John Ramsey's Role

[TLynn]

I agree, Allan. The only thought I have in that regard - is a cover-up...for what? Sexual molestation. Why else would it not appear to be an accident or 911 called or a scenario such as you discribed.

It would have to be covered-up...why?

 

[BlueCrab]

I agree, Allan. The only thought I have in that regard - is a cover-up...for what? Sexual molestation. Why else would it not appear to be an accident or 911 called or a scenario such as you discribed.

It would have to be covered-up...why?

IMO Patsy is not covering up for herself or for John. She's covering up for Burke, and perhaps one or two other juveniles. I think the parents stumbled upon this gory and embarassing killing sometime in the morning around 3:00 or 3:30 A.M., children were involved (although one of them could have been a teen), and much of the bizarre staging had already been put in place by the children. The parents, once they decided to coverup the crime, had no choice but to pick up where the children had left off and put the finishing touches on the staging.

The crime scene, including the amateurish erotic asphyxiation device around JonBenet's neck (which likely killed her by accident), the overkill (strangulation and bash in the head), the size 12 panties someone put on her after death, and the silly ransom note, has children written all over it.

JMO

 

[Cherokee]

I agree that you have done a fine analysis of Patsy's response, Cherokee. Thanks very much for bringing your skills to bear on it. Perhaps you could help me with something else?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage and then decided, as your psycho-linguistic analysis demonstrates, to cover-up her rage killing. I still do not understand why she would have arranged THIS particular cover-up. Why stage a kidnapping/murder to cover-up an accident? As I've said previously, if the accident occurred in the bathroom, then surely one of the best ways to cover her tracks would be to spill water on the floor and come up with a scenario to show that JonBenet slipped. There would be problems, no doubt. The police might even be extremely suspicious and be disposed to bring charges. But the Ramseys were an influential family, and Patsy would almost certainly be able to ride out the storm. Since the Ramseys were, in fact, able to walk out of their house and stay away from the police after the body of their MURDERED and MOLESTED child had been discovered in their house under -- and this is an understatement, of course -- suspicious circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that they would have had no problem doing the same thing for an accidental death scenario.

What do you think prompted Patsy to come up with the kidnapping/murder scenario? Has she always been right round the twist and no one ever noticed? Flying into a rage and killing your child is, unfortunately, "normal" -- sometimes people snap and do things they will regret for the rest of their lives. But would you agree that the kidnapping/murder scenario indicates a different kind of personality altogether? This is someone who is wilfully evil, ice-cold, someone who is able to plan a double-bluff, and then demonstates the strength to deny, deny, deny so successfully that her husband, if he weren't involved, would believe her. (If her husband was involved, then new problems emerge that we don't need to get into right now.) There is, in other words, a profound dichotomy between the perception of Patsy prior to and after the murder; there also seems to be a split between the rage killer and the icy planner of the kidnapping/murder scenario.

As I said before, I agree with and applaud your ability to show how Patsy's speech betrays her. Could you apply your psychological training to help with this? I would very much appreciate it!

There are two things I know about this case:

1. Patsy wrote the ransom note

and

2. Patsy is lying about what happened on the night of December 25th and morning of December 26th.

Therefore, Patsy is involved in the cover-up of really happened to JonBenet.

I do not know that Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage or with premeditated intent. I do not know if Burke was involved, but he may have been. What I DO know is Patsy lied to investigators, and that it is her words and her handwriting in the ransom note.

Let's look at your suggested scenario. It is a valid question. Why would Patsy not call 911 if she flew into a rage while struggling with JBR in the bathroom, and as a result, JBR sustained a fatal head injury?

First of all, we have to look at Patsy's previous behavior and psychological tendencies. Patsy was raised to be image conscious, and to put more emphasis on the "outside" of the person, than the "inside." Apparently, even her home was a testament to that fact. The rooms seen by outsiders were well decorated, but the private family area was unkempt and dirty. Patsy made sure JonBenet had the finest in pageant clothes, and she dyed JBR's hair to make it blonder and put false eyelashes on her toddler in order to "perfect" JBR's image, but Patsy claims she didn't even know the last time JBR had a bath before her death. Everything about Patsy was for show.

An analysis of Patsy's handwriting shows she feels pressure to "perform" in order to be accepted. She craves attention and admiration. She is a perfectionist. She wants to be thought of as the person who has it all. What other people think of her is more important than what she thinks of herself.

