Patsy Ramsey

[Meara]

Assuming they thought it was a real kidnapping, which I think they did, they didn't need many officers at the house. Instead, they'd have to think of a good negotiating strategy and how to locate or keep her alive until they could, or how to hand over traceable money and watch the location of the exchange. I don't believe the house was looked at as a crime scene at that time in terms of something that had to be "secured" - they could swipe the alleged exit for fingerprints/DNA, but not much else if she was actually gone. I don't think they thought the people in the house were in danger.

I stand with midwest mama. Whatever was assumed, a major crime had taken place. If it was serious enough to call in the FBI, how could it at the same time not require more than one LEO on the scene? That's not normal procedure, and I say the same about an officer requesting back-up and not receiving it.

Any such crime scene is supposed to be secured, and this one should have been. After all, the perps were all over the place -- in JBR's bedroom, in the laundry area outside of it, on the spiral stairs, in the kitchen, and either in the back hall to exit to the patio or down the stairs to the butler's pantry, to exit to the north. They could have left evidence or clues in any of those places.

 

[DeDee]

IIRC, the first detective to arrive at the home was Det. LA, who, at 8:10a.m., arrived two hours and eighteen minutes after the 911 call to report a missing child was kidnapped and the thugs left a RN.

BPO French read the RN when he arrived at 6. He knew the kidnappers could call the Ramsey's by 8:00a.m.

Because, thankfully, these horrific things do not happen every day, Det. LA, who stopped in a shopping center parking lot to get the audio recording device before arriving at the Ramsey's home, soon thereafter, requested a copy of kidnapping protocol from the Boulder Police Department.

That unsuspecting Detective's eyes, kind of in a fumbling Barney Fife kind of way, prob popped out of her head when John Ramsey appeared at the doorway holding his baby girl who was "apparently dead for a while", according to Det. Linda Arndt who was counting bullets.

 

[otg]

************* NEWS FLASH *************​

There are no experts at the FBI who “determined” that there was no sexual abuse. They did NOT investigate the JonBenet Ramsey case. The FBI was called in to this case early on when it was believed/reported to be a kidnapping. They have jurisdiction in such cases because of the law passed after the Lindbergh kidnapping. Prior to that law’s passage, jurisdiction over kidnappings (like any other felony) fell to local authorities. But because of the possibility of transport of the victim to another state, jurisdictional disputes could slow down an investigation where time was critically important to the safety of the victim. From Wikipedia:

Following the historic Lindbergh kidnapping (the abduction and murder of Charles Lindbergh's toddler son), the United States Congress adopted a federal kidnapping statute—known as the Federal Kidnapping Act 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (popularly known as the Lindbergh Law, or Little Lindbergh Law)—which was intended to let federal authorities step in and pursue kidnappers once they had crossed state lines with their victim.

The theory behind the Lindbergh Law was that federal law enforcement intervention was necessary because state and local law enforcement officers could not effectively pursue kidnappers across state lines. Since federal law enforcement, such as FBI agents, have national law enforcement authority, Congress believed they could do a much more effective job of dealing with kidnappings than could state, county, and local authorities.
​

Once JonBenet’s case was confirmed to be a murder instead of a kidnapping, jurisdiction went back to the local LE authorities. The agency does not investigate individual murder cases. They do however collect data (from other LE entities), compile statistics on a national level, provide assistance and advice to local authorities (when requested), and they also provide training to individuals within local investigative bodies. When it is said that the FBI found no evidence of prior abuse, it is a little misleading because they did not investigate it. That opinion was expressed (I don’t know by whom at the agency) based on the information supplied to them by the local authorities (BPD and the DA’s office). It was the BPD who investigated the possibility of prior instances of abuse -- probably by checking with CPS and interviewing friends, associates, and school officials. And of course there was the information that the good Dr. Beuf gave them that he had never seen any evidence of abuse in the years he had been her doctor. (I won’t again go into my thoughts about him other than to point out that he is the “doctor” who thought he needed a speculum to see if her hymen was intact.) There was no evidence found that JonBenet had been previously subjected to child abuse (physical or sexual). The FBI based whatever opinion they expressed on the information that was provided to them. And I don’t care how Schiller worded a sentence in his book to make it seem (intentionally or unintentionally) that the FBI had actually “investigated” it -- they didn’t. They just don’t do that.

