Patsy Ramsey

[Anti-K]

You are right, it is a contradiction. However, the RN/body is also an explanation. The two coincide. One does not exist without the other. This mainly works toward the RDI scenario, because if I've argued why wouldn't an intruder take the body or the RN with them when leaving? The fact it's a contradiction is completely irrelevant. In fact, it's why the RN is such a huge deal in the first place. With the RN & body in the basement (if RDI or IDI) it looks like something went awry during the attempted kidnapping. Let's sweep it under the rug, if you will. It's supposed to be right out of left field and make absolutely no sense. Hell, the FBI even said "this will end up as a homicide".

We can look at it one of two ways: RDI meant to dispose of the body later, after the police had left. Or, they always meant to find the body (either LE or someone else). I wish that -- like -- I'm trying to find the best way to explain it; but the only way I can say in layman's terms is the RN was just used to explain why. It doesn't matter where JB's body was; but the fact they go hand-in-hand together as I mentioned above. The RN was only there to explain why a child was dead. That's the only reason. I don't wanna sound like a broken record, but there was never a kidnapping in the first place. Something had to be done to explain the dire circumstances of the situation, thus the ransom note came into play.

What do you think, in lieu of a fake kidnapping, the Ramsey's should have done? (Aside from call the police after the headblow -- we have to assume JB is already dead at this point). To do a bit of roleplay here, what would you have done if you were in their shoes that night? Let's look at this from both POV: RDI and IDI.

Hi mochi, I’m moving this discussion to a more appropriate thread. I hope you will follow me there. I am taking the liberty of copying your post over there where it will show as a quote I my comments. you can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/qfjbkb8
...

AK

 

[CherCher]

1) The threats were on the second page of the ransom note and reportedly Mrs Ramsey did not read the note in its entirety before dialing 911.

2) I don’t understand this question: Why would they plan a complicated trip to Michigan, when the other kids could have as easily flown to Boulder.
...

AK

In response to your number one answer, in Patsy's 6-23-98 interview she recalls reading the excerpt of the RN which warns not to call the police BEFORE she called 911. I'm still having copy and past issues but if anyone wants to read it, it's in the sections 0035 and 0036.

 

[CherCher]

Okay, I'll take the time to type out the pertinent section.

0035
PR Well, I read--I came back down and John had it, you know, on the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it,
0036
and somewhere I thought in there, because I didn't read it line by line, I looked over to see who it was from, and I didn't know who that was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said if you call some-don't call the police or whatever it said that. Oh here, police, FBI, etcetera, your daughter being held. And I read that and I mean my blood just went cold. You know I couldn't...

TH Was that some time later?

PR Well it was kind of all during, I mean after John came down and he had the note, and I was "God what are we going to do?" And he said "Call the police, call 911" and I was looking around reading it but it said don't do that. You know what if they heard, it said we got to call, call them,I mean this was in like minutes.

And yet....the misinformation that PR hadn't known of the threats keeps making the rounds.

 

[UKGuy]

Okay, I'll take the time to type out the pertinent section.

0035
PR Well, I read--I came back down and John had it, you know, on the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it,
0036
and somewhere I thought in there, because I didn't read it line by line, I looked over to see who it was from, and I didn't know who that was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said if you call some-don't call the police or whatever it said that. Oh here, police, FBI, etcetera, your daughter being held. And I read that and I mean my blood just went cold. You know I couldn't...

TH Was that some time later?

PR Well it was kind of all during, I mean after John came down and he had the note, and I was "God what are we going to do?" And he said "Call the police, call 911" and I was looking around reading it but it said don't do that. You know what if they heard, it said we got to call, call them,I mean this was in like minutes.

And yet....the misinformation that PR hadn't known of the threats keeps making the rounds.

CherCher,
BBM: and thats the exchange that contradicts a JDI theory which has JR duping Patsy!

.

 

[UKGuy]

You are right, it is a contradiction. However, the RN/body is also an explanation. The two coincide. One does not exist without the other. This mainly works toward the RDI scenario, because if I've argued why wouldn't an intruder take the body or the RN with them when leaving? The fact it's a contradiction is completely irrelevant. In fact, it's why the RN is such a huge deal in the first place. With the RN & body in the basement (if RDI or IDI) it looks like something went awry during the attempted kidnapping. Let's sweep it under the rug, if you will. It's supposed to be right out of left field and make absolutely no sense. Hell, the FBI even said "this will end up as a homicide".