Now, WHY would Patsy cover up what really happened to JonBenet? If what happened was an accident, why would she not just call 911 right away? Or take JBR to the hospital?

Obviously, something happened in Patsy's "perfect" world to make it imperfect, and the carefully crafted image of herself and her family was in danger of collapse. At the moment of JBR's death, it seemed more important to Patsy to protect that world than expose the truth.

What was that "imperfection," that truth?

I do not know the answer to that question. It is possible Patsy may have suspected (or known) of previous sexual molestation of JBR, and did not want evidence of that abuse found during a hospital examination.

It is also very possible that Patsy (under stress and alcohol/medication) had some type of psychotic break during a rage event, and made the irrational decision to cover up what happened to JBR, thinking it was necessary to preserve her family and her life. Later, she may have realized it was the wrong decision, but it was too late to turn back.

Obviously, Patsy had motive to cover up what happened to JonBenet if Burke was involved. Not being familiar with Colorado law, Patsy may have thought he could be charged and taken away from them for being involved in the alleged molestation and/or death of JonBenet.

The short answer to your question is I do not know why Patsy (and John) made the decision to cover up what really happened to JonBenet.

It involves some piece of the puzzle we do not have, but it was a decision made in haste and in shock and in fear. The Ramsey family dynamic was one of dysfunction and co-dependency. Patsy's pychological needs were lived out through JonBenet, while Burke was shoved to the perimeter of her attentions. John was a hard-driving businessman who left the details of family life to Patsy. He spent more time with his airplanes than he did with his children.

This alone does not make the Ramseys guilty of anything, but the fact they have tried to portray themselves as a "perfect" family with a "perfect" marriage speaks volumes. They cannot admit there were any faults because in their minds, to admit one imperfection brings their "perfect" image to nothing. Their self worth is based on image, not on substance.

This psychological need helps to explain why Patsy and John decided to cover up the truth of what happened to their daughter. The truth was not as important as maintaining what was left of their lives and their image. In their minds, the deed was done, it could not be undone. They rationalized that JonBenet was in a better place, that she would (as Patsy said) "never know cancer or the death of a child."

As they said less than a week after JonBenet's death, the Ramseys just wanted to "get on with their lives." That statement is a subconscious reference to the reason they covered up what really happened to JonBenet.


IMO

 

[Barbara]

As ALWAYS Cherokee,

Your posts are superb!

 

[BrotherMoon]

Cherokee, have you read The Psalms lately?

 

[Britt]

As ALWAYS Cherokee,

Your posts are superb!

Ditto that. Outstanding, Cherokee.

IMO, additionally, there was a subconscious force at work (in Patsy... a/k/a a mental illness)... and the prior vaginal abuse was also a key motivator in the coverup.

 

[Cherokee]

Cherokee, have you read The Psalms lately?

Yes, I have.

If you are referring to the religious iconography in Patsy's speech and the ransom note, there are several instances of psychological transference and imitation.


IMO

 

[VespaElf]

There are two things I know about this case:

1. Patsy wrote the ransom note

and

2. Patsy is lying about what happened on the night of December 25th and morning of December 26th.

I think those are the only two "facts"(IMO)that I'm 100% on.
It's the "why?" as well as the "who?" that remains a mystery ,

WHY did Patsy write the note and why has she,since the morning of the 26th, been "untruthful" about the events of that morning and the evening of the 25th and then WHO in the household killed JBR???(I belive it was a Ramsey family member and that all the other family members know who the murderer is).........................I also think that,unfortunately,this case,barring a miracle(i.e a confession!)will ,in our lifetimes,remain unsolved................

 

[Cherokee]

BrotherMoon -

I'm afraid there is no "thrilling" acumen. Perhaps another poster can fill your request.

My previous statement needs no further clarification as everyone here is capable of understanding its implications.

 

[Cherokee]

I think those are the only two "facts"(IMO)that I'm 100% on.
It's the "why?" as well as the "who?" that remains a mystery ,

WHY did Patsy write the note and why has she,since the morning of the 26th, been "untruthful" about the events of that morning and the evening of the 25th and then WHO in the household killed JBR???(I belive it was a Ramsey family member and that all the other family members know who the murderer is).........................I also think that,unfortunately,this case,barring a miracle(i.e a confession!)will ,in our lifetimes,remain unsolved................

