Members' Theories

[DeeDee249]

Patsy's housekeeper always used the basement machines to wash JB's bedding. The white blanket she was found in particularly, was always washed there because it didn't fit in the smaller washer/dryer outside JB's bedroom. The basement set was a full-size set.

 

[Bennettras]

My Theory (IMHO), is that PR knew that JB was being molested by JR. I think, IMO, that PR got sick and tired of this but could not defend herself against JR (didn't want to lose status or $$$$$), so when JB wet her bed, and JR sent PR to clean it up, she exploded because she was sick of JR's preference for the little ones, and killed JB. Then, IMO, I think they, JR & PR, had to cover for each other since he had been a molester, and she the killer.

IMHO...

 

[WHITEFANG]

Thanks. So, does this refute, adequately, the assertion that the washer/dryer in the basement weren't being used?
Patsy Ramsey couldn't have hurt that child in a million years. Neither could John. Someone intercepted data about the specific figure of $118,00 somewhere. A scrap of paper fell out of a pair of pants, or a note was jotted down and left where the perp came across it. This guy was/is still local, (to the crime scene) was familiar with the Ramsey's coming and goings and appeared on the surface to be so harmless, so unremarkable, so "unnoticeable" that he wasn't ever given serious consideration as the potential killer. Indeed, he was at most only a casual observer from what seemed like a safe distance; he bagged groceries, walked his parents' dog around the neighborhood or delivered newspapers on his bike. He was young, homely, awkward, uncomfortable in his own skin. This perverted act was at the time, and remains to this very moment, the greatest thrill of his lonely, unpretentious life. He thrives on following the tumult in the media and as the cops/investigators have stumbled all over themselves and him. This "achievement" has imbued him with more satisfaction, delight and pride than all other events in his life, combined. He still can't believe he pulled it off, fooling everyone, given his below average, lackluster performance in everything else he's done.

Patsy's housekeeper always used the basement machines to wash JB's bedding. The white blanket she was found in particularly, was always washed there because it didn't fit in the smaller washer/dryer outside JB's bedroom. The basement set was a full-size set.

 

[WHITEFANG]

The Ramsey's had no history of violent or unstable or abusive behavior. Their older children had nothing but positive things to say about them. What was their motive? These two were not morons. If they, either one, wanted to kill their daughter and get away with it, they would not have chosen this path.
Their biggest mistake was not hiring a lawyer immediately upon finding the little girl's body. Their next biggest mistake was hiring a lawyer. This sent a bolt of suspicion across the minds of the naive and uninformed. Third biggest mistake was having a pretty child and then allowing her to participate in beauty pageants for kids.

It is more than obvious that they loved her more than words can say, that they were totally devastated by her death, sickened by the way it occurred and in shock over the media frenzy and the public's reaction to it. Just as we would be under the same circumstances.

 

[DeeDee249]

There did not need to be a motive- this was an accident covered up to look like a murder. No one disputes that they loved their daughter. They may also have covered up for another family member. Not every murder has a motive.
Parents DO kill their children. Look at the news. It happens. This case was NOT a premeditated or planned murder. Something awful happened to JB that night. Something the parents KNOW about (and may have been responsible for, maybe not). And they covered up the death to look like a murder.
We don't know that they DID NOT call a lawyer immediately after. Their phone records were not allowed (by the DA) to be released to the police (in an unprecedented act of obstruction by that office), They may have actually called their friend and lawyer MB.

 

[Bennettras]

The Ramsey's had no history of violent or unstable or abusive behavior. Their older children had nothing but positive things to say about them. What was their motive? These two were not morons. If they, either one, wanted to kill their daughter and get away with it, they would not have chosen this path.
Their biggest mistake was not hiring a lawyer immediately upon finding the little girl's body. Their next biggest mistake was hiring a lawyer. This sent a bolt of suspicion across the minds of the naive and uninformed. Third biggest mistake was having a pretty child and then allowing her to participate in beauty pageants for kids.

It is more than obvious that they loved her more than words can say, that they were totally devastated by her death, sickened by the way it occurred and in shock over the media frenzy and the public's reaction to it. Just as we would be under the same circumstances.

John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy had friends too. Most incest is not discovered until someone comes forward, or evidence at autopsy. If you look at the autopsy report, JonBenet had old evedence of ongoing sexual abue. Also, the other children were bedwetters. What goes on behond closed doors....

