John Ramsey's Role

[Cherokee]

TOM HANEY: "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember my voice just cracking. I mean it was like JOHN, like that. I mean like, I can't even, you know, I hear my scream and I hear his scream WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just --"

Now, without all the padding, let's look at what Patsy DID say.

I remember my voice cracking ... it was JOHN ... I can't even hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement ... it was a horrible thing.

Patsy says her voice is cracking when she calls for John, and she can't even hear her scream ... but SOMEHOW John hears her. And before he even knows what has happened, or why Patsy is yelling for him, HE IS SCREAMING TOO.

Cool, contained, CEO John Ramsey breaks out into screams just because his wife has hollered his name?

If John is screaming, he must have had a reason other than Patsy yelling for him. And this brings up what BlueCrab has pointed out ... Patsy saying "when he came up from the basement." Did John find something in the basement that made him scream?

Some Ramsey defenders have said that Patsy meant to say, "when he came up from the stairs." But that still does not make sense. Why would John start screaming at the bottom of the stairs?

"My what a tangled web we weave ..."



IMO

 

[Shylock]

"I hear my scream and I hear his scream WHEN HE CAME UP FROM THE BASEMENT. I mean it was just a horrible thing. You know, it was just --"

I think all of you are reading this wrong. Patsy is refering to John's screaming when he brought her body up. She can still hear (in her mind) her own scream when she found the note and in her mind she can still hear John's scream when he found the body.

That's what she is saying, NOT that John was in the basement before the 911 call and came up screaming. What the hell would he have been screaming for at THAT time? If anything, he would have been calling out JonBenet's name.

 

[Show Me]

Wow Cherokee! Excellent points! I especially like Patsy's answer to Steve Thomas's accusation she wrote the note, on LKL, "When did I write the note? Before or after I killed Jo.." Not 'When do you think I wrote the note?'

Anyway Allan... I don't know if John was involved from the beginning or not. All I know is by the time the cops had been there awhile John goes upstairs, grabs binoculars, sees what he calls a suspicious van. He watches it a few minutes, sees no activity around the van for the few minutes. DECIDES even though his daughter was kidnapped by a foreign faction, and there is a suspicous van in the alleyway, he does NOT tell the police!!!!!

Why? What non activity in a couple of minutes, makes the unknown van harmless? Why not have the cops check it out and make sure his daughter isn't in the van? The note said John was being monitored by the kidnappers....

Also John goes downstairs to the basement to look for clues, sees the broken window raised up. (The same window John entered the house when he forgot his house keys) Shuts the window and leaves and NEVER tells the cops!

Either John was the most idiotic CEO on the face of the earth....OR....he didn't really want to help the cops find his daughter...because he was involved!

 

[BlueCrab]

I think all of you are reading this wrong. Patsy is refering to John's screaming when he brought her body up. She can still hear (in her mind) her own scream when she found the note and in her mind she can still hear John's scream when he found the body.

That's what she is saying, NOT that John was in the basement before the 911 call and came up screaming. What the hell would he have been screaming for at THAT time? If anything, he would have been calling out JonBenet's name.

Shylock,

I'm afraid YOU are reading it wrong my friend. The conversation in my above posts took place BEFORE the 911 call was made and certainly before John "found" JonBenet at 1:05 that afternoon. John was still in his underwear.

IMO the Ramseys found JonBenet's body 2 to 3 hours before they say they got out of bed that morning. Patsy was lying her head off trying to answer Tom Haney's question about exactly what she said when she informed John that JonBenet was missing. That's when Patsy, stammering and apparently not able to think fast enough, blurted out the truth and replied "I hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement".

Here is Tom Haney's next question:

TOM HANEY: "Where does John first appear, at least in this diagram?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He comes down those stairs there, and so we are both like standing there. I am pacing. I said Oh my God, you know there is a note, she's been kidnapped. She is not in her bed, you know. You know, then everything gets really you know, who's on first kind of thing."

TOM HANEY: "What is John's -- how is he dressed?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He is in his underwear."

Moreover, Patsy didn't scream at 1:05 P.M. when John brought the body up from the basement. She remained quiet and even refused to get off the couch to see what all the commotion was about. She knew.


