John Ramsey's Role

[Spade]

You might both be sort-of right. IMO it is possible that Burke may have participated in the drafting of the note during the weeks prior to JonBenet's death. That rough draft could have then be used by Patsy as the basis for the note she wrote and then "found" on the stairs.

I find it hard to believe that Patsy was smart/centered enough to write that 3 page piece of nonsense off the top of her head AFTER she knew her daughter was dead.

 

[BlueCrab]

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.

Ivy,

Yes, that's a neat little BDI package and you're probably right, but I prefer to hang loose on who wrote the ransom note. There appears to be too much juvenile male jargon in the naive note for Patsy to have written it. One of my BDI theories has a male teen as the author and Burke as the scribe. Another possibility is Burke wrote it and Patsy rewrote it (the nine missing pages from the notepad).

JMO

 

[BrotherMoon]

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

And what does that have to do with the choice of words, punctuation and sentence structure all well beyond the scope of a nine year old? Sheese, build a case.

The note does sound juvenile but adults can sound juvenile while juveniles really can't pull off sounding like an adult. It's called regression. ST comments on that nature of Patsy's. The reason the note sounds juvenile is Patsy was in a regression when she wrote it, emotionally juvenile but still with the technical grasp of an adult.

 

[Britt]

The note does sound juvenile but adults can sound juvenile while juveniles really can't pull off sounding like an adult. It's called regression.

And as must be pointed out every time BlueCrab mentions the juvenile-sounding note:

From the NE hugs-and-cookies interview re Burke and the 911 call:

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." - Patsy Ramsey

And she wasn't even in a temporary psychotic state or shock or anything (that we know of).

 

[BrotherMoon]

And as must be pointed out every time BlueCrab mentions the juvenile-sounding note:

From the NE hugs-and-cookies interview re Burke and the 911 call:

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." - Patsy Ramsey

And she wasn't even in a temporary psychotic state or shock or anything (that we know of).

Children are innocent, ergo, if I act childish I'm innocent. Works for me!

 

[scandi]

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child." - Patsy Ramsey

Bizarre statement for a mother to make whose daughter has just been murdered. When was this statement made by her? If it was soon after the murder it would tell me the death was not a surprise to her.

And somehow I can't see the mother writing this note ahead of the murder for anyone. This would mean she knew Jon Bennet was going to die before she was killed.


Scandi

 

[solosamtheman]

Ivy,

Yes, that's a neat little BDI package and you're probably right, but I prefer to hang loose on who wrote the ransom note. There appears to be too much juvenile male jargon in the naive note for Patsy to have written it. One of my BDI theories has a male teen as the author and Burke as the scribe. Another possibility is Burke wrote it and Patsy rewrote it (the nine missing pages from the notepad).

JMO

Has anyone ever considered the possiblity that the perp wanted to give the impression that he or she was a bungling idiot to throw folks off course? After all, people get very careless around someone whom they percieve as stupid and it makes it much easier to keep tabs on anyone who might be a threat to you, including those investigating the crime. Police will question suspects in a much different fashion when they percieve them as "stupid" thereby exposing the intentions of their questions and allowing the person to keep a reasonable asumption about their progress in solving the crime. But then what do I know? Sometimes I'm not too bright myself :doh: :doh: :doh:

 

[Wrangler]

Has anyone ever considered the possiblity that the perp wanted to give the impression that he or she was a bungling idiot to throw folks off course?

Do you mean like John's 1998 deposition where he kept saying things like, "shucks", "ah gee", "ask Fleet White, he knows about knots" (as if John didn't). The depo used to be online, I don't know if it is anymore.

 

[Ivy]

John may not be a "bungling idiot," but he has a big memory lapse in the Oct. 20, 1998 depo when it comes to remembering to mention the Stines as friends. He goes so far as to mention a neighbor whose last name he can't even recall, but he still doesn't mention the Stines. How strange.

16 Q. I'm looking for, you know, as best you can, a


17 comprehensive list of your friend and associates.


18 A. Friends -- they typically revolved around


19 children. John and Barbara Fernie, Fleet and Priscilla


20 White, Larry and Pinky Barber. I think those are probably


21 our three --


22 Q. The top of the list?


23 A. Yeah.


24 Q. How about any others that you would consider to


25 have been social acquaintances on a friendly basis?


Page 39


1 A. There were lots of people that would fall in


2 that category by the end of five years.


3 Q. I know it's daunting, but as best you can, if we


4 can get a list of as many of those as you recall today, it


5 would be very helpful, please.


6 MR. CRAVER: Social acquaintances on a friendly


7 basis?


8 MR. HILL: Right.


9 MR. CRAVER: People that you knew through the


10 church, activities through the church, things of that


11 nature, through work?


12 Q. Who would be invited to your house for dinner,


13 for example?


14 A. Well, our neighbors across the street, Betty and


15 Joe Barnhill. We had Betsy -- I can't think of their last


16 names. Roxy and Stewart Walker. We knew lots of people,


17 but then that's kind of the people we socialized with.


18 Q. Is that pretty much the complete list of people


19 that you would want to spend time with?