 

[gngr~snap]

I personally don't know what to think. It REALLY bothers me that Jon-Benet's 1/2sister died too. She graduated from the same high school I went to. (Two years after I did in 1987) and I know Patsy's sister Paula/Paulette too (her husband and my husband were childhood friends). I know it was a car accident, but I can't help but think someone wanted to hurt John's girls... so sad!

So my theory is there is someone out there that got away with harming John Ramsey's daughters BR and JBR.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Gacy and Bundy didn't collapse in grief over the death of their own child found under their home and bodies found with their skulls crushed, respectively. Both of them were nutty, bizarre lunatics, as was Dahmer and Heidnik, etc. to put it mildly. Parents don't kill their children is likewise a statement just as valid.

Patsy was so devastated she died a premature death. To cover up this deed by adding more bizarre twists to it, assigns grief stricken parents with cold hearted brutality unsupported by anything in their lives.

Being well-to-do has its drawbacks. If Jon-Benet had been born to an iron-worker and a middle school cafeteria worker, they would have been able to grieve without the sickening, criminal-like national media making a circus spectacular out of this hideous depravity. The world's love affair with gruesome, despicable perversion fed the money making lust and frenzy that splattered innuendo and filth all over these two and the tabloids. The timing was perfect. They were in shock and consumed with unspeakable grief.

See "A Cry in the Dark" starring Meryl Streep.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy died of ovarian cancer. She had survived 10 years, FAR longer than most women diagnosed with this deadly cancer. She did not die prematurely (I assume you mean caused by the death of her daughter). Don't make it sound like this case caused her death. Her cancer caused her death, and her cancer began years before this happened.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Patsy died the moment she held Jon-Benet's lifeless body in her arms.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"Local law enforcement deemed this to be a suicide, further investigation by French investigators classed it as a homicide."
It is fascinating to see how many people believe this. Some people who accused the cops of spinning Hugues' death as a suicide have spun the case that that was their conclusion so effectively, many now believe that is actually their determination. SF cops ruling was and remains "undetermined."

 

[Bennettras]

Gacy and Bundy didn't collapse in grief over the death of their own child found under their home and bodies found with their skulls crushed, respectively. Both of them were nutty, bizarre lunatics, as was Dahmer and Heidnik, etc. to put it mildly. Parents don't kill their children is likewise a statement just as valid.

Patsy was so devastated she died a premature death. To cover up this deed by adding more bizarre twists to it, assigns grief stricken parents with cold hearted brutality unsupported by anything in their lives.

Being well-to-do has its drawbacks. If Jon-Benet had been born to an iron-worker and a middle school cafeteria worker, they would have been able to grieve without the sickening, criminal-like national media making a circus spectacular out of this hideous depravity. The world's love affair with gruesome, despicable perversion fed the money making lust and frenzy that splattered innuendo and filth all over these two and the tabloids. The timing was perfect. They were in shock and consumed with unspeakable grief.

See "A Cry in the Dark" starring Meryl Streep.

The Ramsey's didn't collapse with grief either. And parents DO kill their children. What I was tryig to say is that you never really know who you are dealing with, Gacy and Bundy are perfect examples. I agree with your sentence, 'they were in shock and consumed.." but that is where my agreement stops. There is a reported history that the Ramsy children had bedwetting issues. Also, after reviewing the autopsy report, the ransom note, and the transcripts of the interviews, IMHO, John and Patsy had some tighly locked up storage. I do not think Patsy's grief of losing her daughter led to her premature death, I think cancer led to her death. Also, in reference to A Cry In The Dark, I thought that mother was telling the truth from the get go. I have never seen the movie however, but believed her story as was in the news report and never faltered in my belief.

 

[cynic]

"Local law enforcement deemed this to be a suicide, further investigation by French investigators classed it as a homicide."
It is fascinating to see how many people believe this. Some people who accused the cops of spinning Hugues' death as a suicide have spun the case that that was their conclusion so effectively, many now believe that is actually their determination. SF cops ruling was and remains "undetermined."

Unless I missed something it was treated as a suicide by SF investigators, at least in the early going.

