl. Her last moments on this earth were horrific. I saw a follow up with Barbara Walters when she interviewed the father. He maintains his & Patsy's innocence. Statement analysis shows otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I started following SA just recently. I found this blog because of my confusion on Amanda Blackburns murder. I am now addicted! This is the first time I am posting, and it's a little scary:)! Haha! But anyways, I actually had 2 of my kids go missing. It was the scariest time of my life. My daughter was 6 (she has Down's syndrome) my son was 2. They were missing for 1 hour and 45 minutes. I don't remember if I called 911, or my sister. I was just going crazy looking. But when the police got to the house they "detained" me. Not with handcuffs, but they would not let me search for my kids anymore! It was horrible! Thank God, they brought search dogs and found them (in the river:() straight away! I heard the call on the officers radio "victims found, alive". I literally hugged and kissed! The officer beside me! Haha:). I don't think I called 911, because I was running around the neighborhood looking for my kids, but if it was me on the phone they would not hear a call like this. It would have been screaming "my kids are gone, I saw them 2 minutes ago, they are gone! Help! Help! Help!" Screaming!! I had no voice for 5 days after this happened. And I still get tears when I think about it. The kids are grown and healthy now. But I still pause an thank God that day didn't turn out different.

JenB said...

I am so glad you had a happy ending! How awful!

Stephanie said...


Even if they were covering for Burke (I am open to that possibility also) I still struggle to understand why the actual plan they came up with made no sense. The staged sexual homicide has nothing to do with a ransom note, so why would their brain's come up with such a contradictory cover up?
Please tell me someone else wonders this.

If they were staging one thing: sexual homicide, why would they then write a kidnapping ransom note?
I am just wondering if anyone has any insight into the logic of doing that? What were they thinking? If they were staging one thing (sexual homicide) why would they then fabricate evidence of a kidnapping?!
Of course, it makes no sense that an intruder would do this either. Even had the intruder committed homicide, it makes no sense to after (or before) write a kidnapping ransom note.

This is what I mean about this case being a rubix cube. There is no way to understand what happened in the house. Whether homicide by parent or intruder or brother.

The ransom note itself is another rubix cube.
Many times I have looked at it it seems a teenage boy/young adult man must have written it.
Other times, an old man as some of the expressions are outdated.
Other times I can hear hints of a woman in the note.
Some people believe the note was written by 2 people.

I just don't pretend to understand what happened in the house. I don't understand it.
Peter SA has convinced me Patsy wrote the note and had involvement in the murder. I just struggle to understand the "plan" they came up with to try to cover up Jon Benet's murder or accidental death.

Unless the murder was actually premeditated by Patsy and the murder committed by Patsy and the ransom note and staging were both designed to get Patsy as much attention as possible: first attention for a kidnapped child and then attention for a child who was brutally and gruesomely murdered. But even then, I fail to understand how in the world Jon Ramsey casually went along with the coverup plan?

This case just has never made sense to me.

mom2many said...

The staged homicide does not point to an intruder. The note is intended to lead investigators away from the family. Possibly, the homicide was staged, then the stager thought better of it. She put her in the most remote area of the house she could find at the moment and wrote the letter. Maybe the next stage was to remove her from the home, but the plan got interrupted when her body was prematurely discovered.

Stephanie said...


I could understand why Patsy would put Jon Benet in the most remote corner of the house and wrote the letter planning on getting rid of the body. But again in this instance, the rubix cube squares don't line up because it does not make sense that Patsy put Jon Benet in the most remote corner of the house planning on getting rid of the body while she wrote the ransom note to make it look like a kidnapping AND STAGED the crime scene in that remote corner to make it look like a sexual homicide.

I've wracked my brain on this case, and every theory, every angle, the squares almost line up on the rubix cube but they don't quite.

Stephanie said...

I do think Peter is right in that I do think Patsy penned the note.

