Patsy Ramsey

[andreww]

When Patsy died, do we think that she had regrets about how her and John handled the coverup?

I'm sure she did to some extent, but that picture of her sitting on JBs grave, strangling herself as she laughs away has always given me the impression that Patsy had long since absolved herself for any of her sins. Who would do that?

 

[InstantProof]

That is likely, but everyone who knew them would know that one of them 100% killed their daughter, instead of it being a ~mystery and the possibility that maybe there was an intruder.

IMO what the friends/ neighbors think is their top concern, more so than the police. I think the R's are a little bit like Casey Anthony's parents, delusional about how much they think people outside the immediate family are willing to believe.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I'm sure she did to some extent, but that picture of her sitting on JBs grave, strangling herself as she laughs away has always given me the impression that Patsy had long since absolved herself for any of her sins. Who would do that?

That photo has always irked me. Even way back when I used to be an IDI, I found something very wrong with that picture (along with JR's smirking in most interviews). It seemed more like a photo opportunity than an actual display of emotion. Who would want to be photographed next to their child's grave is beyond me. On top of that, that wasn't even the only photo taken of PR at the grave site that day.

 

[Anti-K]

That's because there was no botched kidnapping. The Ramsey's set it up to look like a botched kidnapping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but there is no evidence to support this claim. The crime scene presented to investigators does not show any sign of this. What you are offering is mere speculation unfounded by evidence.

A botched kidnapping means that something occurred mid-crime to prevent the kidnapper from completing his task. So, why did the kidnapping fail? Because I heard a noise and called downstairs and went and looked and I must have scare the kidnapper off. He ran out leaving a door open. No I didn’t get a good look at him. Etc.

But, nothing like this was said, and the evidence for a staged or a real botched kidnapping does not exist.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well I beg to differ. A ransom note and a body in the basement is a botched kidnapping, whether RDI or IDI.

As for your views on the Ramseys creating "self incriminating evidence", your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For argument sake, lets say Patsy cracks JB over the head in the breakfast area. That would be the starting point. Either they call police right then and face the consequences, probably in their minds a murder charge, or they begin a cover up that points to another party. Anything they do beyond calling the police is in one way or another self incriminating. So basically your argument is that they wouldn't cover up the crime because anything they did to achieve that would be creating more self incriminating evidence. They only had what was in the confines of that house to work with and they did the best they could with what they had, but to say they wouldn't have written a note or they wouldn't have staged a strangulation or sexual assault because they didn't want to manufacture any more self incriminating evidence is simply hogwash. They had no other choice.

A ransom note and a body hidden in the basement is not a botched kidnapping (see post above). A kidnapper (I don’t think this happened) could have intentionally left the body in the house because he had nowhere to take it, or because it was easier than taking it with him, looking after it, hiding it, disposing of it, etc.
.

So much wrong here. Do I have time to address it all? Sigh.

Andreww: As for your views on the Ramseys creating "self incriminating evidence", your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

AK: If RDI, than the argument for the Ramseys creating self-incriminating evidence is sound and based solely on the evidence as we know it. If RDI is true, then this is exactly what happened.

Andreww: For argument sake, lets say Patsy cracks JB over the head in the breakfast area. That would be the starting point. Either they call police right then and face the consequences, probably in their minds a murder charge, or they begin a cover up that points to another party.

AK: no evidence to show that they would have believed they would face a murder charge if they reported an accident. Even if they confessed to what actually happened – I flipped out and I hit her, but I didn’t mean to kill her. Talk to my lawyer, please.

No reason to call the police, or point to another party. Stage an accident (throw her down the spiral stairs) and call an ambulance or take her – dead – to the hospital. Call the lawyers.

Andrew: Anything they do beyond calling the police is in one way or another self incriminating.

AK: There is a difference between incriminating evidence and (unnecessariloy) created self-incriminaitng evidence. In an accident scenario no evidence is created. An autopsy may find them out, but it may not. in either case – no crime scene, no evidence.

Andreww: So basically your argument is that they wouldn't cover up the crime because anything they did to achieve that would be creating more self incriminating evidence.

AK: No, that’s not my argument.

I am saying, if RDI, that they would cover up the crime by claiming an accident or a break-in. This is what people do when faced with these circumstances. Look it up. Case after case, fake accidents, staged break-ins – NEVER NEVER NEVER a fake kidnapping with the body still in the house. It just doesn’t happen because these two things are contradictory. People do claim kidnappings but only after they’[ve disposed of the body. look it up. This is factual.