At first, the death of Hugues de la Plaza seemed like an open-and-shut case. Early on the morning of June 2 last year, San Francisco cops broke down the front door of the audio engineer's apartment, following a call by a neighbor who saw blood on the outside stoop. Inside they found de la Plaza, 36, dead from three stab wounds. A surveillance camera showed only de la Plaza entering the building. While leaving the official cause of death undetermined, authorities initially treated the case as a suicide—to the anger of de la Plaza's family and friends, who insist the facts in the case point to murder.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20214178,00.html


A Los Angeles police review of the San Francisco investigation into the 2007 stabbing death of a Frenchman has concluded that the man probably committed suicide, San Francisco police officials said Thursday.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-09-18/news/17205642_1_suicide-homicide-examiner

The link to the 48 Hours Mystery review of the case is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/13/48hours/main5636627.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[ami]

I am a fence sitter.

I've read DoI, the Schiller book (excellent) and ST's book. I've read the transcripts from interrogations and the autopsy report and other information and I still have so many mixed feelings and seemingly contradictory beliefs.

For instance, to me Patsy's interrogations have an evasive note in them while JR's do not. The ransom note does look like a female's writing. But when I look at the various scores of all of the handwriting analyses, I'm surprised at how little consensus they have. I am also surprised that the experts were not given several unidentified writing samples, PR's being only one of these, and asked to analyze them all. I am a scientist, I expect blind samples so the data can speak for itself and my emotions and predispositions can't get in the way. This was the death of a child, everyone wanted to find the answers as quickly as possible. It's such an emotional situation I believe it required MORE controls and blind studies than you'd perhaps require ordinarily. Having said that, the RN looked feminine, though elements of the crime 'feel' masculine. And I cannot imagine how a southern housewife with no history of crime and evasion could essentially outsmart teams of scientists enough to create anything other than a clear path back to her.

Reading all the books, I can understand JR's logic when he describes why he did certain things that in retrospect made him look suspicious, or acted in certain ways. When I read his transcripts, I hear a father whose child was murdered and has been screwed by the system and is pissed but still largely participating. When I read Patsy's transcripts I feel odd... as if she was using her "fiddle-dee-dee, John handles all our boring details" attitude to be evasive. When I read of her actions, even in her own words, I'm with her up to a certain point but then I feel she says or does something very... shallow? or disconnected? or odd, and it sets off my radar. But then - if she did participate in the cover up, how could her husband not know? How could he sound genuine?

I keep coming back to a familiar non-family member. Someone who knew the house, or who had access to the house when the family wasn't there. Someone who wrote the ransom note first, during the evening, who deliberately used things found in the Ramsey home as a sort of f-you to JR, who had resentment and hate and sick, twisted mind. A stun gun, carrying JBR to the basement, molestation and strangulation -- perhaps he intended to carry her out the first floor door? and he intended to leave evidence, such as the ligature and paint brush, to terrify the parents and let them know she was being harmed, to make them suffer. And JBR came-to and screamed, he tightened the cord and realized he'd killed her, knocked her ferociously on the head to make sure she was dead and could not id him, and then crept to the top of the stairs and listened to make sure no one had heard the scream, left the note, left through the butler's pantry door.

So while I can see most of that, I somehow still feel Patsy was connected. I don't like that she was wearing the same clothes the next morning. I don't like that she let someone carry Burke out the door, that she let him out of her sight that morning. I also don't understand how they could have been surrounded by so many, many creepy characters and not known it. People with grudges, sketchy mcsanta family, drifters living with close friends, convicts painting their basement. It feels like a very huge number of dangerous situations waiting to happen. How did they never see this?

On the other hand, why would they have lied about something as simple as pineapple and taken such a stand against it if they were guilty? Why wouldn't they have said - you know in my shock I forgot that sometimes JBR got hungry late at night and yes I fed her something, totally forgot, she went right back to sleep after eating it. Instead they made a stand against it, which if they were guilty, when faced with evidence, would be ridiculous. If they were innocent and they genuinely did not feed that to her that night, it was real evidence of what happened that night.

I can't get off the fence.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Ami, thank you. Yours is one of the best posts I've ever read. A double-blind, controlled test of the writing samples is an excellent idea.
Question. If you pretend PR is completely innocent, and you read and review her statements and everything you know about her from this perspective, and, you keep in the back of your mind (pretending it's true) that she has been advised by counsel not to volunteer any information, along with his/her other suggestions, what "sense" do you develop about her then?