We can look at it one of two ways: RDI meant to dispose of the body later, after the police had left. Or, they always meant to find the body (either LE or someone else). I wish that -- like -- I'm trying to find the best way to explain it; but the only way I can say in layman's terms is the RN was just used to explain why. It doesn't matter where JB's body was; but the fact they go hand-in-hand together as I mentioned above. The RN was only there to explain why a child was dead. That's the only reason. I don't wanna sound like a broken record, but there was never a kidnapping in the first place. Something had to be done to explain the dire circumstances of the situation, thus the ransom note came into play.

What do you think, in lieu of a fake kidnapping, the Ramsey's should have done? (Aside from call the police after the headblow -- we have to assume JB is already dead at this point). To do a bit of roleplay here, what would you have done if you were in their shoes that night? Let's look at this from both POV: RDI and IDI.

mochii,
The RN exists to explain why JonBenet's body was moved to the wine-cellar, its the underlying rationale for the, after the fact, crime-scene staging.

because if I've argued why wouldn't an intruder take the body or the RN with them when leaving?

If non-removal of JonBenet's body is inconsistent in an RDI theory then its also inconsistent in any IDI theory since if the intruder removes the body, a ransom can still be demanded, the R's would be none the wiser.

So you could argue that the IDI theory leads by contradiction to a RDI theory, where non-removal of the body is not inconsistent since the RN does not mandate JonBenet be removed from the house, only that this appearance is achieved, for the purpose of explaining why she was moved, i.e. not kidnapped.

So in IDI theories the RN is assumed valid, whereas in RDI theories its assumed to be invalid due to staging, yet IDI claim absence of body removal contradicts this, but RDI claim this was not the intent of the stager(s)!

i.e. IDI consider the RN real, but offer no explanation regarding non-removal of the body, including no follow up phone-call. RDI suggest the RN is bogus, and exists simply to explain why JonBenet was moved from the primary crime-scene.

.

 

[decemberbee45]

I've wanted to chime in on the Ramsey thread(s) for so long now, but have kept quiet. I just can't any longer.

What I think some people just don't get (and they can't be faulted for it) is the sense of ENTITLEMENT that comes with money. I don't want to go into boring detail, but I was raised in an extremely wealthy, prominent (in a smallish town) family. It was NORMAL conversation in our house to say "Well, others may x-y & z, but we ____es don't do that way." or "You are a ____. We are better than that." I was raised to believe, incorrectly, that we were better than others...that the we were above the rules...that saving the family name was paramount. This, of course, does not mean the Ramseys were involved, but I think people underestimate their sense of entitlement. Especially, Patsy's who came from meager beginnings and married someone who became wealthy. The first time that I saw an article about JonBenet, I was 23. I actually said outloud "the only way I'd cover this up is if my son did it." Sadly, I've not seen much that changes my first impressions. Of course, MOO.

 

[BBB167893]

There was nothing inefficient about the handle on this so-called garrote. How could there be? Anyway...

Because it would work much better if both ends were crossed behind the neck and pulled. That IS the classic method of using these things. Plus, with that much line between the neck and handle, it would be hard to control.

Was this crime stage to look like an intruder? Really? No entry/exit point provided, doors locked; parents didn’t hear or see anything; ransom note and murder weapon connected to the home, etc. I think this crime was staged to look like something, but an intruder aint it.

Well, before we get to what you think it was staged to look like, I think you just seized upon it:

Their whole story revolves around them finding the note FIRST. Nothing else could look off-kilter, otherwise they'd have to explain why they didn't search the house first, why they didn't notice how cold it was from an obvious portal being left open, etc. The idea seems, to me, to be that this killing was committed by some super-criminal who can enter an exit a home as silently and easily as a ghost, like black-ops mercenaries out of some Tom Clancy novel.

 

[BBB167893]

Of course, if RDI, they would have been thinking that far ahead, and, your example of them possibly wanting to pin it on the housekeeper shows this. Regardless, it doesn’t change the FACT that pointing towards an insider would be tantamount to pointing at themselves as they are the ultimate insiders: And, pointing at insiders is contradictory to pointing away from themselves.

No, I didn't say that! I said, assuming those people are right, and for the sake of argument. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[BBB167893]

This is actually pretty basic, simple stuff.

My point precisely!

Why get rid of the cord? Because it connects the murder weapon to the house. What happens when you use the paint brush? You connect the murder weapon to the house. This is contradictory behavior, you can try to rationalize it, but you can’t change the fact that it’s a contradiction.

I'm not TRYING to change it, Anti-K!

Also, that assumes there WAS any cord left to get rid of. I'm not sure there was.