Andreww: They only had what was in the confines of that house to work with and they did the best they could with what they had...

AK: they could have used any scrap of wrapping paper, envelope, cardboard packaging, card, etc they wanted to use and, because it was Christmas, there was a busload of this stuff laying around. They could have written a cpl lines, “Daughter is ours. No cops, wait for call.” They could have skipped the paint brush handle, or at least left it as a single piece instead of breaking it and putting a piece in the tote for investigators to find.

Andreww: ...but to say they wouldn't have written a note or they wouldn't have staged a strangulation or sexual assault because they didn't want to manufacture any more self incriminating evidence is simply hogwash. They had no other choice.

AK: I’m not actually saying that they wouldn’t, so much as I am pointing out that it would have been unnecessary and that doing so points the investigation inside the home and towards them and is therefore contradictory to the supposed intent of trying to point away from themselves.

Sorry for the length.

...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The ransom note! That is the evidence that allegedly pointed to somebody from outside the home. Sure, the materials came from inside (which if IDI why wouldn't they bring one already!?), but the message was someone from "the outside". Maybe subconsciously the Ramsey's are trying to tell us something?

Investigation into an accidental death? DeDee hit the nail on the head with that -- if molestation evidence had been found, then someone is getting arrested. If they determined the autopsy report didn't match how she obtained that head blow, what then? Either way, you bring a dead of some injuries in, CPS and LE will launch some sort of investigation.

Fake a kidnapping scenario, you can put a buffer between you and LE. In the form of lawyers, a mess of a crime scene, RN, money, the list goes on and on....

It's the fact everything from the crime points to the inside that screams "Ramsey's did it! Ramsey's did it!" The only thing to make it more obvious would be spotlights and a marquee.

and oh, yes, there is definitely something special about the Ramsey family. Money will get you very, very far in the court of law.

As posted earlier:

This idea that the note was written to point suspicion away from the family. How was that supposed to work once the body was found?

As it is they got more time out of it than anyone could have expected, but once the body was found it became, if RDI, self-incriminating evidence; right? I mean. That’s what all RDI believe – that they wrote it. Because no kidnapper would leave both note and victim; because no kidnapper would forget to bring his own ransom note; because no kidnapper would stay in the house as long as it would have taken to write a note that long; because no kidnapper would know where to find pad and pen, and, no kidnapper would know how to copy Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting and no kidnapper would have known all that inside information to put in the note, etc.

You see there’s all this evidence from the note alone that points to the Ramseys, so how is it that we are supposed to believe that they created it to point away from themselves?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I don’t see anything wrong with speculation, but I prefer speculation that is based on the evidence as we know it. But, speculate away, I always say. Just don’t confuse speculation with theory, and don’t expect anyone to be convinced by it.

Here is a common theme, “if molestation evidence had been found, then someone is getting arrested.”

This is speculation, but it is not speculation based on the evidence as we know it.

The prior abuse itself is controversial and not, as Thomas put it, “conclusive,” but let’s say that it did indeed happen. Now what? Because we don’t know anything about what form it took, we don’t know who was responsible for it and we don’t know who knew about it. And, we have no evidence to suggest that it was connected to the crime.

That is the evidence as we know it, and it doesn’t leave us with much.

Yes, you can start with RDI and work backwards and try to explain this or that, but this sort of thing is only speculation, but it is not speculation based on the evidence as we know it.
...

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

As posted earlier:

This idea that the note was written to point suspicion away from the family. How was that supposed to work once the body was found?

As it is they got more time out of it than anyone could have expected, but once the body was found it became, if RDI, self-incriminating evidence; right? I mean. That’s what all RDI believe – that they wrote it. Because no kidnapper would leave both note and victim; because no kidnapper would forget to bring his own ransom note; because no kidnapper would stay in the house as long as it would have taken to write a note that long; because no kidnapper would know where to find pad and pen, and, no kidnapper would know how to copy Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting and no kidnapper would have known all that inside information to put in the note, etc.

You see there’s all this evidence from the note alone that points to the Ramseys, so how is it that we are supposed to believe that they created it to point away from themselves?
...

AK

That would be on a conscious level. The subconscious level on the other hand.... well, that's a whole other story.

 

[andreww]

A ransom note and a body hidden in the basement is not a botched kidnapping (see post above). A kidnapper (I don’t think this happened) could have intentionally left the body in the house because he had nowhere to take it, or because it was easier than taking it with him, looking after it, hiding it, disposing of it, etc.

Whatever you want to call it, botched or whatever, there was a ransom note and there was a body in the basement. It was a kidnapping that for whatever reason didn't happen. Or at least it was made to appear that way.