 

[WHITEFANG]

The spinners were/are so good at spinning that the reporter who wrote what you quoted bought their spin, too. That is his opinion how the cops were treating his death, apparently based on the spinners' claims. I say apparently because if he had asked the cops, they maintain they treat all "undetermined" deaths as homicides. So, this is fantastic, isn't it? It seems to me that a reporter brings the public news of a man's death and says the cops are treating it like a suicide without checking with the cops.

He adds that this angered Plaza's family and friends. Which friends? He doesn't say.

And, what does he mean treating it as a suicide? Is he suggesting they didn't keep looking for evidence of a homicide? Did he ask them about the status of the case or any questions to get their version. It seems he relies solely on the statements and opinions of one side?

If you review the case thoroughly, you may be surprised. Disturbing contradictory statements abound. Scenarios as described by some people do not add up, to say the least.

BTW, the camera showing Hugues returning home does not show him entering his building and it does not display the time/date. Hours later, when the cops arrive, the date/time are visible.


cynic;5114303]Unless I missed something it was treated as a suicide by SF investigators, at least in the early going.

At first, the death of Hugues de la Plaza seemed like an open-and-shut case. Early on the morning of June 2 last year, San Francisco cops broke down the front door of the audio engineer's apartment, following a call by a neighbor who saw blood on the outside stoop. Inside they found de la Plaza, 36, dead from three stab wounds. A surveillance camera showed only de la Plaza entering the building. While leaving the official cause of death undetermined, authorities initially treated the case as a suicide—to the anger of de la Plaza's family and friends, who insist the facts in the case point to murder.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20214178,00.html


A Los Angeles police review of the San Francisco investigation into the 2007 stabbing death of a Frenchman has concluded that the man probably committed suicide, San Francisco police officials said Thursday.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-09-18/news/17205642_1_suicide-homicide-examiner

The link to the 48 Hours Mystery review of the case is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/13/48hours/main5636627.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody[/QUOTE]

 

[WHITEFANG]

John regretted not consulting a lawyer sooner, he said. If no one disagrees that the Rs loved JB, can you imagine finding your daughter dead and then deciding to alter the crime scene/corpse to protect another family member, leaving the corpse on the floor in your basement for hours as part of the ploy, contriving such a sick scheme within moments of making such a horrendous discovery? Could you do that? Can you think of any parents you know, who love their children, who could?

 

[cynic]

John regretted not consulting a lawyer sooner, he said. If no one disagrees that the Rs loved JB, can you imagine finding your daughter dead and then deciding to alter the crime scene/corpse to protect another family member, leaving the corpse on the floor in your basement for hours as part of the ploy, contriving such a sick scheme within moments of making such a horrendous discovery? Could you do that? Can you think of any parents you know, who love their children, who could?

I believe that anyone under the “right” circumstances is capable of committing murder.
There are numerous cases of a familial homicide, although it’s not something we like to dwell on, certainly.
This thread has a bit more:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91768"]Why Parents Kill Their Children - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[WHITEFANG]

of the billions of people who have been and are parents, the number of us who kill our children is infinitely small in comparison. The overwhelming and vast majority of parents do not kill their children. It is an aberation, an oddity, and a perversion.

Under the right circumstances, I agree, almost anyone can kill. That's precisely why I view this crime as I do. I don't find anything in their lives, at all, that comes close to triggering a homicidal explosion or a criminal willingness to cover it up.

There is no significant history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse, financial stress, inability to maintain gainful employment or repeated occupational failures, domestic violence or familial instability.





QUOTE=cynic;5126223]I believe that anyone under the “right” circumstances is capable of committing murder.
There are numerous cases of a familial homicide, although it’s not something we like to dwell on, certainly.
This thread has a bit more:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91768"]Why Parents Kill Their Children - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
[/QUOTE]

 

[cynic]

I agree 100 percent, and of the billions of people who have been and are parents, the number of us who kill our children is infinitely small in comparison. The overwhelming and vast majority of parents do not kill their children. It is an aberation, an oddity, and a perversion.

Under the right circumstances, I agree, almost anyone can kill. That's precisely why I view this crime as I do. I don't find anything in their lives, at all, that comes close to triggering a homicidal explosion or a criminal willingness to cover it up.

There is no significant history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse, financial stress, inability to maintain gainful employment or repeated occupational failures, domestic violence or familial instability.

You might find this interesting:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97503"]JBR, PR and UMI - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]