JMO

 

[packerdog]

Does anyone still believe that it could have happened this way? John may have been molesting JB and Patsy walked in and saw what he was doing, she then swings an object at John and hits JB in the head instead. This is what I thought way back in 96 but have changed my mind since, believing that it was Patsy that lost it and pushed or shoved JB in her bathroom and she hit her head on a fixture, the rest was a cover up.

 

[Shylock]

Moreover, Patsy didn't scream at 1:05 P.M. when John brought the body up from the basement. She remained quiet and even refused to get off the couch to see what all the commotion was about. She knew.

I never said Patsy screamed at 1:05 P.M. and she doesn't say that either.

You are DEFINATELY taking what she says out of context.

"I hear my scream and I hear his scream when he came up from the basement. I mean it was just a horrible thing.

Patsy is saying she has TWO screams that she can still hear in her mind. Her own when she found the note, and John's scream when he brought the body up from the basement.

She is NOT saying John was in the basement screaming BEFORE the 911 call was made. That's strictly "constructive reading" on your Part, BlueCrab. Neither John or Patsy EVER told any of the people involved in this case that John went in the basement before she called 911. And that certainly is not what she means in that sentence.

Haney knew what she meant, and didn't take it that way either. Otherwise he would have been smart enough to say "Hey, wait a minute, John was in the basement before 6 that morning?!!!"

 

[K777angel]

This is indeed a curious statement by Patsy regarding John's 'scream' as he comes up from the basement. First of all, she was being asked about events from that MORNING - not after JonBenet had been 'found.'
But secondly, according to John himself - there was NO scream as he came up from the basement with JonBenet! He described it as wanting to scream but NOTHING coming out. So what 'scream' is Patsy referring to?
It lends more to a scream from that morning as that is what she was asked about and John says he never did scream when he brought up a dead JonBenet.

 

[Sprocket]

What an excellent example of Patsy's evasive, beat-around-the-bush, less than truthful answers to investigator's questions.

Let's decode this generalized double-speak, shall we?

Like - Patsy reverts to "Valley Girl" talk three times in order to buy time and "pad" her answer since she can't tell what really happened.

Just - Patsy uses a "throwaway" word three times to pad her evasive non-answer.

You know - Patsy uses another "throwaway" phrase two times to further pad her non-answer.

I mean - Patsy begins three sentences with this useless phrase that is spoken primarily when a person is trying to "sell" or convince another of a certain point.

It was - Patsy uses an impersonal pronoun and a past tense verb three times to describe "what"?

- it was "like John, like that."

- it was "just a horrible thing"

- it was "just ..."

Patsy can't even finish her sentences, and when she does, she tells us nothing. Let's look at the noun of the predicate to which the verb "was" is linked.

It was like that, it was a thing, and it was ....

In four and half sentences, Patsy tells us it was "that" and it was "thing." Lots of information there.

And last, but not least ...

I and my - In four and half sentences, Patsy uses the personal pronoun "I" seven times, and the possessive pronoun "my" twice. Patsy isn't giving information, she's thinking about herself and how she can get out of this question. It's me, me, me and I've got to save, save, save myself.

All Haney asked her was to tell him the exact words she used to call to John when she found JonBenet was missing. He asked for a relatively short answer. He asked, "Was it more than just John or - - "

All Patsy had to say was, "No, I just called (or screamed) 'John.'"

OR

"No, I screamed, 'John, come here! Hurry.'"

OR

something similar ...

Instead, we get the "War and Peace" of run-around answers that tells us nothing except Patsy is lying about what really happened. When you try to tippy-toe around the truth, sometimes you "step in it."



IMO

Brilliant Cherokee, just brilliant.

 

[Sprocket]

Does anyone still believe that it could have happened this way? John may have been molesting JB and Patsy walked in and saw what he was doing, she then swings an object at John and hits JB in the head instead. This is what I thought way back in 96 but have changed my mind since, believing that it was Patsy that lost it and pushed or shoved JB in her bathroom and she hit her head on a fixture, the rest was a cover up.

I would tend to believe that the second scenario you present is more in line with what actually happened.

jmho, of course.

