Premeditated?

[Anyhoo]

BBM- Maybe they didn't necessarily think they'd get away with it at first, and the arrogance and confidence came later.
That morning:
-you have PR on the 911 call possibly saying "They're going to arrest me"
-they called all those extra people over to the house
-JR tried to fly away
-they couldn't sit down for an interview
-they lawyered up so they didn't have to deal with the police

The longer they got away with obscuring the truth, not having to give interviews (unless it was on their terms), and basically getting the white glove treatment from the DA's office the more arrogant and cocky they got. Remember PR's "Did I write the note before or after I killed her?"

By arrogance and confidence, I am talking about such things as using half a paint brush from the tote, and using notepad and pen from the house to write the RN and then leaving the rest of the pad to be found as well as the pen as well as the practice RN. Also the language of the RN, including the absurd ransom amount. If not arrogance and confidence, these things could be classified as sheer stupidity and maybe they were.

PR's statement "Did I write the note before or after I killed her?" was meant as sarcasm and not any admission of guilt.

 

[questfortrue]

RSBM
The suitcase staging indicates to me someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE in any way they can, and if JR staged the suitcase then this directly relates to the garrote. The garrote was someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE. There is a connection here, if you will allow yourself to see it, of someone who is desperate to plant as many false clues as possible so LE will not find the real killer. Now, I ask myself this question: Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his son?
Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his wife? OR would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect himself?

BBM
Most parents can conceive of doing everything possible to prevent a child from being removed from the home. What went way beyond believable, imo, was the aggression JR manifested towards some in his circle, particularly FW, one of the friends who came to his aid the morning of the charade. We know PR and JR were likely “all-in” kind of folks, but it takes a very special ruthlessness to cast blame upon friends.

So along with all the theories here, BDI is the conclusion of Kolar and some of our long-time posters, and I’ve also evaluated a BDI scenario. BR indeed could have been responsible for the molestation and head strike (not so sure on the strangulation). IDK. So then, in weighing the parental motivations, it occurred to me that perhaps the reason(s) for the cover-up could be multitudinous - just like the number of suspects the R’s pointed fingers at. Consider a scenario in which BR molests his sister; and/or is also responsible for the head strike. Suddenly someone else in the family (who may also have been grooming/molesting JB) has a strong fear that he/she might be named as JB’s molester/abuser; fearing this, a grand intruder cover-up is orchestrated. Save BR and save yourself. Two big motivations.

It'd be self-evident if JDI, JR would be really aggressive about saving himself. But since JR did not hire an attorney for BR for almost 2 years, I can’t exclude a PDI theory either. If PDI, one might still believe JR was “all in” to save himself from something.

Among the statements on the part of JR and PR were one from the RN and one at the JF residence the night of JB’s discovery. In the RN the author writes: “It’s all up to you now, John.” To me it was a direct message to JR, ‘ you did not take any care with BR’s problems, and so YOU fix this.’ It could also be interpreted, ‘You abused JB, now YOU fix this.’ Also look at JR saying over and over to friends: “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” When they asked him what he was sorry for, he said it was because he didn’t protect her. Who did he need to protect her from? Was he saying he was sorry for something he had done? Or was he saying he was sorry for a couple of reasons? All here MHO.

 

[Anti-K]

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: He looked absolutely devastated. To me, they were the most appropriate reactions in the world. God knows, I wouldn't know how I'd react if one of my children had been murdered, particularly in such horrible circumstances. He paced and paced and paced. He and I went out for a walk for a while that night. It's the wreckage of two human beings.

ah, yes, the walk with Dr Beuf, and JF. the purposeful and very productive walk, six hours after the discovery of his daughter's body. when the grief-stricken father *reluctantly* decided to hire the first of so very many attorneys

then, within less than a week, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, FBI profiler John Douglas, two private investigators, and crisis management consultant Pat Korten were also on board. (PK, former Justice Dept spokesman, was a heavy hitter: Edwin Meese, Oliver North and Clarence Young are listed among his clients). and also within less than a week they somehow summoned the strength to be interviewed on CNN (although they ran out of energy before they could talk with BPD. they had to rest up four months for that)

I'm worn out just thinking about everything that got started the night JR took a walk with Dr B, when he and his wife began to face that fact that they had wrecked their lives. bummer. I bet it was, like, devastating

This sounds like a distorted and prejudicial version of events.

For instance, Bynum claims that Ramsey did not make any mention to him about legal representation. Bynum brought that up, Bynum is the reason lawyers were hired and hired so early.