Disposing of one demonstrates forensic concern, they were thinking about evidence being used against them and they wanted to prevent it. Using the paint brush contradicts this. No amount of criminal sophistication or experience is required to understand this.

I DO understand it. What gave you the notion I didn't?

Fibers consistent with the Ramsey jacket “got there” though secondary (or, tertiary, etc) transfer.

SUUUUURRRRRE they did! And I'm the Czar of all Russia!

PR couldn't even come up with an explanation that didn't contradict her own book!

Covering up the sexual aspect of the crime contradicts the intent of committing the sexual assault to cover up prior abuse. This, too, is a pretty obvious b&w contradiction. You can rationalize it by saying that “they wanted to distance themselves from it“ but it still remains a contradiction.

I can dig it.

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, I was mostly confused by your replies, and I’m not really sure how to respond. Perhaps you could clarify?
...

AK

I'll try.

I said:

"Without the note all you have is a dead with girl with sexual injuries."

You said:

"Maybe not."

I replied:

"What ELSE was there?"

So, what else was there? Did I miss something? Without the note, what else was there but a dead girl with sexual injuries in her own home?

The rest of my responses involved not wishing to reinvent the entire crime. (Counterfactual was your word.)

 

[BBB167893]

Your simple RDI explanation fails in dramatic fashion because it does not explain the contradictory nature of the evidence. It doesn’t explain how they went from an accident to a fake kidnapping, how they decided to unnecessarily create self-incriminating evidence, etc and so on.

I'm getting a headache, Anti-K. I guess you didn't read it too closely, because I did explain those things, or at least, I accounted for them. I'll break it down for you:

1) They didn't DECIDE to create self-incriminating evidence; it just happened. (Unless you subscribe to the "no honor among thieves" idea.)

2) They went from accident to fake kidnapping because they couldn't risk JB's vaginal injuries being found.

There are any number of RDI explanations and theories but I’m not asking for those. I’ve seen those. All of them are by necessity complex. A fake kidnapping explains why a body is not in the house but the body is in the house; there is no simple explanation for this, if RDI. If the body had been disposed of, we’d have a simple explanation for a fake kidnapping. But, the body is in the house. Etc, and so on.

InstantProof got there first.

 

[BBB167893]

It makes perfect sense why the note, the body, the weapon would all be in the house. As Dave said before, maybe they didn't dispose of the rope. Maybe it was the last bit? We know it was either the start or end from the glued tip. The Ramsey's didn't mean to make self-incriminating evidence. Now, I truly believe the whole ordeal started as a horrible accident. When you're panicking, you don't think straight. At all. Hormones and adrenaline are pumping through you like crazy. Maybe in the mess of things, the rope was plopped into the golfbag or somewhere out of sight ("oh ****, what do I do with the end of this rope? I'll put it here!" or again, maybe it was the last little bit of rope -- that'd explain the strange measurements).

They used what was available, mochii. That's the point I'm trying to make.

The very bottom line is they didn't want the body gone. Or maybe they didn't want to get caught disposing of the body. They wanted the body for burial, period. The reason why all this -- this whole crime -- everything doesn't make sense is because it DOESN'T. It's so convoluted and crazy (because IMO) the Ramseys completed winged it. They did what they could to cover the crime and make all signs point away from them. This is why things don't add up, because the whole thing was fabricated from the moment JB was hit on the head.

See how easy it is?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

There should not have been any significant time constraint for the Ramseys.

Threats in the note gave the Ramseys as much time as they would have needed to do whatever they needed to do – don’t call the police, or else!! They simply needed to contact family and make up an excuse for a delay. Later they could explain that jbr had been kidnapped.
.

Why would Mr Ramsey say that all the doors were locked? If RDI, the he wouldn’t say such a thing. Entry/exit points are the first thing one thinks of when wanting to convince others that someone had entered their home.

IIRC, Ramsey later claimed that he hadn’t actually checked ALL the doors, but only those commonly used. But, did he even do that? I don’t know. These moments, if IDI, would have been moments of true panic. Things get missed.
...

AK

Hello. Sorry for the long break. I have been busy and we had a storm with no power for 2 days. When I get started here I find it hard to stop so I have been avoiding it. I can see I have a lot to catch up on. This is going to take days.