 

[allan]

I agree that the scenario in which Patsy causes JonBenet's skull fracture in the bathroom is more believable. The question then becomes, why would Patsy concoct this elaborate charade? Would it not make more sense for a parent to spill a lot of water on the floor and scream for the other parent, claiming that the child had had an accident? (The details of this would also be problematic, but the parent could come up with a plausible scenario.) The call to 911 would then be to ask for help as the result of a slip, not a crime. The Ramsey's staus in Boulder would more than likely cause authorities to look the other way if they suspected abuse. Why would Patsy come up with the ransom note, the garotte, etc.?

 

[jubie]

What bothers me about Patsy killing JB in a rage is the sexual assault as a cover-up, I mean just leave her at the bottom of the stairs and call 911 for petes sake!!! No need for a ransom note, a quick resolution and my God you don't inflict such horrendous injuries to your child after the fact.



Is this possible? Just maybe...


Is it possible the R's came home, Patsy and John are busy getting ready for the next day, Burke and JonBenet are having a quick snack before bed, Burke starts in on JB for playing doctor at the Whites earlier in the evening and even in the past few weeks and a fight breaks out between the two, Patsy hears this and flips out on JonBenet (she had just been upstairs packing JB's things and was already a little testy finding soiled undergarments and fuming silently about JB's bedwetting) Of course they are all going to say JB went straight to bed... Maybe Burke didn't know JB was killed by mum but went along with what he was told to say... Did they stage it because 'Oh my God she's dead and her privates are going to show something was going on there?' I can see PR freaking out and JR grounding her and thinking it out... he wouldn't want to point the finger at Burke and he would be suspected right away as the molester..... Of course if PR hadn't killed her in rage I don't doubt the R's would have put a stop to the doctor thing... just thinking out loud, I'm saying this is my final opinion...

I know there must be a million holes in this but I'm just trying to fit how Patsy killed her accidentally and the staging is so horrific.... In my very humble opinion amongst many great minds here!!

Thanks for your dedication, knowledge AND amazing willingness to correct over and over again those who are trying to muddy the waters! Thanks to ALL here actually I have come to fully believe the Ramseys are hiding the truth and one of them is guilty of her assault and murder!

 

[jubie]

Allan,

I rarley post, how ironic that while I was typing my post you had just posted yours and we seem to be thinking alike.

 

[FULTON]

Unless John Ramsey is a complete idiot, how could he believe JonBenet's death was an accident? Sure, the skull fracture could have happened accidentally, but even if John didn't notice the blood droplets in the crotch of her panties indicating sexual trauma, my God, she had a ligature embedded in her neck!

But maybe you're saying that as part of what John considered as covering up for Patsy accidentally clobbering JonBenet on the head and causing her death, he or Patsy then strangled JonBenet's corpse and inserted something sharp into her vagina post mortem to indicate an intruder had assaulted her. If that's what you're saying, I don't buy that either. I firmly believe that all three traumas--the vaginal injury, the skull fracture, the strangulation-- happened in quick succession, right before JonBenet's death, and that she died from having been strangled with the same device that was found on her neck. I do not believe that any of the trauma found on her body was staging.

The only scenario that makes sense to me is that Burke inadvertently killed JonBenet as the result of sexual play that went horribly wrong, and that John and Patsy did their best to cover it up by wiping the body down (including the genital area) and writing the fake ransom note. I don't believe that John and Patsy defiled JonBenet's dead body in any way. I believe that JonBenet's skull and vaginal injuries were inflicted by Burke, and he is also the one who strangled her. I think it unlikely that John and Patsy were even aware of the skull fracture.

IMO

It has been posted by others that the head injury occured first leaving JB almost dead,barely a pulse. This would account for the small amount of blood found on the brain ( some experts have said that sometimes there is less bleeding than JB had from the same kind of head trauma)and in her underware.It has also been posted before that the cord was tight on JB's neck but due to post mortum swelling the cord became deeper inbeded in her skin.I beleive the genital area was wiped down to clean up any urine or feces that resulted in JB voiding herself when she died as sometimes occurs.Burke, like John, while good suspects,have been given a good many passes for me to say they were responsible.The fibers in the paint tote and those inbeded in the cord were from a jacket matching Patsys,unless you think Burk was playing dress up and wore her jacket??