<snip>
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.
<snip>

And, Bynum was also the one responsible for cancelling the intial interviews. He did so without the Ramsey’s knowledge.

<snip>
DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.

MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

DIANE SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?

MICHAEL BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not. They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.
<snip> http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

Also, the Ramseys did not hire Douglas, and Douglas was not hired to profile the case. Douglas was hired by the lawyers to assess their clients.

Four months until the first official interview. This is an absolute fact, but it is only part of the story, and to leave it at that is to create a harmful and unnecessary distortion of the truth. The Ramseys interacted with the police for several hours that morning. They answered all of the important questions, essentially giving the police everything that they needed to start a preliminary investigation.

The four month wait – for which BPD and Ramseys share equal blame – should have been, and I believe was, beneficial to BPD. It gave the time necessary for the collection and testing of forensic evidence, to interview family, friends, acquaintances, potential suspects, etc, it gave them time to gather evidence and to develop a plan of attack.

...

AK

 

[Venom]

By arrogance and confidence, I am talking about such things as using half a paint brush from the tote, and using notepad and pen from the house to write the RN and then leaving the rest of the pad to be found as well as the pen as well as the practice RN. Also the language of the RN, including the absurd ransom amount. If not arrogance and confidence, these things could be classified as sheer stupidity and maybe they were.

PR's statement "Did I write the note before or after I killed her?" was meant as sarcasm and not any admission of guilt.

Maybe they just had to work with what they had on hand. They couldn't really run out to buy things, they'd sure be found out.
Obviously I know PR's comment was sarcasm, imo it's still bold to crack sarcastic comments about whether or not you murdered your child while complaining that all eyes are on you.

 

[Anti-K]

Like Anyhoo, I have to agree with the completely sensible points that you've made, Anti-K. To deliberately point clues to themselves does sound inexplicably stupid, and so too the idea that one spouse would stand by and just accept the other one murdering their child. All I can say is that this whole case is one huge riddle, with bizarre things seemingly contradicting themselves. That's why I'm ending up speculating in riddles myself! There must be some explanation that would tie everything in together, somehow- whether it's following any logic or not!

Since this thread is about premeditation, I've swung around between considering it as a tragic accident that may have been deliberately covered up, possibly to hide signs of prior molestation? But, to me, this doesn't seem to fit. As I've said before, to me, that doesn't sit right with the parents' behaviour. Plus, since strangulation with a garrotte doesn't fit into any accident scenario, that would only leave the head bash as the accidental injury... I believe that the head wound is simply too big, and done with such force, that it must have been somehow deliberate...

I've recently been wondering about premeditation, and it all been planned out beforehand, on cold blood. Some things could arguably point towards that, but again, to me personally, it doesn't quite fit. Amongst other things, assuming that both parents were involved to some degree or another, why would Patsy enter JB into another future pageant? Why would the Ramsey's have planned a holiday the next morning? Also, if the idea in advance was simply to kill/silence her for some reason, wouldn't the head bash have been enough in itself? Or even two bashes if the first one didn't do it completely? (Sorry to sound horrible). But, then, why bother with all the cord/duct tape etc?

This has got me wondering if it could lie somewhere in between? Some type of unpleasant/abusive situation that was being inflicted on JB that night, with at least the knowledge of both Ramsey's, if not both being actively involved... I'm not sure exactly what, but whatever was happening may even have happened before, or maybe it was the first time. It wasn't meant to lead to her death, but something went wrong and it did... The head bash, strangulation etc were all part of this scenario somehow, plus used for extra staging too, as the Ramsey's needed to make it look as if they weren't involved?

Only my own recent thoughts, and probably completely wrong?

I also reject any idea of, if RDI, premeditation. If the Ramseys had planned to kill their child, I’m sure they could have found a much simpler and “nicer” way of doing it. A premeditated murder of this sort would probably have them staging an accident. I am not aware of any evidence that shows that the Ramseys were capable of such things. Lots of people (and parents) are, and sometimes we never know until too late, but whenever these sorts of people are investigated things come out. A past is revealed, a behavioral history, a hint, a suspicion; something.

Of course, in an IDI scenario, this crime was premeditated. It was planned. In at least one IDI scenario the killer used Ramsey materials because he planned to use Ramsey materials. He brought with him those items that he could not do without and planned to improvise with what he could easily find once on site. In at least one IDI scenario, the killer may have entered the house on a previous occasion and scouted it out.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Just thinking some more about the perplexing issue of so many things pointing to the Ramsey's being involved... Thinking again about Anti-K's earlier point that the Ramsey's would have had to be absolutely stupid to leave "clever little clues" pointing to themselves...