It is hard for me to believe that the note was written after the murder, because the letter is written so calmly and the length of it itself indicates the writer was calm cool and collected when they wrote it.

I do find that the writer of the note can be seen to be many things, but one of them is immature. The stupid phrases from movies and even the idea that the kidnappers were a "small foreign faction" seems quite immature and unconvincing.

What if it was all 3 of them contributing to the content of the note: Patsy, John and Burke???

mom2many said...

What I was trying to say is that she realized AFTER she staged a sexual homicide that it would not provide the solution she needed. So she scrambled but couldn't complete the second plan before people started stirring. Maybe Burke woke up, couldn't find his sister and forced the need to call 911 at that point? I don't know, but you are right the pieces do not fit to a cohesive single plan. They might fit if one plan had to get scrapped for another.

elf said...

John accidentally killed Jon Benet. He was still up after Patsy and the kids were in bed and he was up before everyone else. Patsy helped him cover it all up because of the money and (to them) image is everything.

mom2many said...

The Ramsey case always reminded me in some way of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. There were rumors that Lindbergh accidentally killed his son, and hired the coverup. Maybe the Ramseys thought they could hire someone to dispose of Jonbenet, but the execution of the plan was interrupted. If she had been found outside of the home, there would have been a lot less speculation the Ramseys were involved.

sha said...

"I'm the mother".......the mother.......who says that? (I've heard it before, rarely, after someone has died, but while alive isn't it usually.....
I'm HER mother!!

Anonymous said...

I read a very interesting book a couple years ago on this subject. Patsy walked in on John sexually molesting JonBenet and flew into a rage hitting JonBenet over the head with a heavy object causing a large skull fracture which was present on autopsy. John hid the body and Patsy then wrote the note and John covered for her as he did not want to be outed as the child molester/pedofile he was. They each kept the others secret. Patsy took it to the grave. Sick...sick...sick...
Peter totally hit the nail on the head on more than one spot in his analysis that is for sure.

Stephanie said...

I dunno. If Patsy walked in on John sexually molesting Jon Benet and hit her over the head with a large object killing her, would it really then follow that she would then stage the scene to look like a grotesque sexual homicide?

Then, to address the other theory that Patsy staged the sexual homicide but realized that plan wasn't going to work, would logic then dictate that to solve that problem, she would leave the scene staged as a sexual homicide (the very thing that she realized wasn't going to work) and go write a kidnapping ransom note as if that somehow would remedy the problem?

I am 99% sure the parents did it. SA certainly points to that. But there is no logical way to explain what happened, nevermind that both parents would have almost certainly been involved.

Keep in mind Patsy was wearing the same clothes from the night before, which actually clears up nothing, because if John had killed jon Benet as Patsy slept it makes no sense she is wearing the same clothes. However, if Patsy was involved in killing jon benet and staging the scene, one would think that she WOULD have changed her clothes.

There is no way to make sense of this case, any clue that seems to "reveal" what "really" happened only presents another problem.

What of the pineapple Jon Benet ate shortly before her death that was out on the table?

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

If you have never seen this documentary on the Lincoln S&L coverup and Larry King (NOT the talk show host), I highly recommend it:

I believe it is directly relevant to the JonBenet case. There is a powerful network of cultic pedophiliacs in the defense and intelligence world of which the Ramseys are a part. Think of the recent scandal in Britain involving MI6...funny how that has just disappeared from the headlines, isn't it? Or the case involving the Belgian operative about 10 years ago.

The word "foreign" in the ransom note has always stood out to me. It is so weird and unnecessary and seems to me to indicate deception. I suspect the "faction" is not foreign at all but domestic.

The other clue is Patsy's reading of Psalm 57 at the funeral:

"Have mercy on me Lord, have mercy on me..."

"...I am in the midst of lions;
I am forced to dwell among ravenous beasts—
men whose teeth are spears and arrows,
whose tongues are sharp swords."