So much wrong here. Do I have time to address it all? Sigh.


We are the ones that should be sighing. Your arguments are for the most part based on speculation and opinion and you are by fa the minority here


AK: If RDI, than the argument for the Ramseys creating self-incriminating evidence is sound and based solely on the evidence as we know it. If RDI is true, then this is exactly what happened.


The Ramsey's manufactured evidence to point to an intruder, end of story.


AK: no evidence to show that they would have believed they would face a murder charge if they reported an accident. Even if they confessed to what actually happened – I flipped out and I hit her, but I didn’t mean to kill her. Talk to my lawyer, please.


The Ramseys were obviously smarter than you then. If they had reported an accident, the coroners findings would obviously not support it. Then one of the three people in that house would be on the hook for her death. That charade wouldn't have lasted very long, rest assured.

No reason to call the police, or point to another party. Stage an accident (throw her down the spiral stairs) and call an ambulance or take her – dead – to the hospital. Call the lawyers.


Again, the injuries would not have matched falling down the stairs.


AK: There is a difference between incriminating evidence and (unnecessariloy) created self-incriminaitng evidence. In an accident scenario no evidence is created. An autopsy may find them out, but it may not. in either case – no crime scene, no evidence.


No, the autopsy would definitely have found them out.

AK: No, that’s not my argument.

I am saying, if RDI, that they would cover up the crime by claiming an accident or a break-in. This is what people do when faced with these circumstances. Look it up. Case after case, fake accidents, staged break-ins – NEVER NEVER NEVER a fake kidnapping with the body still in the house. It just doesn’t happen because these two things are contradictory. People do claim kidnappings but only after they’[ve disposed of the body. look it up. This is factual.

How many parents, when presented with their dead child, call out to Lazarus to raise her from the dead? If you haven't figured it out yet, Patsy was over the top with everything she ever did. Why would you expect her faked crime scene to be anything less than a grand production?


AK: they could have used any scrap of wrapping paper, envelope, cardboard packaging, card, etc they wanted to use and, because it was Christmas, there was a busload of this stuff laying around. They could have written a cpl lines, “Daughter is ours. No cops, wait for call.” They could have skipped the paint brush handle, or at least left it as a single piece instead of breaking it and putting a piece in the tote for investigators to find.


Sure, they could have written on anything, but it still would have come from their house, so what's the point? And I can't imagine Patsy writing only a few lines about anything, can you? If there is one person involved in this crime that would write a three page, over dramatic. novel of a ransom note, who do you think it would be?

AK: I’m not actually saying that they wouldn’t, so much as I am pointing out that it would have been unnecessary and that doing so points the investigation inside the home and towards them and is therefore contradictory to the supposed intent of trying to point away from themselves.


Again, they only had what was inside that house to work with. Their idea was to stage a fake kidnapping, how would you accomplish that without using any items from within the home.

 

[andreww]

As posted earlier:

This idea that the note was written to point suspicion away from the family. How was that supposed to work once the body was found?

As it is they got more time out of it than anyone could have expected, but once the body was found it became, if RDI, self-incriminating evidence; right? I mean. That’s what all RDI believe – that they wrote it. Because no kidnapper would leave both note and victim; because no kidnapper would forget to bring his own ransom note; because no kidnapper would stay in the house as long as it would have taken to write a note that long; because no kidnapper would know where to find pad and pen, and, no kidnapper would know how to copy Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting and no kidnapper would have known all that inside information to put in the note, etc.

You see there’s all this evidence from the note alone that points to the Ramseys, so how is it that we are supposed to believe that they created it to point away from themselves?
...

AK

Nonetheless, with a fake kidnapping scenario the list of suspects is infinite. Patsy disguised her handwriting enough that nobody would be able to say with 100% certainty that she wrote the note. So long as they wore gloves, nothing could be tied to them. And so long as all three of them didn't waiver from the story that they put JB straight to bed, they knew that it would be almost impossible for LE to finger any of them.

 

[BBB167893]

There is no evidence to support the claim of a botched kidnapping. Not a staged one and not a real one.

First of all, I take umbrage with your assertion that there's nothing special about the Ramseys. You must mean a different Ramsey family than I'm thinking of, because the one I'm thinking of did this to their kid when she was alive:



As for the main point, you're all hung up on the body being found in the same house as the ransom note. Well, since the idea was to explain why she was dead, it would have to be botched, ie, "went wrong and she died."