From a logical point of view, I completely agree- it's impossible to argue that any of that would possibly make sense. But yet, as so many things used in the crime were theirs (such as the ransom note pad, the paintbrush, arguably the cord and duct tape), the bizarre reality is that they really did use their own things, to point to themselves? We don't know for sure if the cord and duct tape was theirs, but the paint brush was certainly Patsy's, and the ransom note was certainly hand written on their own writing pad...

The puzzle is, what does that really imply? If a Ramsey(s) did it, did they use their own things because they had no choice at the last minute, or did they think to some extent that it was a clever move to suggest it must have been someone else, or someone trying to frame them, as they couldn't possibly have risked using their own things and incriminating themselves? Maybe they were clever in this way, as we're all still puzzled by it today?

Or maybe, as Nom de Plume suggested, one Ramsey (John?) could have used Patsy's things as a sort of Plan B? Just in case the original plan went wrong, a secondary option would be to implicate his wife? Anything necessary to ultimately protect himself?

Or maybe the Ramsey's reasoned (correctly!) that even if using their own things pointed directly to them, as long as no one could prove exactly who in the family actually did what, it would likely get them off the hook? Could they have knowingly taken that gamble? It depends how much they were just reacting in a blind panic that night, or how cool and calculating they were?

Did they originally have the idea that by using their own things, police would assume that they couldn't have been that stupid themselves, and it must therefore have been someone else with access to their household things, such as LHP? John did originally keep trying to say it was "an inside job"?

I still find it hard to believe how long and rambling the ransom note was, in relation to it being self-incriminating! If a Ramsey wrote it (most likely Patsy), why write something so long in her own handwriting? Even if I had been in a desperate panic that night, and needed to write a note in my own handwriting, I would have made it as short as possible- one sentence saying "We have you daughter. Will call to collect x amount of money"- and probably written in block capital letters, to reveal as little about the author as possible. Wouldn't anyone else do the same, thinking rationally?

Maybe this alone indicates that at least the writer of the note (as we don't know for sure that this was also the killer, however likely) might not have been thinking as rationally and logically as we are now, in the cold light of day?

Who knows? So many questions... Just thoughts, of course!

I also think that the ransom note was premeditated.

Consider the length. It seems absurd, and it is completely unnecessary. Hard to conceive of a reason why a Ramsey would create such a document for the police. But, let’s think about that length. It made investigators suspicious. The length (and the amount demanded) made the note appear “hinky.” It created the sense of something being not quite right.

I assume you’re familiar with speculation regarding the use of dialogue or even just references to movies used in the ransom note. I am skeptical of much of that, but I am sort of convinced that the note does make use of and refers to Dirty Harry. I have an analysis here somewhere, and maybe I’ll dig it out and post it sometimes, but I can see a significant portion of the note being drawn from that source material. As an aside, I’ve seen a pretty decent argument for the Mikado as source material, but that explanation is far too clever for me; I prefer Dirty Harry.

If you remove the Dirty Harry aspect you would substantially reduce the length of the ransom note. So, IMO, the references are a simple way of intentionally adding length to the note without revealing anything about the author. Because, in general that’s what length does – it provides “evidence” useful for the identification (or, elimination) of suspect authors. Drawing from Dirty Harry (and/or other “popular” movies) reduces the inherent risk in creating a lengthy document.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I agree with you that the head blow appears to be an intentional act rather than accidental. I don't know what your definition of "reasonably explained" is, but I believe RDI unless a compelling reason can be found why the Ramsey's would cover up for someone outside of the family murdering their daughter. That the Ramsey's did cover up is beyond doubt IMO, so either they covered up for one of their own or they covered up for someone else. I believe there is a reason why someone in that family would purposely want to harm JB, but why it happened that particularly night (Christmas night) on the eve of their trips is a mystery to me. I don't think it is a coincidence that it happened on that particularly night. I think someone wanted it to happen before they took those trips, for some reason.

I understand what you are saying in your last paragraph and I partially agree with it but I do not agree that the Ramsey's are innocent in their daughter's death, however it may appear.

By “reasonable explanation” I mean an explanation that is in accordance with the evidence.
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

Information from Kolar's book pertaining to MB and the hire of sttorneys.