20 A. I don't know if it's a complete list. It's all


21 that comes to mind. Penny and Dr. Buff.


22 Q. If more names do come to mind between now and


23 when you review the transcript, if you don't mind just


24 inking that in so we have the best, most complete list we


25 can get, I would appreciate that.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html

imo

 

[Seeker]

Yeah, Susan Stine was just an "aquaintance" that flew with Patsy to New York City for some shopping and answered the Ramsey's door and made that excuse about the 911 call, right before JonBenet was murdered. But hey! They were just aqauintances.

I have my "aquaintances" answer my door and make my excuses for me too....TIC.

 

[Show Me]

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

Just like the Ramseys.....talk the big talk on tv and in reality do nothing.

John and Patsy...will take a hundred polygraphs, FBI sponsored polys, police, ask us questions round the clock. BUT when the time comes to produce action for the big words...ahhh, noooo, we'll go get our own polygraphs proving our innocence. Might need a week to pass one.

-------
Foundation: Gonna change the laws to protect children, going to do great things, will make a difference. Result...a few token donations.

It's my opinion the voters in Michigan, wheither they believe John's innocence or not, simply won't vote John into office because of his track record of saying BIG things and doing nothing.

 

[Misty]

Your post is very well thought out and intelligent.

This is one of the main reasons there are many of the Burke did it belief. It is hard to understand why any parent would cover for another parent, especially with sexual assault that has been called chronic. But some can in fact, imagine a scenario where both parents would cover for a family member, especially their own child.

I don't find that hard to believe at all. It happens on a daily basis from covering incest in the household to incest that involves murder. Denial comes to mind along with guilt and blackmail.

Look, a situational molester -- not a pedophile -- a situational molester: what trigger them? Usually it is traumatic events that occur in their lives that become the catalyst for incest. What had John experienced recently in his life? Death -- death of his daughter and mother and Patsy's fight with cancer. I'm sure there was a point when they weren't sure if Patsy was going to go into remission and death was a possibility. There are no two ways about it -- that's fertile ground for incest.

How many women, even today, will lie for their husband when confronted with abuse issues? How many women will turn their heads and deny the abuse exists? Sad to say, but this is still a very strong response to abuse.

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Barbara
This is one of the main reasons there are many of the Burke did it belief. It is hard to understand why any parent would cover for another parent, especially with sexual assault that has been called chronic.

I'm a BDIer, but I didn't arrive there by eliminating John and Patsy, thinking they were too fine and upstanding to have molested and killed JonBenet or that they wouldn't have covered for each other. I arrived at the Burke-did-it scenario because certain aspects of the crime (just for starters, the "gentle" vaginal penetration with a finger or an object, as well as the broken art brush handle tied onto the end of the ligature cord, both of which I know are typical of something boys would do) and the lies John and Patsy told to try to disassociate Burke from any of the events of that night, strongly suggest to me that Burke killed JonBenet, although perhaps unintentionally.

imo

 

[Misty]

I'm a BDIer, but I didn't arrive there by eliminating John and Patsy, thinking they were too fine and upstanding to have molested and killed JonBenet or that they wouldn't have covered for each other. I arrived at the Burke-did-it scenario because certain aspects of the crime (just for starters, the "gentle" vaginal penetration with a finger or an object, as well as the broken art brush handle tied onto the end of the ligature cord, both of which I know are typical of something boys would do) and the lies John and Patsy told to try to disassociate Burke from any of the events of that night, strongly suggest to me that Burke killed JonBenet, although perhaps unintentionally.

imo

I have to admit I've considered Burke. To me, only one of two scenarios are plausible to merit John and Patsy having elaborately covered up this crime as they did.
1. Burke did it accidentally; or,
2. John was molesting JonBenet; Patsy walks in, sees John and JonBenet and bam! she goes to strick John, missing and hits JonBenet instead.

If you substitue the "gentle molestation" that occurred that night with "gentle molestation as part of staging to cover prior abuse" it's not all that difficult to put Patsy and John as the murderers.

Forgot to add: Another reason I discount Burke is because Limpy is to ready to sue on John's behalf -- way back when -- he's not as likely to sue when it's John and Patsy killed JonBenet.

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Misty
If you substitute the "gentle molestation" that occurred that night with "gentle molestation as part of staging to cover prior abuse" it's not all that difficult to put Patsy and John as the murderers.

Why would John and/or Patsy, to hide evidence of prior sexual abuse, injure JonBenet's vagina postmortem, and then try to hide evidence of that injury by wiping her body down and changing her panties?

Anyway, regarding internal physical indications of prior sexual abuse, how would John or Patsy know there were any?

As for the Ramseys and Wood filing the lawsuits on behalf of Burke, Wood, threatening to file suit against the city of Boulder, had coerced Hunter into signing an affidavit which, although it didn't exonerate Burke or clear him, stated that no evidence had been developed that would elevate Burke from the "witness" level to the "suspect" level. That was all the ammunition the Rs and Wood needed to begin their lawsuit frenzy.

imo

 

[Britt]

I don't find that hard to believe at all. It happens on a daily basis from covering incest in the household to incest that involves murder. Denial comes to mind along with guilt and blackmail.