Who are the "ravenous beasts" of which she speaks? She is dwelling among them.

As with the Larry King/Lincoln case, powerful people seemed to be running interference in the judicial system behind the scenes. If the Ramseys had been indicted, they might have exposed the extent of their network.

I wonder if we will ever hear the truth from Ron Hunter. I know that he lost his own son years later in a drug overdose. Frankly, I found his statements to the press after that case to be a bit bizarre as well.

andrew said...

By the way, that documentary ("Conspiracy of Silence") was produced for the Discovery Channel. It was scheduled to air in May of 1994 but was pulled a the last minute after pressure from powerful DC politicians.

Samantha V said...

I've been following this case since it was just a small blurb in the December 27, 1996 Denver Post. I've read every major book about it and followed the Websleuths threads over the years. In my opinion, the best book out there is the 2012 "Foreign Faction" by A. James Kohler.

In that book, Kohler, the lead investigator on the case for a few years after it went cold, outlines what he came to believe after looking at all the evidence. The reader does have to wade through a lot of Kohler's own personal narrative about how he came to be involved in the case, and Kohler does begin with what seems like a full blind embrace of the intruder theory. But eventually, as he describes his review of hundreds of binders of evidence, his actual beliefs are revealed. He never comes right out and states what his theory is, but it's easy to read between the lines.

Peter's more recent post about co-occuring deception would account for the peculiarities of both Ramsey parents' statements and behavior after their daughter was killed. Kohler's bottom line is that almost-10-year-old Burke was the culprit. In Kohler's view of events, there had been some ongoing aggressive "doctor playing" between the siblings. On the night she was killed, the brother and sister had been running around playing (and snacking on pineapple) when they were supposed to be in bed. At some point, they were goofing around in the basement, where something happened and Burke smashed JonBenet over the head with a large Maglite flashlight. Patsy came upon the scene and engineered most of the cover-up. John was complicit with her at some point.

In my view, this is the ONLY version of events that makes complete sense. Although many people reject the idea that a "9-year-old kid" could have done something like this, the reality is that Burke was not a "little" boy. He was just a few weeks from turning 10, and in one of the last pictures of the two siblings together, it is obvious he towers over JonBenet. He had the strength to deal the blow to her head, especially if he was trying to get her to "play doctor" with him again and she was resisting and he smacked her with a flashlight.

Also, this theory is the ONLY one that accounts for the unusual unity between the parents. Even as the case was unfolding in real time, I always thought the Ramseys' body language toward one another was one of the pieces of evidence for their innocence. They always seemed so united together. Patsy was not some wimpy little woman. She was forceful and even a little histrionic. JonBenet was her most precious possession. There is simply NO WAY she ever would have hung in there to cover up for John if he'd been the molester/murderer. Likewise, John never seemed like the type of guy who would have stuck by Patsy until her death if he knew she had killed their daughter. The ONLY thing that would unite the two of them like that would have been their desire to save their remaining child.

If you are interested in this case, read Kohler's book. Hang in there through the boring parts, and you will be rewarded with an explanation (although oblique and between-the-lines) that finally accounts for everything, including the parents' weird behavior and language. Yes, they were both deceptive. But on key points, some of their adamant statements had the ring of truth, because they did not actually kill or molest their daughter. They were covering up for their son. Patsy was so consumed with image that she could not bear to let the world know what was really going on with Burke. And John preferred it that way too.

Sus said...

Thank you, Peter. I always like to read your Ramsey analysis.

With John Ramsey's latest interview (with Barbara Walters) I'm leaning towards it was all Patsey and John covered for her after with the attorneys and his money.

The interview mainly covered protecting Burke and how John lost his money.

Then this gem from John, " I think we will have two ways that will happen. It will either be a DNA match or someone who knows something will become angry or bitter against this person and will tell."

I think it's John himself, who works so hard not to become angry and bitter "against this person."

rob said...