MB&#8217;s dialog with Diane Sawyer about the hire of lawyers does not jive with the information in Kolar&#8217;s book. MB &#8220;statement clearly does not account for the fact that R attorneys (Haddon law firm) had actually been attempting to reach FW on the very afternoon of the discovery of JonBenét&#8217;s body, and were seeking to interview him first thing the next day, on Friday morning. According to FW, he had driven to Denver on Friday morning to conduct some personal business. His wife, PW, advised him upon his return early that afternoon that R attorneys had again been trying to reach him that morning, and wanted to speak with him. The interview was held later that day in the Boulder law offices of Bryan Morgan, and private investigator David Williams was present taking notes."

 

[Anti-K]

I like the way you speculate, and I do have some thoughts as to what you said. IMO, it would take a very devious mind to do the staging that was done that night and I strongly question whether two parents, suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into a situation like this would be thinking clearly enough and would be so arrogant and confident to think they could get away with these things. It just does not fit for me IF the murder was not planned and not premeditated.

The suitcase and its contents are a huge clue IMO. It is no coincidence that fibers from the crime scene were found on items within the suitcase because someone made sure those fibers were on those items. Now, I think the person who did this got a little too clever for his own good because by doing this he pointed back to himself. I look at the three people in the family (BR, PR, and JR) and question which of these three people would have the mindset to do something like this, and every single time one person becomes obvious: JR. The other two did not do this particular piece of staging. We don't know when JR did this staging but we know that JR must know there is a need to stage and he is thinking of everything he can to throw LE off of the scent by planting clues like this. This relates to the head blow and garroting because if JR staged the suitcase, then what else did he stage, and for whom he is going to this extraordinary effort to stage? The suitcase staging indicates to me someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE in any way they can, and if JR staged the suitcase then this directly relates to the garrote. The garrote was someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE. There is a connection here, if you will allow yourself to see it, of someone who is desperate to plant as many false clues as possible so LE will not find the real killer. Now, I ask myself this question: Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his son?
Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his wife? OR would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect himself?

See, this is the sort of evidence that I think needs to be taken a little more skeptically. Smit makes the claim – fibers from duvet – but, he also tells us that there was a conflict between the CBI and FBI reports. According to the FBI the fibers did not come from the duvet. I look for corroboration, a reason to favor one report over the other, but I am not aware of anything that corroborates the initial claim.

So, while it can be fun to speculate about how the suitcase and its’ contents might fit into the picture I think we need to keep in mind that the fibers may not have come from the duvet, and that the suitcase may be a part of that picture.
...

AK

 

[Meara]

BBM
Most parents can conceive of doing everything possible to prevent a child from being removed from the home. What went way beyond believable, imo, was the aggression JR manifested towards some in his circle, particularly FW, one of the friends who came to his aid the morning of the charade. We know PR and JR were likely “all-in” kind of folks, but it takes a very special ruthlessness to cast blame upon friends.

So along with all the theories here, BDI is the conclusion of Kolar and some of our long-time posters, and I’ve also evaluated a BDI scenario. BR indeed could have been responsible for the molestation and head strike (not so sure on the strangulation). IDK. So then, in weighing the parental motivations, it occurred to me that perhaps the reason(s) for the cover-up could be multitudinous - just like the number of suspects the R’s pointed fingers at. Consider a scenario in which BR molests his sister; and/or is also responsible for the head strike. Suddenly someone else in the family (who may also have been grooming/molesting JB) has a strong fear that he/she might be named as JB’s molester/abuser; fearing this, a grand intruder cover-up is orchestrated. Save BR and save yourself. Two big motivations.

It'd be self-evident if JDI, JR would be really aggressive about saving himself. But since JR did not hire an attorney for BR for almost 2 years, I can’t exclude a PDI theory either. If PDI, one might still believe JR was “all in” to save himself from something.

Among the statements on the part of JR and PR were one from the RN and one at the JF residence the night of JB’s discovery. In the RN the author writes: “It’s all up to you now, John.” To me it was a direct message to JR, ‘ you did not take any care with BR’s problems, and so YOU fix this.’ It could also be interpreted, ‘You abused JB, now YOU fix this.’ Also look at JR saying over and over to friends: “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” When they asked him what he was sorry for, he said it was because he didn’t protect her. Who did he need to protect her from?/B] Was he saying he was sorry for something he had done? Or was he saying he was sorry for a couple of reasons? All here MHO.

BBM

Lots of interesting thoughts here, qft! Some of them fit with mine. See what you think....