Also, while on the subject of the FBI, they were the reason for the “meeting” that prevented BPD from sending additional backup for Det. Arndt when she was requesting it. I can’t remember where or when that was disclosed, but the SA(s) sent from the FBI was (were) going over the information (statistics) and evidence they had so far (the RN) with BPD while Arndt was left to monitor the house and any phone calls that might come in during that period of time. Add to this the fact that it was the day after Christmas and they were short-staffed with officers left to handle what they expected to be just another quiet holiday. Anyone available from LE was at the PD going over how they were going to investigate it. It goes without saying that once the body turned up, the FBI was out of the picture and the “big meeting” ended. That is also when (reportedly) they told the BPD as they were leaving to “look closely at the parents,” based on what they knew at the time.

 

[Venom]

Great post (as usual) otg.
I'll add on, wasn't there a meeting at Quantico with the fbi, a few BPD, and DA's in which the fbi was telling them to get the phone records and the DA just brushed it off. I believe it's mentioned in FF?

 

[TaylurRose02]

Just about every statement you've posted above conflicts with known facts.

I think DeDee posted the facts in which you are referring to.

Her body was found by John Ramsey and brought upstairs at 1:05pm on December 26th. That is a fact.

John Ramsey denied knowledge that JB wet the bed. This is a fact.

19 LOU SMIT: Would there have been anything
20 -- I know there was a bedwetting problem or
21 something. And they do have certain kinds of
22 devices for bedwetting to avoid the leak. I don't
23 know what that means. But anything on that ever
24 occurred that you recall?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I mean we read about that,
0367
1 and of course, I don't know if JonBenet had a
2 bedwetting problem; I'm not sure she did. I think
3 all kids wet their beds; I know my older kids
4 certainly did. The kids used to wear these all
5 night pampers or whatever they were called. I
6 wouldn't classify it as a bedwetting problem that
7 I was aware of.
8 MIKE KANE: You weren't aware of one?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

They did create regulations for interviewing. That is a fact. Neither of them could even deny it in the interview with Larry King.

KING: The police say -- the police say that you were only -- you accept -- you put guidelines up to the interviews. You'd only be interviewed together. Why?
J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.
P. RAMSEY: I don't remember any guidelines.
KING: Is that not true?
J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.
KING: You didn't give them any guidelines?
J. RAMSEY: The only guideline I remember, the only request that we made -- and this was after a huge gap of mistrust developed -- the police withheld JonBenet's body for burial to try to force us to submit to their terms.

They deflect themselves from the question as the interview goes on. Feel free to read it. "I don't remember" became their fall back for questions they didn't want to answer, instructed by the attorneys.

John Ramsey could not be accounted for by Ardnt for a period of time that morning. He verifies this in the below interview.
ST: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JR: I don’t know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o’clock.
ST: Was that prior to Fleet’s first trip down?
JR: I didn’t know he was in the basement. I didn’t know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
ST: And on the trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JR: Yep.

He admits to being alone in the basement prior to the discovery of the body. I don't know where else he went, but yes it is a fact that he was unaccounted for a period of time that morning.

Linda Wilcox states that John Ramsey did, in fact, have knowledge of JB's bed wetting problem...
LINDA WILCOX: An example, when John Ramsey says to the camera, I didn't know she wet the bed, or not very much. I happen to know myself, he walked upstairs, she had wet her bed, I came in on a Monday morning and he said, "could you change her bed? She's wet it again."

So, I think DeDee and I have about covered it. If I missed something feel free to let me know. These are known facts. Maybe you weren't aware of them, but they are known.

 

[TaylurRose02]

Arnt Depo:
"25 Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a
1 period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You didn't see him during that period of
4 time; is that correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It's not correct?
7 A. That is not correct.
8 Q. Didn't you report - all right. You said
9 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 he went out to pick up
10 the mail.
11 A. No.
12 Q. What did you say?
13 A. I believe I worded it in my report rather
14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in
15 the media are not the same. I said something during
16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.
17 Q. We will get back to that later.
18 But there was a period when you lost
19 contact with him, is that right, personal contact with
20 him?
21 A. I did not watch John Ramsey the entire
22 time."
.

Well, she didn’t watch him the entire time. But, she never said that she lost track of him or that he disappeared for any length of time.
...

AK

He would have had to have disappeared for a length of time because he discovered the window prior to the discovery of the body alone.
ST: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JR: I don’t know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o’clock.
ST: Was that prior to Fleet’s first trip down?
JR: I didn’t know he was in the basement. I didn’t know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
ST: And on the trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JR: Yep.