You make a great point and that does give me a little bump in my theory. If they were running out of time they could make more time.
But that is predicated on them being able to think clearly enough to say, "Hey look this note has bought us time, we don't have to rush" and I don't think they were.
The ransom note is not real, either way you want to look at it. It is window dressing.
If the Ramseys wrote it, it was just to deflect attention from the family. They put in a bunch of cliches from books and movies so it looked like a ransom note. Nobody actually paid attention to the wording about not contacting anyone; it's in there because that is what is often shown in the media. I don't think they thought about it buying time because it meant nothing, it was generic wording for a ransom note. Time was ticking on and they had to call the police before it looked too suspicious.

If my suggestion that John didn't want police searching the house too thoroughly is correct (and it might not be), when they ask him did you find any doors open, his first instinct is to say "No, I checked all them and they were definitely locked. You don't need to check those, I am sure". Again, he is panicked, worried, nervous and tired. I don't think he thought about the consequences at first. Plus if they had decided by that time to shift blame to the house keeper, they didn't need to provide an entry point.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Sorry, no go. It was a kidnapping being staged, inherent in that is body disposal. If Mrs Ramsey assisted in the staging then she must have understood that and accepted that.
...

AK

BBM.

Ah ha! Here is our problem. We are talking at cross purposes. They did not stage a kidnapping, that is NOT what RDI (well me anyway and I think I will get agreement) are saying. It was never meant to look like a kidnapping, well not for long. The assault was staged and the strangulation, other than the ransom note, nothing else points to kidnapping. They obviously expected the body to be found at some point (when is debatable) otherwise that staging is pointless. All the ransom note's job is, is to point fingers away from the family. I think that the police actually treating it like a kidnapping for so long caught them by surprise and maybe why John had to find the body.

 

[andreww]

LHP’s credibility had always been questionable. This is an example of why: she had been to the WC, but later claimed to not know of i’s existence. . Of course, LHP was named a suspect by Mrs Ramsey and LHP was subsequently investigated and harassed by media and such. Her life was detrimentally affected and it could be said that she was hurt and felt turned upon. To this day there are people theorizing about her involvement in this crime. So, we can see some cause for LHP being a little anti-Ramsey.
...

AK

Once again you are making stuff up. All LHP said was that she had cleaned that basement many times, never noticing the WC. This was an answer to a question about how obscure that room actually was. The question was not "did you know about the WC?".

So why do you insist on criticizing her credibility? What has she ever said that you consider to be untrue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Okay, I'll take the time to type out the pertinent section.

0035
PR Well, I read--I came back down and John had it, you know, on the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it,
0036
and somewhere I thought in there, because I didn't read it line by line, I looked over to see who it was from, and I didn't know who that was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said if you call some-don't call the police or whatever it said that. Oh here, police, FBI, etcetera, your daughter being held. And I read that and I mean my blood just went cold. You know I couldn't...

TH Was that some time later?

PR Well it was kind of all during, I mean after John came down and he had the note, and I was "God what are we going to do?" And he said "Call the police, call 911" and I was looking around reading it but it said don't do that. You know what if they heard, it said we got to call, call them,I mean this was in like minutes.

And yet....the misinformation that PR hadn't known of the threats keeps making the rounds.

Read Patsy's first police interview. She is adamant that she never read more than the first few lines. Her story seemed to change with every interview or book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Detective Pinkie]

If we consider that the sexual aspect of this crime was covered up – area wiped, victim redressed; composed, covered, kidnapping elements – then disposing of the tip becomes just another aspect of that.

The RDI explanation here is, once again, of necessity complex. For example, covering up the sexual aspect of the crime contradicts the intent of committing the sexual assault to cover up prior abuse. An IDI explanation is very simple – he wanted to cover up the sexual aspect of the crime.

You make a good point here AK. How about because that is their daughter lying there and they didn't want to look at her like that? I don't see why they couldn't make mistakes like that simply because it was too painful for them to do otherwise

 

[Detective Pinkie]

"Without the note all you have is a dead with girl with sexual injuries."

Maybe not.

I love the What If There Had Been No Note counterfactual. I know a few want us to play this out as if the crime scene would remain the same if we remove the note, but this is nonsensical. If we remove the note we remove the intent to fake a kidnapping. Gone are the wrist ligatures, gone is the tape. No more victim in the basement. No more unnecessarily created self-incriminating evidence (ransom note, note pad, pen; paint brush).

Do we still have the sexual assault at or near point of death? Maybe; but, maybe not.

If we are to realistically play out this counterfactual we have to go back to the initial incident. The point of contingency. If RDI, then that point is the head blow. This is where we start.

We have a child, victim of a massive head blow. Now what? (hint: fake an accident, call an ambulance. call your lawyers, get outta dodge)
...