I agree. Those missing ingredients are what makes this case so compelling.

I used think Patsy might "tell all" before she died, but I now believe her level of denial and rationalization is so great, it will never happen. Perhaps Burke, or some other family member, will tell the truth of what happened after John and Patsy are gone.


IMO

 

[allan]

I'm just curious about something. Please don't think that I think that I think better than any other thinker here thinks. Here goes ...

Why is John Ramsey essentially getting a free ride?

It seems to me that opinion on this forum is divided along these lines:

1) An Intruder (or Intruders) did it
2) Patsy did it alone
3) Patsy did it and John conspired with her to cover it up
4) Burke (or Burke and some friends) did it alone
5) Burke (or Burke and some friends) did it and then Patsy (sometimes Patsy and John) conspired to cover it up

No one seems to suggest that John did it and that Patsy then helped him cover it up. Patsy could still have written the ransom note and lied on the 911 call. She could have helped to stage the crime scene and done the other things that people believe she did. John, however, would have been both the abuser and the killer.

Why don't people think John committed the murder? Americans have a wonderful expression: "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." Vaginal abuse probably indicates sexual abuse. Sexual abuse, whether it be a one-time event or chronic, is "normally" committed by male perpetrators. Most male perpetrators are adolescents or adults. On the face of it, therefore, a very hard look should have been taken at John, and he should still be a prime suspect. But he isn't. Burke and Patsy seem to be the prime suspects. Why is that?

It seems to me that if Patsy had abused JonBenet's vagina in a bizarre form of corporal punishment, she would have been smart enough to recognize that when the police discovered the abuse they also would immediately think of horses, not zebras. In other words, she could have invented the accident scenario and counted on the probability that, after discovering the abuse, the police would have focused on John. Attention would have been diverted from the accident (and hence Patsy) to an investigation of the abuse and John as the probable abuser. John would be in the frame. Patsy would be perceived not only as the grieving mother but as a surviving, quasi "victim" -- particularly if she spoke out against John. This would have protected her and buttressed her public image.

But if, as seems likely, Patsy is involved in the cover-up, why is it still assumed that she killed JonBenet? Why has the belief that John abused and killed JonBenet and Patsy then helped cover it up fallen by the wayside? I really would like to know.

 

[K777angel]

Why don't people think John committed the murder?

John Ramsey was, of course, the first logical suspect for me. Of the 3 other people in the house that night other than JonBenet, her father would be the most likely suspect. When a little girl is sexually molested and there is an adult woman in the house, a young boy in the house and an adult male in the house at the time of the molestation - the obvious suspect is going to be the adult male.

But when more facts started to come out that pointed most strongly at Patsy Ramsey (the note, her fibers in the knot on the cord around the neck & in the paint tote where part of the murder weapon came from, her wearing the same clothing she had on the night before when the police arrived, her time-line of when she 'awoke' and what she claimed to have accomplished in that 22 minute time frame NOT being reaslistic or believable, her trouble with passing their paid-for polygraphs, her lies about Burke being asleep that morning...) - I had a hard time believing that she would completely defend and stand by her husband if he had done such horrible things to her beloved JonBenet.
I did NOT however, have a hard time at all believing that not only SHE - but John would have done anything and everything in their power to hide the truth of what happened if their young son Burke had molested his sister and accidentally killed her.
It is the ONLY scenario IMO that makes sense with everything we know and have watch unfold in the past 7 years.

If it were not for the note that has Patsy's signature ALL OVER it - I would probably give more thought to John Ramsey having committed this crime.
And I suppose it still is a possibility - but remote in my opinion.

There is one piece of evidence though that makes me wonder about John - his black shirt fibers found in JonBenet's crotch according to Mike Kane.
How did those get there? And why?

 

[Wrangler]

I believe John was looked at very carefully in the initial days of the investigation for just those reasons.
Then Steve Thomas came on the scene and the entire focus shifted to Patsy. ST also gave JR a "pass" on being involved in any way with this crime.

Too many people followed Steve Thomas's theory of what happened and who did it, even if they didn't agree on why it happened (bed wetting).
Everyone thought he was the lead detective and should know since he saw the evidence first hand. Personally I think ST saw only what he wanted to see, fixated on Patsy because of her demeanor and way of questioning their questions.