 

[Mama2JML]

Taylur, this is the post to which I responded:

He found his daughters body at 1pm. He told his son he found it at 11am when Ardnt couldn't find him. That's not odd? That'd be true if John hadn't repeatedly told both housekeepers to repeatedly change JonBenet's sheets because she wet them again.

You don't know what the suspects behavior has to do with the victims murder? Thank God you aren't a cop.

The sources to which you've referred do not support the misrepresentations you've made, BBM, above. Your point is completely lost when the basis of your argument is biased inaccuracies.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He would have had to have disappeared for a length of time because he discovered the window prior to the discovery of the body alone.
ST: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JR: I don’t know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o’clock.
ST: Was that prior to Fleet’s first trip down?
JR: I didn’t know he was in the basement. I didn’t know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
ST: And on the trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JR: Yep.

And?? I am not getting the point of this?

 

[lawstudent]

I stand with midwest mama. Whatever was assumed, a major crime had taken place. If it was serious enough to call in the FBI, how could it at the same time not require more than one LEO on the scene? That's not normal procedure, and I say the same about an officer requesting back-up and not receiving it.

Any such crime scene is supposed to be secured, and this one should have been. After all, the perps were all over the place -- in JBR's bedroom, in the laundry area outside of it, on the spiral stairs, in the kitchen, and either in the back hall to exit to the patio or down the stairs to the butler's pantry, to exit to the north. They could have left evidence or clues in any of those places.

I have trouble saying what standard procedure would be in a small town. In some areas of the country, emergency services take hours to arrive because the areas are so rural. We had a case around here where a female officer was sent alone to a domestic incident where the guy came at her with a knife and she shot him, after back up didn't arrive in time. The situation was widely criticized and she received compensation. I live in a small town. I'm sure in some places multiple officers would always go to such an incident, but not everywhere.

I'm a bit confused why the police didn't come when backup was requested, and what they were doing in the interim - that is strange. But as someone already said, the FBI thing is not about its seriousness, but about jurisdiction. They are thinking this child may have been taken out of state - they are not focused on the house. They're thinking they need to be out looking around, investigating any leads and waiting for more information from the 'kidnappers' - they need to be planning how to find her and get her back. The house is the only place they wouldn't be worried about at that point, because the assumption was it was the one place she was not.

It should have been secured, but I doubt they were expecting to find much evidence in the house, assuming she was removed so quietly with no forced entry. They should have been worried about fingerprints, but I think their mind was just not going that way. There was no standard procedure because this situation is so rare, especially in that town.

 

[pukasonqo2]

the point is that JR was in the basement before 10 o'clock, probably before FW went searching and before both, JR and FW, found JB's body in the basement

meaning: JR had opportunity and time to stage the CS. did he do it? i don't know, i wasn't there but he did have time and motive

but there you have scarpetta, in JR's own words: he was in the basement

and like we say in spanish: no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver



lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[Venom]

Sometimes people just don't want to see the point.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

the point is that JR was in the basement before 10 o'clock, probably before FW went searching and before both, JR and FW, found JB's body in the basement

meaning: JR had opportunity and time to stage the CS. did he do it? i don't know, i wasn't there but he did have time and motive

but there you have scarpetta, in JR's own words: he was in the basement

and like we say in spanish: no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver



lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

So? So were other people. What is the difference? It does not mean anything. Why would someone admit to being in the basement if they were doing something wrong??
It makes no sense.
I think if people scrutinized the police and the investigation as much as they do the R's there would be a better balance of information in this case.

 

[Theonly1]

Well, he could admit to being in the basement because his fibers were found down there or because no one could find him for a duration of time. Lots of logical reasons he would readily admit to being down there.

 

[Mama2JML]

Well, he could admit to being in the basement because his fibers were found down there or because no one could find him for a duration of time. Lots of logical reasons he would readily admit to being down there.

Except his fibers weren't really found "down there", and there wasn't a moment when "no one could find him."

 

[Theonly1]

Except his fibers weren't really found "down there", and there wasn't a moment when "no one could find him."