My personal opinion is: that Burke childishly hit her in the head with the flashlight and killed her. The parents knew that an investigation would uncover her prior sexual abuse by the father. Patsy, not wanting the family secrets to be in the news, cooked up the cover up, taken from her mystery novels. But the whole thing went too far, making it not feel right. As for John, Patsy was a former beauty queen, so was Jon Benet, now he is married to a pageant costume designer, so he definitely has a type.
If this happened now, with all the other cased of missing children, I'm sure they would have disposed of the body and called police and reported her missing, instead of hiding her in the home. It would be hard for me to dispose of my child, even if another of my children had accidently killed her. But no way could I have placed that rope on my daughters neck.
All that said, I think it was an accidental killing, but due to other factors, they couldn't just call 911 and report it. Much the same as I don't think Casey Anthony purposefully killed Caylee, but did something stupid and caused her death, and couldn't just report it because of what she had done.
That's my theory.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


you're welcome.

Did you see difference in this compared to 2011?

Nothing here on the blog (well, almost) is exhaustive analysis. It would be much too long for readers and many of the minor points would be of little interest to them. It's fascinating:

some tiny minor seemingly insignificant word, or even a single letter, can get a group of a dozen professionals thoroughly engaged in lengthy discussion and debate, while outside of this world, it means little


things here, in this world (blog) among regular readers can be a single pronoun ("for us, we have nothing to hide") leads to weeks of internal discussion and debate, while to the outside world, it is, "yeah? so what?", with a big yawn.

There are those here who have not had formal training but do solid analysis. What I look for, personally, is their ability to be flexible, open, and self challenging.

Those with 'lesser open minds' and prickly feelings will not improve with formal training. Some refuse to see their own projection (something we all do) or are blinded by agenda, or simply grew up in an environment where criticism was rarely helpful, but mostly detrimental, and they struggle with being 'wrong' on any point.

These (the strugglers being 'wrong') actually can do well in formal training because they are put at ease because professionals in this line of work are always 'wrong' on any given point, as they allow the statement to guide them.

'this feels like distancing language' is met by,
'this is quite close up',

leaving one of the opinions to be off, yet being (here is the key) comfortable with an unsolved picture.

The rush to, "just tell me, is he lying or not?" is the bane of good work.

2015 has pushed me, personally and professionally, to deeper work and there are some small points in the Ramsey 911 call that I wanted to add to, but wondered if it would be of value to most readers. I am hoping that readers will be familiar with this BEFORE the Blackburn 911 call is released.


Sus said...

I thought as much. If the Blackburn call is released, that is.

Do you see similarities in the two cases overall? I do. It's the religious fatalism and control issue.

I'm beginning to look at Patsy as a Davey Blackburn. I plan to take a look at the ransom note again...this time from her religious views.

rob said...

I think what always struck me about Patsy was she was always pissed off. Always.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie said:

Peter's analysis of the case has always been excellent. However, I just can't make sense of it being done by one of the parents bc I don't logically understand how or why they would have come up with such a bizarre plan to try to cover their tracks. What they allegedly did makes no sense!

**What you say is true, but on the other hand - exactly for whom *would* the bizarre plan make sense?**

Anonymous said...

Stephanie and Anonymous 1:27 PM,

Stephanie, I agree. It does not make sense. It is hard for us to understand what goes on in the minds of a criminal or sociopath. We use logic where there is no logic.

I don't believe what happended to Jonbenet was planned. It was most likely a situation what was escalated out of control. When in a panic, people generally do not do logical things. Their brain is on overload.

That is what makes it so hard for logical people to come to terms with horrendous acts by family and loved ones.


BB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Samantha V said...

The cover-up has Patsy written all over it. She had fairly high ideas of her family's importance and had bragged openly in Christmas letters about John's company's sales revenues. By all accounts, Patsy was the type of person to A) believe they were wealthy enough and had attracted enough attention to warrant a kidnapping; and B) write an overly lengthy, overly dramatic ransom note.