Too many people dismissed that Patsy said she would gladly take a polygraph, as many as they needed, yet John said he would be "insulted" if asked to take one. ST dismissed that completely as well. If Patsy killed her daughter I don't believe she would have instantly said "Yes! I'll take one. I'll take a hundred if that's what you need to move on and look at someone else" (paraphrased).

Only someone with something to hide would refuse to take one or be "insulted" if asked to take one.

John even refused to take one to keep his CEO job with Lockheed Martin. What does that tell us?

 

[BlueCrab]

Very good points re' John being the possible molester and killer.

However, one of the things that eliminated both John and Patsy for me was the childish sounding wording in the ransom note, which to me pointed to Burke.

Probably the second thing that tended to eliminate the parents for me was the circling of the wagons by the entire Ramsey family, including the Paughs. I don't think they would have shielded John -- but would have shielded Burke.

There are many other items of evidence that, IMO, tend to incriminate Burke -- including the behavior of the GJ, the Boulder authorities, and the court following the 13-month investigation by the jurors. I think they solved the case.

JMO

 

[BrotherMoon]

However, one of the things that eliminated both John and Patsy for me was the childish sounding wording in the ransom note, which to me pointed to Burke.

Ya, words like adequate, attache', exhausting, deviation, monitor, hence, particularly, provoke, situation, tampered, devices, scanned, deceive, countermeasures, scrutiny, underestimate, all typical of a nine year old's lexicon. Not to mention the punctuation, especially the commas, only nine year olds can be as accurate as that. And the sentence structure and math such as; "You will withdraw $118,000 from your account, $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,ooo in $20 bills." - Pure nine year old there!

Brrrriiiillliiiaaaannntttt!!!!! as usual BC.

 

[BlueCrab]

Ya, words like adequate, attache', exhausting, deviation, monitor, hence, particularly, provoke, situation, tampered, devices, scanned, deceive, countermeasures, scrutiny, underestimate, all typical of a nine year old's lexicon. Not to mention the punctuation, especially the commas, only nine year olds can be as accurate as that. And the sentence structure and math such as; "You will withdraw $118,000 from your account, $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,ooo in $20 bills." - Pure nine year old there!

Brrrriiiillliiiaaaannntttt!!!!! as usual BC.

Six professional handwriting examiners were unable to eliminate Burke Ramsey as the writer of the ransom note.

JMO

 

[nanandjim]

I...John said he would be "insulted" if asked to take one.... .Only someone with something to hide would refuse to take one or be "insulted" if asked to take one.

John even refused to take one to keep his CEO job with Lockheed Martin. What does that tell us?

Interesting. Anyone with half a brain knows that police need to eliminate the inner circle first. This includes taking polygraph tests. If John refused to take the test, he apparently didn't care that this kept LE from focusing on looking for the "real" killers. This, combined with carrying JB's body upstairs, looks pretty darned suspicious to me. Again, anyone with half a brain, would know not to disturb the body or crimescene. My main thought would be to leave everything intact, so any clue that the killer may have left might be found.

 

[Cain]

If Patsy killed her daughter I don't believe she would have instantly said "Yes! I'll take one. I'll take a hundred if that's what you need to move on and look at someone else" (paraphrased).

Only someone with something to hide would refuse to take one or be "insulted" if asked to take one.

John even refused to take one to keep his CEO job with Lockheed Martin. What does that tell us?

It's not the same to say that you will do something and doing it. You can even brag "yes, I'll do it", while you think "I won't in a biliion years".

Patsy (and John) also told in TV that the would took FBI polygraphs.... and when the moment came, they didn't, making out some excuses. At last, they took private polygraphs, done by an "entertainer" polygrapher with a fake curriculum and a partner who "could chat with vegetables through his polygraph". Well, we all know that.

Otherwise, I dind't know that John refused a polygraph to keep his CEO job. Can you give me sources to that?

---------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion

 

[halycon]

Blue Crab, in all this time why haven't you been able to get a sample of Burke's handwriting to conclude your point? If you had one and found it was in no way similar to the ransom note, would you stop blaming this boy? Or would we ever hear that from you?

 

[Ivy]

I think that most BDIers, myself included, believe that although Burke is responsible for JonBenet's death, John and Patsy staged the coverup, and Patsy wrote the note.

imo