Whaaat? JBR was in basement stone cold dead. IN HER PANTIES were JOHN's fibers from his previous evenings shirt. Those fibers did not crawl in her panties when she was upstairs under the Christmas tree! Please, folks, there is so much hair-splitting here it is ridiculous (no pun intended). At some point that morning and or evening before JBR was in BASEMENT with JOHNS fibers in her crotch. No, do not ask for a link.

Second, there was no moment he could not be found? Seriously? Arndt even told someone on the phone she had no clue where John was at. She even speculated he left the house. Now JOHN may have known where JOHN was but ARNDT did not.

 

[Mama2JML]

Whaaat? JBR was in basement stone cold dead. IN HER PANTIES were JOHN's fibers from his previous evenings shirt. Those fibers did not crawl in her panties when she was upstairs under the Christmas tree! Please, folks, there is so much hair-splitting here it is ridiculous (no pun intended). At some point that morning and or evening before JBR was in BASEMENT with JOHNS fibers in her crotch. No, do not ask for a link.

I won't ask for a link, because I know a LE interrogation is the source for this myth, and investigators LIE during interrogations. ...ON PURPOSE!

Second, there was no moment he could not be found? Seriously? Arndt even told someone on the phone she had no clue where John was at. She even speculated he left the house. Now JOHN may have known where JOHN was but ARNDT did not.

This is news to me. Source, please?

 

[Anti-K]

that post wasn't intended as referencing how the mail was received; pointing out that Arndt grudgingly admitted that she was unaware of where JR was and what he was doing from 10:35/10:40 until noon was the intention

her observation of his changed demeanor after she next saw him at noon has been documented. which in hindsight meshes with him discovering JB at 11am

if one cares to see it

Ah, but Arnt didn’t grudgingly admit “that she was unaware of where JR was and what he was doing from 10:35/10:40 until noon.” She admitted that she didn’t watch him the entire time.
Of course Mr Ramsey’s demeanor changed – the kidnapper didn’t call.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

************* NEWS FLASH *************​

There are no experts at the FBI who “determined” that there was no sexual abuse. They did NOT investigate the JonBenet Ramsey case. The FBI was called in to this case early on when it was believed/reported to be a kidnapping. They have jurisdiction in such cases because of the law passed after the Lindbergh kidnapping. Prior to that law’s passage, jurisdiction over kidnappings (like any other felony) fell to local authorities. But because of the possibility of transport of the victim to another state, jurisdictional disputes could slow down an investigation where time was critically important to the safety of the victim. From Wikipedia:

Following the historic Lindbergh kidnapping (the abduction and murder of Charles Lindbergh's toddler son), the United States Congress adopted a federal kidnapping statute—known as the Federal Kidnapping Act 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (popularly known as the Lindbergh Law, or Little Lindbergh Law)—which was intended to let federal authorities step in and pursue kidnappers once they had crossed state lines with their victim.

The theory behind the Lindbergh Law was that federal law enforcement intervention was necessary because state and local law enforcement officers could not effectively pursue kidnappers across state lines. Since federal law enforcement, such as FBI agents, have national law enforcement authority, Congress believed they could do a much more effective job of dealing with kidnappings than could state, county, and local authorities.
​

Once JonBenet’s case was confirmed to be a murder instead of a kidnapping, jurisdiction went back to the local LE authorities. The agency does not investigate individual murder cases. They do however collect data (from other LE entities), compile statistics on a national level, provide assistance and advice to local authorities (when requested), and they also provide training to individuals within local investigative bodies. When it is said that the FBI found no evidence of prior abuse, it is a little misleading because they did not investigate it. That opinion was expressed (I don’t know by whom at the agency) based on the information supplied to them by the local authorities (BPD and the DA’s office). It was the BPD who investigated the possibility of prior instances of abuse -- probably by checking with CPS and interviewing friends, associates, and school officials. And of course there was the information that the good Dr. Beuf gave them that he had never seen any evidence of abuse in the years he had been her doctor. (I won’t again go into my thoughts about him other than to point out that he is the “doctor” who thought he needed a speculum to see if her hymen was intact.) There was no evidence found that JonBenet had been previously subjected to child abuse (physical or sexual). The FBI based whatever opinion they expressed on the information that was provided to them. And I don’t care how Schiller worded a sentence in his book to make it seem (intentionally or unintentionally) that the FBI had actually “investigated” it -- they didn’t. They just don’t do that.