At the moment I'm theorizing that BR may have had Intermittent Explosive Disorder rather than a sexual conduct disorder. The etiologies would have similar elements. And, an episode of being molested himself, not surprising if he had the conduct disorder, could have been a factor in IED. There is evidence that BR may have experienced stress and emotional neglect when Patsy was in treatment sufficient to bring it on; plus, he would have been vulnerable to a sexual predator dduring that time. He struck JB with the golf club two years before her death, and that was the same year he began seeing a therapist. IED episodes typically come on suddenly and don't last long, about half an hour on average, and the person afterwards feels regret at the damage or injury done and also feels he/she was justified at the time. In children, it's likelier to occur from age 12 on but has been diagnosed in children as young as seven and so cannot be ruled out on that basis.

To me, IED would make sense of a lot of things - or simpler sense, I should say. JBR and BR were said to be close, and there's no history of significant strife between them. The 1996 holiday season was stressful for the family, with the parents gone to NYC with (their non-friends :facepalm the Steins, PR's 40th coming up, the huge party they gave, and the short-notice party on Dec. 23rd, followed by planned back to back trips to Charlevoix and Disneyworld. Did BR begin to show signs of the onset of an episode, signs that were downplayed? Could this be why JBR began showing distress during December? I don't know, but it would all fit. And it all fits with JR's remorse that he didn't protect JB. It fits with the family's agreement that whoever killed JBR deserved forgiveness. It fits with the parents' protecting BR, even if they knew he was the killer, because they felt responsible for the circumstances that precipitated the IED. It fits with the 911 call on the 23rd and JBR's reported seclusion in her room on the 24th. It fits with PR's three December calls to Dr. Boef in rapid succession for no obvious cause. It fits with the smearing of feces, which is one of the behaviors of children with IED. It fits with a vicious unpremeditated blow to the head. Reflecting on BR's very flattened affect, I've often wondered whether he was medicated when he was evaluated by the psychiatrist. He could have been, and not just to cope with grief but to calm the stress that had brought on the explosive episode. It fits with the sealing of his med records. All being well, he could be expeced to outgrow the IED. Why ruin his life over this, the parents may have thought, when it's not going to continue to be a problem. It fits with the GJ retiring to deliberate the day after they questioned BR. It also fits with your idea that BR may have been responsible for the head injury, but JR needed to avoid being named as her abuser.

 

[gramcracker]

This sounds like a distorted and prejudicial version of events.

it's not the least bit distorted. sometimes the truth hurts. as for prejudicial, that's a valid concept in a court of law but not in the court of public opinion (which is where we are)

For instance, Bynum claims that Ramsey did not make any mention to him about legal representation. Bynum brought that up, Bynum is the reason lawyers were hired and hired so early.

Mike Bynum was a personal friend. am I obligated to accept anything from his mouth that attempts to paint the guilty parties innocent? no, I am not. you can, that's your choice. mine is different

MICHAEL BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

"ransoming the body/refusing to release the body for the funeral" was a media ploy concocted by Team Ramsey during the first two days because they knew it would create public sympathy. the source(s) and route(s) of those terms are well documented. there was no truth to it at all. Bynum's furtherance of it during the DS intreview doesn't make it true. questions remain to this day because the body was not held longer than it was and subjected to further testing

Also, the Ramseys did not hire Douglas, and Douglas was not hired to profile the case. Douglas was hired by the lawyers to assess their clients.

his experience AS a profiler is what got him hired, and his assessment per his profiling experience was valuable because it informed Team Ramsay of which dangers to avoid and which to prepare for when your clients are the most viable suspects in a murder case

it has been clearly stated that Team Ramsey investigators were out and about just a few hours after the body was discovered. that is another facet of this case, among many, which is distinctly unique. I cannot think of one other child murder/kidnapping case where the child's family immediately hired its own investigators while stonewalling local LE

it is also well documented that JR has told three different versions as to when/how he hired legal assistance. the most notable thing about the truth is that it remains the same from telling to telling

I would appreciate it if you would not use terms like distorted and prejudicial when referring to my posts. hey, you can even feel free to not refer to my posts at all. it's very easy to scroll on by when you see posts you disagree with. I do it all the time

 

[Scandigirl]

No, I think you are dead on. I have never thought it was just a coincidence that this murder happened prior to their two vacations. Somehow that figures into the equation. Perhaps someone did not want JB to go on those vacations.

I agree that the had blow is too severe to be accidental. You just don't hit someone that hard on accident. I think someone meant to kill JB with the head blow. The purpose of the head blow was to kill her. And if that was the case, how long did the inflictor of the head blow intend to do it before he/she actually did it? Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks? Why would someone within the family want to kill JB?