The ransom note's phrasing and even the way it is laid out on the page bear a striking resemblance to how Patsy phrased and formatted her writing prior to the murder. There used to be a site out there that had photos of the ransom note side by side with samples of Patsy's previous writings, and you could practically superimpose them over each other, so exactly did they line up in terms of how the paragraphs were indented, the fact that the paragraphs WERE indented to begin with, and how the salutation and closing were positioned. I can't find the link to that site, but another site with equally convincing statistical analysis is this one:

When you take all of that together, it seems glaringly obvious that Patsy wrote the note. And if she wrote the note, then she was involved in the crime in some capacity.

Anonymous said...

I think people are over thinking the whole scenario, making it to complicated. This is what I think happened. I think John was molesting JonBenet and had been for quite some time as the autopsy showed. Some think Patsy knew. Whether or not she knew, she walked in on John molesting JonBenet that night and flew into a jealous rage. She had come to think Jonbenet as competition as she was a beauty queen now. She hit JonBenet in the head with a very heavy object (flashlight) causing an enormous skull fracture. That was also in the autopsy report as was pineapple being found in her stomach. Whether or not she was dead after the blow to the head we will not know but she was also strangled to death and hide away in the depths of the basement. I believe that after Patsy killed JonBenet with the blow to the head she had John take the body and hide it as she started the ransom note. I believe they both thought the note up but Patsy was the author and it was in her writing. It was such a bizarre, confusing letter as their daughter had just been murdered and they had to write a ransom note. Can you imagine? Patsy was so busy doing the ransom note that she did not have time to change into a new outfit before the police got there. They made sure that they had a house full of friends to contaminate the scene of the crime all day before JonBenet's body was brought up from the basement. John would never tell the police Patsy killed Jonbenet as long as Patsy never told the police that he was molesting Jonbenet. Quite a sickening deal they had with each other if I am right.

Sarah Highcove said...

Peter I would truly appreciate further analysis around the note and this case in general. I've read your previous postings on the subject and now that so many new folks are posting comments and giving feedback it would be very interesting to learn more!

aud said...

Molestation, bedwetting and amphetamines don't mix. Patsy is the female version of Green Beret murdering Dad, Jeffrey MacDonald - altho' he battered the wife to death as well. This case complicated by the conspiracy of the molesting father John. I've always wondered how involved (if at all) the spouses of Paula Sims and Darlie Routier were?

I've never doubted the complicity of John Ramsey.

Anonymous said...

My stepson has mental health issues that were either caused by or exacerbated by extreme abuse he suffered by his step father. He was a danger to my youngest 2 children and could not be in a room with them unsupervised. When he was 10, he tried to stab my 7 year old son. When I had my daughter, his therapist told me and my husband that it was unsafe for him to be in our home due to things he had told the therapist in their session. I think it is possible that it was Burke. I think it's possible that the one that was being molested by John was Burke and he in turn, abused Jon Benet. It would explain the fact that both parents were involved in the cover up. Not that they were trying to save Burke, but because it would expose them all.John would be poured as an abuser, Burke would be looked at as a monster, not a victim, and Patsy could not tolerate not being perfect.

elf said...

Mark McClish did an excellent analysis on the supposed ransom note. Just Google his name and then Ramsey ransom note.

Ali said...

We look for the unexpected.

The ransom note repeatedly warns the Ramsey's not to talk to anyone, or Jon Benet will be killed.

The ransom note says the Ramsey's are being monitored closely for any interaction with police, FBI, even stray dogs.

It is unexpected that Patsy does not warn the police about this caveat. Most unexpected.

Anonymous said...

Excellent! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

The first and most unexpected reaction (to me) is Patsy's call to 911. She does not initially have the panic or hysteria in her voice that a mother would have who has just discovered her beloved child missing. She is sitting there reading a threatening ransom note and is not hysterical?!