AK

No offence AK but that sort of response is why I get frustrated with IDIs.

Why, by removing the note, does so much else change? Take away the cord (not only a significator of kidnapping but just restraint in general, but let's get rid of it); get rid of the tape (again it could have been used just to silence her during the assault not necessarily indicative of a kidnapping, but throw it away); move the victim from the basement (even though it is probably not the original crime scene so a good place for the body to be, but get rid of it too because it only helps to invoke kidnapping, not somewhere away from the rest of the house where you could assault someone quietly); and for some reason we no longer need the paintbrush for the assault and "garrote".

Like I said earlier, I don't think the staged scene was about faking a kidnapping, it was staging a sexual assault and a murder. The only thing that says specifically kidnapping is the note and the actual role of the note was to distract from the people in the house.

I know there are arguments about what was meant by the comments made about the damage to the hymen and I don't really want to go into that, but if it was noted then surely that means that there was something unusual about it and if you only had the child with a massive head blow injury and an autopsy is performed then it is going to be noted then too right?

But let's pretend that it is just the child with massive head blow injury (that is not visible on the outside), are you going to tell me there would have been no investigation done whatsoever? The authorities are just going to take their word that it was a horrible accident? I doubt it. And whatever really happened is more likely to be discovered. Too late to point fingers at someone else then.

 

[DeeDee249]

You are very right, Pinkie. They had a dying/dead child on their hands with NO visible cause of injury. Had they called 911 for HELP for her, she would have been taken to the hospital, where an X-ray or other testing would have revealed the massive skull fracture. There is NO way that no tests would have been done in the hospital to see why she was unconscious. Had she died there, all child deaths MUST have an autopsy, especially with no known cause. The autopsy would have revealed the vaginal injuries and eroded hymen. One forensic specialist made the comment that if JB had been brought to a hospital, her father would have been arrested.
The only choice they had was to invent a crime in which her death was threatened (via the note), hide the body and claim she was kidnapped.

 

[Anti-K]

Hello. Sorry for the long break. I have been busy and we had a storm with no power for 2 days. When I get started here I find it hard to stop so I have been avoiding it. I can see I have a lot to catch up on. This is going to take days.

You make a great point and that does give me a little bump in my theory. If they were running out of time they could make more time.
But that is predicated on them being able to think clearly enough to say, "Hey look this note has bought us time, we don't have to rush" and I don't think they were.
The ransom note is not real, either way you want to look at it. It is window dressing.
If the Ramseys wrote it, it was just to deflect attention from the family. They put in a bunch of cliches from books and movies so it looked like a ransom note. Nobody actually paid attention to the wording about not contacting anyone; it's in there because that is what is often shown in the media. I don't think they thought about it buying time because it meant nothing, it was generic wording for a ransom note. Time was ticking on and they had to call the police before it looked too suspicious.

If my suggestion that John didn't want police searching the house too thoroughly is correct (and it might not be), when they ask him did you find any doors open, his first instinct is to say "No, I checked all them and they were definitely locked. You don't need to check those, I am sure". Again, he is panicked, worried, nervous and tired. I don't think he thought about the consequences at first. Plus if they had decided by that time to shift blame to the house keeper, they didn't need to provide an entry point.

HI, Detective Pinkie, sorry to hear about your troubles; no worries about falling behind, etc. I’m sure we’ll all be discussing this for a long time to come (15+ years for me, so far!).

First, on the issue of a fake kidnapping. I actually do think that this is what virtually ALL RDI (RDI investigators incl.) believe – that the Ramseys staged a fake kidnapping. Yes, some think there was more to it than that, a psycho killer, a sexual predator, etc; but, still, a kidnapper. That’s what a ransom note means – a kidnapping, and that’s what was reported – a kidnapping.

The note, indeed, nothing in the crime appears to be the work of someone who was panicked, or confused, frazzled, etc. The note, etc appears to be the work of someone with a plan, someone who took their time and performed deliberate actions. There’s just no panic or rush involved here.

In the note there is a time frame provided (expect call between 8 and 10), so the Ramseys could have taken advantage of that. They didn’t. Are we to believe that they put that in there without consideration?

If they were thinking that they needed to do certain things to point away from themselves then they must have been thinking about what those things could be (notepad, pen, cord, tape, paint brush, wiping cloth...). So, I don’t think it follows that we can say that they didn’t think of this, or they didn’t think of that, because the many deliberate acts taken to create this scene show that they must have been thinking about this, or that; or, at least, they would have if RDI is true.
.

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