Look, a situational molester -- not a pedophile -- a situational molester: what trigger them? Usually it is traumatic events that occur in their lives that become the catalyst for incest. What had John experienced recently in his life? Death -- death of his daughter and mother and Patsy's fight with cancer. I'm sure there was a point when they weren't sure if Patsy was going to go into remission and death was a possibility. There are no two ways about it -- that's fertile ground for incest.

How many women, even today, will lie for their husband when confronted with abuse issues? How many women will turn their heads and deny the abuse exists? Sad to say, but this is still a very strong response to abuse.

Excellent post, Misty. I completely agree with you.

It's also possible John and/or Patsy lied and spun big stories to each other about the crime... maybe one of them really doesn't know the whole true story. Maybe the crime was presented as much more of an "accident" than it really was. Or maybe the guilty party implicated Burke so the other party would help with the coverup.

Another possibility: mental illness. I think it's possible Patsy had/has a mental illness and if she did the crime alone, IMO John protected her and got her private help rather than turn her over to police. But IMO, whether or not she did the crime alone, John was involved somehow in the whole tragedy (e.g. as molester).

 

[Misty]

Why would John and/or Patsy, to hide evidence of prior sexual abuse, injure JonBenet's vagina postmortem, and then try to hide evidence of that injury by wiping her body down and changing her panties?

Anyway, regarding internal physical indications of prior sexual abuse, how would John or Patsy know there were any?

As for the Ramseys and Wood filing the lawsuits on behalf of Burke, Wood, threatening to file suit against the city of Boulder, had coerced Hunter into signing an affidavit which, although it didn't exonerate Burke or clear him, stated that no evidence had been developed that would elevate Burke from the "witness" level to the "suspect" level. That was all the ammunition the Rs and Wood needed to begin their lawsuit frenzy.

imo

Wiping her body down and changing her panties would eliminate some external evidence. In their guilt-ridden, frenzied state, they may have even hoped no autopsy would be performed -- who knows. As far as how did they knew there would be internal damage -- wouldn't one just assume there would be damage? More importantly, how could they take the chance that there would be? Given Patsy's "perfect" world, there's no way in hell she could take that chance.

That's true that Hunter issued that affidavit regarding Burke in 10/00, which fueled the fires for lawsuits on Burke's behalf.

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Misty
In their guilt-ridden, frenzied state, they may have even hoped no autopsy would be performed -- who knows.

I think John and Patsy knew the body would be examined to some degree, but maybe they were hoping that if there were no outward signs of sexual abuse, the vagina wouldn't be. In case it was, however, they couldn't try to pass JonBenet's death off as an accident, because an accident wouldn't explain the vaginal trauma. Had it not been for that, they might have been able to stage the scene to make it appear as if JonBenet had accidentally been hanged or strangled by a cord when she fell down some stairs. (I doubt that John and Patsy knew she'd been struck on the head and that her skull was fractured.)

I don't believe John or Patsy defiled JonBenet's body in any way during the staging, nor at any other time. I believe all the injuries on JonBenet's body were caused by Burke, who, in my opinion, unintentionally took JonBenet's life as the result of sexual play (maybe erotic asphixiation) that took a wrong turn when he inserted the broken paint stick into her vagina to "explore," and without meaning to, hurt her.

imo

 

[Britt]

I think John and Patsy knew the body would be examined to some degree, but maybe they were hoping that if there were no outward signs of sexual abuse, the vagina wouldn't be. In case it was, however, they couldn't try to pass JonBenet's death off as an accident, because an accident wouldn't explain the vaginal trauma.

I agree, Ivy. I also agree that the vaginal abuse wasn't staged.

Yet the staging wasn't intended to present a sexual attack IMO, because that aspect of it was hidden -- wiped up, covered up. The ransom note clearly presented the crime as a kidnapping for ransom by terrorists (foreign faction)... not a pedophile or sex killer.

The stager(s) wanted her/their audience to look at the ransom note and the thing around JB's neck -- a simple cord transformed into a "garrote" for dramatic effect. The stager(s) did not want the audience to notice the head injury and the vaginal abuse. This means the head injury and the vaginal abuse are the clues to what really happened.

 

[Tricia]

But, it didn't seem outlandish to the detectives, or the CASKU unit of the FBI that investigates child abduction and serial killers, on a daily basis. I would tend to think that this would be agroup of investigators who have "seen it all."

There's been a lot of specualtion, whether or not Patsy had a touch of one of the "Cluster B" disorders... and I think there is a strong possibility of that. Several of the Cluster B disorders abuse/use sex as a means to control, or, have some kind of problem with it, (such as sexual addiction). (What comes to mind is Sante & Kenny Kimes.)

To me, John is full blown narcissist. But that's

jmho, of course.

My friends you need to listen to sproket. Sproket has Patsy and John nailed psychologically.

Sproket can you identify more of the "Cluster B's" and who falls into that category? That way we can identify Patsy easier when you talk about Cluster B types.