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Fulton
(snippet) The fibers in the paint tote and those inbeded in the cord were from a jacket matching Patsys,unless you think Burk was playing dress up and wore her jacket??

No, I don't think Burke was playing dressup and wearing Patsy's jacket. I think Patsy's jacket fibers got into the paint tote and in the cord knot during the staging phase, when Patsy and John were wiping down the body, redressing it, wrapping it in the blanket, and so forth. (Speaking of which, I think John's black shirt fibers ended up in the crotch of JonBenet's underpants during the wiping down process.)

Since Patsy was close to the paint tote, it's easy to think of ways Patsy's jacket fibers could have found their way into the tote. It's also easy to imagine her jacket fibers becoming embedded in the knot, if like me, you can picture a shocked and horrified Patsy, upon seeing the body for the first time, frantically trying to untie the ligature knot that was squeezing her dear daughter's throat.

imo

 

[BlueCrab]

She is NOT saying John was in the basement screaming BEFORE the 911 call was made. That's strictly "constructive reading" on your Part, BlueCrab. Neither John or Patsy EVER told any of the people involved in this case that John went in the basement before she called 911. And that certainly is not what she means in that sentence.

Shylock,

The interview between Haney and Patsy was carried out chronologically. They had progressed step by step to the point where Patsy was informing John that JonBenet was missing. But at that point in the interview Patsy apparently got entwined in her own web of lies and blurted out the truth saying John came up from the basement screaming. That whole morning of events, as told by the Ramseys, IMO is a pack of lies -- starting with the dramatized 911 call. We get snippets of the truth by way of slips of the tongue.

JMO

 

[Cherokee]

Shylock,
The interview between Haney and Patsy was carried out chronologically. They had progressed step by step to the point where Patsy was informing John that JonBenet was missing. But at that point in the interview Patsy apparently got entwined in her own web of lies and blurted out the truth saying John came up from the basement screaming. That whole morning of events, as told by the Ramseys, IMO is a pack of lies -- starting with the dramatized 911 call. We get snippets of the truth by way of slips of the tongue. JMO

This is another indication that Patsy was having to make up "out of whole cloth" her version of what happened when she discovered "JonBenet was missing."

Haney is taking Patsy through the events of the morning of December 26th.

She has her stock story of finding the ransom note, finding JonBenet missing, screaming for John, calling 911. It's a neat package designed to show the actions of an innocent parent.

The difficulty comes when Patsy is pressed for details of this scenario.

Since events happened in a way other than what Patsy is trying to "sell" to investigators, she has trouble when asked questions such as, "Do you remember exactly what words you used? Was it more than just John or --"

She wasn't prepared for this question ... and so she has to ramble around and hunt for things to say that sound plausible.

Patsy is UNABLE to answer a "yes or no" question with a direct answer, and that inability is indicative of lying. Instead of answering Haney's question, she launches into a jumbled answer that includes what she HEARD, not just what she said when she calls for John.

The truth is obvious from a psycholinguistic standpoint that Patsy knew where JonBenet was the morning of December 26th, and that she was never truly missing. In order to make up an answer that fit the "missing" scenario in her head, Patsy had to try to SEARCH in her mind for a credible answer AND stall for time with words and phrases such as "like" "just" "you know" "I mean" "it was".

During that search through the muddle and web of lies, Patsy threw in information that was not asked for, and that is incongruent with the time frame of the question.



IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Cherokee,

Your analyses of Patsy Ramsey's remarks are very revealing. I totally agree with what you say.

Do you have specialized training in this field, or does this kind of stuff just come naturally to you? In either event, please keep up the good work.

JMO

 

[Cherokee]

Cherokee,

Your analyses of Patsy Ramsey's remarks are very revealing. I totally agree with what you say.

Do you have specialized training in this field, or does this kind of stuff just come naturally to you? In either event, please keep up the good work.

JMO

Thank you, BC, for the words of encouragement. The answer to both parts of your question is "yes." I have had professional training in the fields of psychology and linguistics, but as you know, we all tend to gravitate towards those areas in which we have an interest and a natural proficiency.

 

[Spade]

Excellent post.

 

[allan]

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!