For the last few days, I've watched as you've handed out the idea that staging a simple accident would have been better for the Rs than staging a murder. I'm not so sure it would have been, if one considers that what might be "better" varies from one person's point-of-view to another.

What I'm trying to say is this. Staging a regular accident was out of the question, as they saw it, because once the prior abuse was discovered, even if no one had been arrested (and as you say, it's possible that no one would have been), there was still the "family name" to consider. "Someone else" had to be blamed.

Which brings me to the second point. Once that decision was made, in my opinion, Patsy’s natural inclination towards the flashy and overdone took over and she decided to give her daughter a death that was as spectacular as her life. It just wouldn’t do to have a child beauty queen with such a bright future taken in such a mundane way. But if it could look like JonBenet had been killed in her own home by a popular bogeyman, the kind who gets people thinking with their emotions rather than their good sense, right under the noses of her parents, that would be a fitting death. I’m merely speculating, but I think Patsy figured that JonBenet would make her famous as a beauty queen. With JonBenet dead, that was no longer an option. But make a good crime scene and do your best acting job and you will become a magnet for sympathy. Michael Kane did an interview in 2002 where he said that the staging of the crime was so overdone, it would have to have been done by someone with a proclivity for showmanship. He used these words: “It was a very theatrical production and Patsy is a very theatrical person.” He described her as a narcissist who “loves being known as the mother of a murdered beauty queen.”

Earlier, I said this: One possibility: by playing on fears of popular bogeymen. I think it might be helpful to know what I meant. In short, the note seems to be an attempt to play on popular fears, not only of kidnappers and home invaders, but of international terrorism as well. Patsy Ramsey, during the New Year’s Day CNN plea, tried to play on those same fears when she told all mothers across America to “hold your babies close. There’s a killer out there.”

You keep asking, and forgive me if these are not your exact words, "if they were trying to stage an outside killing, why was there no obvious point of entry?" Well, as I've TRIED to explain to you before, their entire story DEPENDS on finding the note before anything else. Until then, nothing else could appear to be off-kilter, because that would raise too many questions.

BUT, and I want to emphasize this, there is another consideration. It goes back to the "fear" angle I mentioned a moment ago. They had to seem like they did everything right--that they took all possible steps to safeguard their children and it wasn't enough, because they were dealing with a criminal who could enter a house, kill a child with no sound, and vanish into thin air without leaving any trace behind, just like a ghost. THAT's why the intruder didn't leave any good evidence behind: he was just that good. JR sure hinted that way during his 1998 interview, if I remember correctly.

For example, the Ramseys are said to have done this and to have done that and all because they anticipated an investigation and feared that it might reveal something else. They feared an autopsy would reveal prior abuse, so they sexually assaulted her (at or near point of death!) to cover that up, and then they covered up the sexual assault because they felt bad about it.

YES! What is so damn hard to understand about that???

Committing the sexual assault to cover up prior abuse IS an explanation; but covering up the sexual abuse (at or near point of death) is a rationalization. It must be a rationalization (or, false) if the explanation (to cover up prior abuse) is true.

Hey, Anti-K, it's not US who are saying this, okay? I think a little refresher is in order:

Thomas reported that “CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as ‘We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.’ From a kidnapper’s point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on.” The FBI, according to Thomas, “believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship.” Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime “criminally unsophisticated,” citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramseys, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be “scanned for electronic devices.” Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting. CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet’s body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They pointed out the use of the blanket that was found on her that day. It’s been characterized as just having been thrown over her, but in his 1998 interview, John said that whoever did it had taken enough time to carefully tuck her in, like a “papoose.” Even more importantly, inside the blanket with JonBenet was a pink nightgown with the popular doll Barbie on it. JonBenet’s grandmother said it was JonBenet’s favorite article of clothing, and that she treated it like a security blanket, even when she wasn’t wearing it. She’d even rub it on her face to feel better. That seems like an awful lot of care and trouble for an intruder, does it not?

(That's another bit you didn't have to pay for.)

As an aside: this is the sort of problem that completely vanishes with IDI, whether one accepts IDI or not.

IDI has enough problems.

What I CAN'T figure, Anti-K, is why you have such a burning NEED for the Rs to have committed the perfect crime. Murder is NEVER perfect. It always comes apart sooner or later. And when two or more people are involved, it's usually sooner. "Too many cooks" and all that.

 

[BBB167893]

If RDI, they were anticipating an investigation.
...

AK

That's what I said!