I don't care how composed some people might portray themselves to be; this is not normal behavior for the mother of a little girl who is suddenly missing from the home and the mother has no idea where her child is or what she could be going through, or whether she is dead or alive? No way. ABB

Ali said...

It is unexpected that Patsy doesn't mention it during the 911 call, I mean.

The ransom note was very clear and specific. You are being watched. If you contact the police, we will know and Jon Benet will be murdered.

Why didn't Patsy tell 911 that?

Anonymous said...

The next thing I noted was Patsy's "Help me Jesus." Normally, there wouldn't be anything questionable with asking Jesus to help you, but Patsy was not asking Jesus to help JonBenet, she was asking Jesus to help HER. What about helping JonBenet?

I don't think I would be so much thinking about asking Jesus to help me as I would be begging Jesus to help my daughter! But this was not Patsy's prayer. ABB

Anonymous said...

This is a very good question, Ali. The only viable answer is because Patsy already knew there was no real threat possible in the fake ransom letter? ABB

Stephanie said...

How could anyone have had the composure to compose that note complete with specific details about how to deliver the money (the individual was sitting there letting their imagination wander) and numerous cheesy expressions from movies. This is not a panicked mind that wrote the note. The note seems like it was written in a creative writing class by a bad writer.
I believe Patsy wrote the note before the murder, and therefore I believe the murder was premeditated.
Also, the head injury Jon Benet received would have required an incredibly hard blow to the head with a heavy object. The skull fracture she received was profound and very large. It is not something that could have happened accidentally or with a flashlight.

Elizabeth Norway said...

I have always thought her name was so strange, and did not fit with the glamour and beauty contests they dragged this child through.

Is Jon a girls name in USA? What about Benet?

Lizyanbudy said...

Jon isn't typically a girls name in the USA. JonBenet's father is John Bennet Ramsey. Her name is a variation of his.

Eliza said...

Is it too much to hope that this case will eventually be solved and that justice will prevail?

Probably yes... But, I still have some hope. I can't forget this case and I always think about JonBenet during the Christmas season.

Thd 911 call is so telling! There is no doubt in my mind that a member of the family was responsible for this. And Patsy did write the fake and absurd ransom letter IMO.

LC Colorado said...

I live near the old Ramsey house in Boulder. I think about this case every time I drive by the area. (a bit of remodeling and New house address numbers were put in place by the subsequent owners of the property)
It sure didn't take long for the Ramseys to move to attempt to escape the constant scrutiny. I wonder what became of Burke, and if he Ever shared Any comments as he got older.
There has been Such a flurry of 'official' statements to Disprove the involvement of the immediate family (and other Known parties) over the years - to help clear the family from being "under the Umbrella of Suspicion".
I trust Statement Analysis more than the reported DNA evidence in this case.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps someone was hired to "kidnap" her so they could launder a large amount of ransom $. Also Patsy seemed to crave high profile publicity for her daughter, it could have been for the publicity of a "Christmas Miracle" of her being returned alive.

Either the ransom note was prewritten by Patsy, she wrote one because the person didn't leave one as arranged, or she wrote it as an afterthought. It could be they thought she had been taken from the house, but instead the person had molested her in the basement and either deliberately or accidently killed her and fled.

Also was DNA ever done on the brother to rule him out? Even if they didn't have his to compare it would have shown as a close relative to Jon Benet's DNA.

Vance Holmes said...

Brother Burke was never connected to this crime in any way -- and he was never a suspect. Perhaps the boy tied into the bizarre family dynamics that led to murder, but no evidence indicates his direct involvement. He is another victim of this crime. In fact, I recall it was put out that -- like his sister -- Burke had also had bed-wetting issues.

Anonymous said...

I thought from the start Patsy did it & I still do. She was jealous of Jon Benet as she was the shining star & not the old hag ex beauty queen who lost her looks. The brother had nothing to do 27th it, Patsy killed her & John helped cover it up. jmo