I think something happened that night that suddenly made it imperative that JB be killed. Whatever this something was, the inflictor of the head bash did not expect it. There was no plan to kill JB before this something happened but afterwards they spontaneously decided that she had to die.

Again, I agree with Anyhoo here. This case is unbelievable- I don't know about anyone else, but I've got so many different thoughts/speculations, especially after reading all these interesting comments, the inside of my head feels like a tumble dryer!

I agree that the head blow was just so severe, that it had to be intentional, and the more I think about it, maybe that's one thing we can all feel pretty sure about, and use it as a kind if starting point? If intentional, it proves that, as Anyhoo has said, someone within the house that night wanted JB dead.

Does that mean that he/she/they wanted to kill her at that moment in time, in reaction to something happening on the spur of the moment? For example, in a sudden fit of rage, for some reason? Or a knee-jerk reaction to JB's sudden loud scream, in the middle of some kind of abusive situation/molestation where killing her had not been the initial intention? Or in a much more planned, pre meditated way, where there was a considered/ruthless need in advance to "get her out of the way", or to silence her?

I agree with Anyhoo and Nom de Plume that I'm recently leaning more towards this being JR than PR ( even if PR wrote the ransom note and was a knowing accomplice). I can't imagine him going to such risky lengths to protect anyone apart from himself. Using items that pointed towards Patsy, may even have been his Plan B, as Nom de Plume has speculated?

I agree with many others that I think Burke was probably molesting JB over a period of time, and possibly also JAR, too. My gut instinct is that JR must have been, too, as there are very few other explanations to explain his actions and lies. Unless he was acting on behalf of concealing his own wrong doings, as well as other adults outside the family too ( not on the night of the murder, but possibly prior to that?) This is only an idea, of course, and could well be wrong.

Just thinking about Anyhoo's gut instinct on another thread the Ramsey's were "no ordinary family"- if it isn't already obvious, I'm becoming convinced of that! Not sure exactly what Anyhoo was alluding to, but I'm wondering what sort of things they may have been part of or involved in, prior to the murder? Or, just at the very least, that behind closed doors they might have been the kind of family (sick I know, but it can and does happen, in all walks of life) where both father and sons could have been involved in molesting their daughter/sister? I've no idea, just speculation, of course.

Just another thing to wonder- if Patsy wrote the note and was an accomplice, was she an accomplice all the way along, or did she become one only after the murder had taken place that night? Just wondering about her statement in an interview that "only two people on the face of this earth" know what happened that night- the killer and someone that person confided in? The look of incredulous shock on John's face when she said that stands out to me!

The tone of the ransom note comes across to me as not only meant for the police, but also as a warning/threat to the other spouse that they must co operate or they will regret it. As has been said earlier, perhaps Patsy meant: You've created this mess, so you must sort this out, or there will be consequences!

Just one more thing, (as if there isn't already enough!)- what does anyone think of Stephen Singular's theory? I don't agree that JB was removed from the house that night, but it's interesting that he thought John was more afraid of his wife finding out things, than of the police? He was implying that John had knowingly arranged for JB to be put in a potentially dangerous situation with other people, such as a photographer, possibly without Patsy's knowledge/consent, that had somehow gone wrong... I don't really think this happened, especially on Christmas night, but I do have a nagging feeling that maybe both Ramsey's could have been covering for someone else as well as themselves? Too confusing!

I also agree with Anyhoo that I think Christmas night may have been intentional in some way, partly as well because the Ramsey's wanted to put this on JB's headstone. Does anyone think there could be any possibility of some sort of ritualistic element to the killing, or is that way off base? It does sound very far fetched to us "ordinary" people, but it can and does happen? Or maybe that sort of thing would have come out by now, if so?

Sorry for such marathon ramblings- just wanted to put all my confused questions out there, without clogging the thread up with multiple posts! :twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Maybe they just had to work with what they had on hand. They couldn't really run out to buy things, they'd sure be found out.

Obviously I know PR's comment was sarcasm, imo it's still bold to crack sarcastic comments about whether or not you murdered your child while complaining that all eyes are on you.

If that were true it does not fit with why they would completely get rid of some evidence and not others. Nothing on the main floor. It makes it clear to me that the person who killed her was indeed in a hurry to get out if there and cleaned up all the evidence they could from the basement. If it was an R. They would have also gotten rid of the pineapple, the note pad and practice sheets. It is obvious to me that normal practical Occam's razor thinking goes along with if they are going to clean up and get rid if evidence that was never found that was involved in the actual murder they would have also removed anything that connected them including the note pad, pen and papers found in trash.