 

[BBB167893]

As for your views on the Ramseys creating "self incriminating evidence", your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For argument sake, lets say Patsy cracks JB over the head in the breakfast area. That would be the starting point. Either they call police right then and face the consequences, probably in their minds a murder charge, or they begin a cover up that points to another party. Anything they do beyond calling the police is in one way or another self incriminating.

BBM

If it's okay, andreww, I'd like to expand on that. Even if one discounts the factor of prior abuse being discovered (and, IMO, you do that at your own peril), they didn't know any of the cops in Boulder. They had no idea how they would be handled by the police.

So basically your argument is that they wouldn't cover up the crime because anything they did to achieve that would be creating more self incriminating evidence. They only had what was in the confines of that house to work with and they did the best they could with what they had, but to say they wouldn't have written a note or they wouldn't have staged a strangulation or sexual assault because they didn't want to manufacture any more self incriminating evidence is simply hogwash. They had no other choice.

To add to that, EVERY criminal creates self-incriminating evidence. Nobody could catch them if they didn't!

 

[BBB167893]

Andreww: For argument sake, lets say Patsy cracks JB over the head in the breakfast area. That would be the starting point. Either they call police right then and face the consequences, probably in their minds a murder charge, or they begin a cover up that points to another party.

AK: no evidence to show that they would have believed they would face a murder charge if they reported an accident. Even if they confessed to what actually happened – I flipped out and I hit her, but I didn’t mean to kill her. Talk to my lawyer, please.

No reason to call the police, or point to another party. Stage an accident (throw her down the spiral stairs) and call an ambulance or take her – dead – to the hospital. Call the lawyers.

I say there was evidence for them to believe the cops would go after them. Let's not forget: PR was from the south and spent considerable time in Georgia, a place known to be tough on criminals. Remember what the late Robin Williams said?

Andreww: ...but to say they wouldn't have written a note or they wouldn't have staged a strangulation or sexual assault because they didn't want to manufacture any more self incriminating evidence is simply hogwash. They had no other choice.

AK: I’m not actually saying that they wouldn’t, so much as I am pointing out that it would have been unnecessary and that doing so points the investigation inside the home and towards them and is therefore contradictory to the supposed intent of trying to point away from themselves.

Progress!

 

[BBB167893]

We are the ones that should be sighing.

Some of us are ready to do more than that...

 

[BBB167893]

How many parents, when presented with their dead child, call out to Lazarus to raise her from the dead? If you haven't figured it out yet, Patsy was over the top with everything she ever did. Why would you expect her faked crime scene to be anything less than a grand production?

<snip>

Sure, they could have written on anything, but it still would have come from their house, so what's the point? And I can't imagine Patsy writing only a few lines about anything, can you? If there is one person involved in this crime that would write a three page, over dramatic. novel of a ransom note, who do you think it would be?

If I'd thought to phrase it that way, I'd have saved a lot of time.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*How many parents, when presented with their dead child, call out to Lazarus to raise her from the dead? If you haven't figured it out yet, Patsy was over the top with everything she ever did. Why would you expect her faked crime scene to be anything less than a grand production? *snip*

Perhaps Patsy actually had been praying for hours and hours to Jesus for him to bring JonBenet back to life.

 

[InstantProof]

What I CAN'T figure, Anti-K, is why you have such a burning NEED for the Rs to have committed the perfect crime. Murder is NEVER perfect. It always comes apart sooner or later. And when two or more people are involved, it's usually sooner. "Too many cooks" and all that.

Patsy didn't think to change into bed clothing or new clothing. This fits in with no staged entry/exit, ransom note/ body in house, says kids were asleep/evidence says they were up, etc. Not thinking clearly and spending too much time coming up with the ransom letter. John almost seems like he is not involved, or keeping a safe distance, just in case.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The challenge then is to produce ONE simple RDI theory that makes sense of the evidence. ONE. Thomas didn’t do it: Kolar didn’t do it. YOU can’t do it (don’t worry, neither can anyone else).
...

AK

So what's your simple theory that explains everything?

This is part of my problem with discussing this with IDI. They have a shadowy, non-discript figure for a suspect. They can mould their suspect around the evidence. When asked about specific evidence they just say "Well maybe they did such-and-such" without having to back up their theory. With everyone as your suspect then everything is a possibility.

 

[OliviaG1996]

So what's your simple theory that explains everything?

This is part of my problem with discussing this with IDI. They have a shadowy, non-discript figure for a suspect. They can mould their suspect around the evidence. When asked about specific evidence they just say "Well maybe they did such-and-such" without having to back up their theory. With everyone as your suspect then everything is a possibility.

I personally believe RDI is much simpler.