Also, while on the subject of the FBI, they were the reason for the “meeting” that prevented BPD from sending additional backup for Det. Arndt when she was requesting it. I can’t remember where or when that was disclosed, but the SA(s) sent from the FBI was (were) going over the information (statistics) and evidence they had so far (the RN) with BPD while Arndt was left to monitor the house and any phone calls that might come in during that period of time. Add to this the fact that it was the day after Christmas and they were short-staffed with officers left to handle what they expected to be just another quiet holiday. Anyone available from LE was at the PD going over how they were going to investigate it. It goes without saying that once the body turned up, the FBI was out of the picture and the “big meeting” ended. That is also when (reportedly) they told the BPD as they were leaving to “look closely at the parents,” based on what they knew at the time.

The FBI did not “determine” that there had been no prior sexual abuse, however it was their opinion that there had been no sexual abuse.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think DeDee posted the facts in which you are referring to.

Her body was found by John Ramsey and brought upstairs at 1:05pm on December 26th. That is a fact.

John Ramsey denied knowledge that JB wet the bed. This is a fact.

19 LOU SMIT: Would there have been anything
20 -- I know there was a bedwetting problem or
21 something. And they do have certain kinds of
22 devices for bedwetting to avoid the leak. I don't
23 know what that means. But anything on that ever
24 occurred that you recall?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I mean we read about that,
0367
1 and of course, I don't know if JonBenet had a
2 bedwetting problem; I'm not sure she did. I think
3 all kids wet their beds; I know my older kids
4 certainly did. The kids used to wear these all
5 night pampers or whatever they were called. I
6 wouldn't classify it as a bedwetting problem that
7 I was aware of.
8 MIKE KANE: You weren't aware of one?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

They did create regulations for interviewing. That is a fact. Neither of them could even deny it in the interview with Larry King.

KING: The police say -- the police say that you were only -- you accept -- you put guidelines up to the interviews. You'd only be interviewed together. Why?
J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.
P. RAMSEY: I don't remember any guidelines.
KING: Is that not true?
J. RAMSEY: I don't remember.
KING: You didn't give them any guidelines?
J. RAMSEY: The only guideline I remember, the only request that we made -- and this was after a huge gap of mistrust developed -- the police withheld JonBenet's body for burial to try to force us to submit to their terms.

They deflect themselves from the question as the interview goes on. Feel free to read it. "I don't remember" became their fall back for questions they didn't want to answer, instructed by the attorneys.

John Ramsey could not be accounted for by Ardnt for a period of time that morning. He verifies this in the below interview.
ST: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JR: I don’t know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o’clock.
ST: Was that prior to Fleet’s first trip down?
JR: I didn’t know he was in the basement. I didn’t know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
ST: And on the trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JR: Yep.

He admits to being alone in the basement prior to the discovery of the body. I don't know where else he went, but yes it is a fact that he was unaccounted for a period of time that morning.

Linda Wilcox states that John Ramsey did, in fact, have knowledge of JB's bed wetting problem...
LINDA WILCOX: An example, when John Ramsey says to the camera, I didn't know she wet the bed, or not very much. I happen to know myself, he walked upstairs, she had wet her bed, I came in on a Monday morning and he said, "could you change her bed? She's wet it again."

So, I think DeDee and I have about covered it. If I missed something feel free to let me know. These are known facts. Maybe you weren't aware of them, but they are known.

I don’t think Mr Ramsey was denying that Jonbenet wet the bed. I think he is denying that her wetting the bed was a problem – his older kids all wet the bed, other kids wet their beds. It may be described as a problem by someone else – forum posters, perhaps – but not by Mr Ramsey.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

He would have had to have disappeared for a length of time because he discovered the window prior to the discovery of the body alone.
ST: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JR: I don’t know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o’clock.
ST: Was that prior to Fleet’s first trip down?
JR: I didn’t know he was in the basement. I didn’t know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
ST: And on the trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JR: Yep.

In the ’98 interview we learn that Mr Ramsey had his times wrong.
12 MIKE KANE: Okay. I think it's, and this
13 may put things into perspective. I think you were
14 saying that you were expecting a phone call
15 between ten and 12. The note said between eight
16 and ten.
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, really?

Mr Ramsey used the time – 8:00 – from the ransom note as a reference point to help him remember what time he first went down to the basement. But, he had the time wrong, he remembered it as 10:00.
17 JOHN RAMSEY: But if the note said, eight
18 to ten, which I don't remember.
19 MIKE KANE: Yes, it said that, eight
...

AK