The r's would not be under pressure to work fast. The intruder would be after the murder and do he took what he had possession of and fled.

Jmo


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[bettybaby00]

It's important to note in any murder investigation, and it's particularly relevant in this one, that staging is used to mislead and confuse. No matter what theory you hold, I think it's difficult to argue that this crime scene was not staged. But perhaps the most critical factor to consider in any investigation is that it is very rare for every piece of information, evidence or suspect behavior to "fit" or make sense. Why? B/ C very few killers admit to their crimes. Even in cases with overwhelming physical evidence against an accused murderer, they always maintain their innocence.

Someone mentioned earlier that they only consider the hard facts, b/c that is all that matters. That belief is simply not true. To quote Kolar, he states,

It has been my experience that the interpretation of a crime involves an understanding of the dynamics and psychology of human behavior. As humans, our behavior tends to reveal our real motives, and we all behave for specific intent and purpose. We are driven by our desires and objectives.

Determining motive demands more than the simple task of following physical evidence. Uncovering motive involves careful evaluation of all of the elements associated with the crime..

Solving a crime requires a comprehensive, objective interpretation of both physical evidence and human behavior associated with the events under investigation. (3611)

And the only reason I'm quoting him specifically is b/c it's something I have readily on hand. This should be an obvious truth. Look into any case you want where the accused/convicted claims their innocence, and you will find an investigation that includes "evidence" that focuses on analysis of the accused's behavior(s).its also interesting to consider one aspect of his thought process regarding the DNA.

Its (the DNA) puzzling, but I felt this single piece of DNA evidence had to be considered in light of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence collected over the course of the investigation (3510)

 

[DeeDee249]

Meara, I think your thoughts on BR and possible "explosive disorder" does have some merit. These people can be perfectly compose and calm one minute and burst into rage when triggered. Some people who were questioned about Patsy claimed that she had a terrible temper that would explode from time to time. She could be the sweet, Southern Lady but if something set her off- watch out!

 

[renah]

Meara, I think your IED theory is brilliant!

Maybe you could start a separate thread for this? AFAIK, you are the first person to offer this theory on the forum.

BBM

Lots of interesting thoughts here, qft! Some of them fit with mine. See what you think....

At the moment I'm theorizing that BR may have had Intermittent Explosive Disorder rather than a sexual conduct disorder. The etiologies would have similar elements. And, an episode of being molested himself, not surprising if he had the conduct disorder, could have been a factor in IED. There is evidence that BR may have experienced stress and emotional neglect when Patsy was in treatment sufficient to bring it on; plus, he would have been vulnerable to a sexual predator dduring that time. He struck JB with the golf club two years before her death, and that was the same year he began seeing a therapist. IED episodes typically come on suddenly and don't last long, about half an hour on average, and the person afterwards feels regret at the damage or injury done and also feels he/she was justified at the time. In children, it's likelier to occur from age 12 on but has been diagnosed in children as young as seven and so cannot be ruled out on that basis.

To me, IED would make sense of a lot of things - or simpler sense, I should say. JBR and BR were said to be close, and there's no history of significant strife between them. The 1996 holiday season was stressful for the family, with the parents gone to NYC with (their non-friends :facepalm the Steins, PR's 40th coming up, the huge party they gave, and the short-notice party on Dec. 23rd, followed by planned back to back trips to Charlevoix and Disneyworld. Did BR begin to show signs of the onset of an episode, signs that were downplayed? Could this be why JBR began showing distress during December? I don't know, but it would all fit. And it all fits with JR's remorse that he didn't protect JB. It fits with the family's agreement that whoever killed JBR deserved forgiveness. It fits with the parents' protecting BR, even if they knew he was the killer, because they felt responsible for the circumstances that precipitated the IED. It fits with the 911 call on the 23rd and JBR's reported seclusion in her room on the 24th. It fits with PR's three December calls to Dr. Boef in rapid succession for no obvious cause. It fits with the smearing of feces, which is one of the behaviors of children with IED. It fits with a vicious unpremeditated blow to the head. Reflecting on BR's very flattened affect, I've often wondered whether he was medicated when he was evaluated by the psychiatrist. He could have been, and not just to cope with grief but to calm the stress that had brought on the explosive episode. It fits with the sealing of his med records. All being well, he could be expeced to outgrow the IED. Why ruin his life over this, the parents may have thought, when it's not going to continue to be a problem. It fits with the GJ retiring to deliberate the day after they questioned BR. It also fits with your idea that BR may have been responsible for the head injury, but JR needed to avoid being named as her abuser.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM

RSBM

To me, IED would make sense of a lot of things - or simpler sense, I should say. JBR and BR were said to be close, and there's no history of significant strife between them. The 1996 holiday season was stressful for the family, with the parents gone to NYC with (their non-friends :facepalm the Steins, PR's 40th coming up, the huge party they gave, and the short-notice party on Dec. 23rd, followed by planned back to back trips to Charlevoix and Disneyworld. Did BR begin to show signs of the onset of an episode, signs that were downplayed? Could this be why JBR began showing distress during December? I don't know, but it would all fit. And it all fits with JR's remorse that he didn't protect JB. It fits with the family's agreement that whoever killed JBR deserved forgiveness. It fits with the parents' protecting BR, even if they knew he was the killer, because they felt responsible for the circumstances that precipitated the IED. It fits with the 911 call on the 23rd and JBR's reported seclusion in her room on the 24th. It fits with PR's three December calls to Dr. Boef in rapid succession for no obvious cause. It fits with the smearing of feces, which is one of the behaviors of children with IED. It fits with a vicious unpremeditated blow to the head. Reflecting on BR's very flattened affect, I've often wondered whether he was medicated when he was evaluated by the psychiatrist. He could have been, and not just to cope with grief but to calm the stress that had brought on the explosive episode. It fits with the sealing of his med records. All being well, he could be expeced to outgrow the IED. Why ruin his life over this, the parents may have thought, when it's not going to continue to be a problem. It fits with the GJ retiring to deliberate the day after they questioned BR. It also fits with your idea that BR may have been responsible for the head injury, but JR needed to avoid being named as her abuser.

Really thoughtful post! My short answer is IDK whether BR had such a disorder or not but it sure would explain a sudden assault. Guess I fall into the Non-premeditated camp regards how this evolved. IED could truly be an explanation for the unplanned/non-premeditated aspect of this. Like Kolar says, unsealing those medical records might be the absolute key to understanding more.

 

[questfortrue]

It's important to note in any murder investigation, and it's particularly relevant in this one, that staging is used to mislead and confuse. No matter what theory you hold, I think it's difficult to argue that this crime scene was not staged. But perhaps the most critical factor to consider in any investigation is that it is very rare for every piece of information, evidence or suspect behavior to "fit" or make sense. Why? B/ C very few killers admit to their crimes. Even in cases with overwhelming physical evidence against an accused murderer, they always maintain their innocence.

Someone mentioned earlier that they only consider the hard facts, b/c that is all that matters. That belief is simply not true. To quote Kolar, he states,

And the only reason I'm quoting him specifically is b/c it's something I have readily on hand. This should be an obvious truth. Look into any case you want where the accused/convicted claims their innocence, and you will find an investigation that includes "evidence" that focuses on analysis of the accused's behavior(s).its also interesting to consider one aspect of his thought process regarding the DNA.

click on image to view in more detail. An RDI perspective and moo:

 

[bettybaby00]

click on image to view in more detail. An RDI perspective and moo:

View attachment 41251

Sorry...not getting it.

Eta: ha, ha NVM I initially thought this was posted by someone else!

Also, ahhhh the medical records. Sigh, they could be the single most significant, yet perplexing aspect of this case, ranking right up there with the Rs being given case notes/files of the investigation prior to being officially questioned by police. The fact that the Rs were given a pass on the medical records is mind blowing, and definitely falls into that category of suspicious behavior. Why did they need an "island of privacy?" Why was it deemed "deserved" by the DA?

Who exactly needed privacy? The murdered victim? Not to sound crass but given that she is 6 feet under, I'm not sure if she gives a crap.

Buts what's most compelling is why were BRs records off limits? If, and I'm stressing if, the parents were concerned b/c there was something embarrassing, or unsavory even that pertained to BR but was unrelated to the case then I'm sure the Rs highly competent defense team would not have had any problem proving that successfully before a judge. But why bother going through that? So tiresome to follow the law. Instead all they had to do was convey to the DA that they "deserved an island of privacy," and despite an open murder investigation, he thought, "yea, why not, it's not like there is any reason to suspect them of anything."

 

[Meara]

Meara, I think your thoughts on BR and possible "explosive disorder" does have some merit. These people can be perfectly compose and calm one minute and burst into rage when triggered. Some people who were questioned about Patsy claimed that she had a terrible temper that would explode from time to time. She could be the sweet, Southern Lady but if something set her off- watch out!

Thanks, DeeDee. You're right, that sudden explosion of rage that is disproportionate to known stressors is the key feature, and we have heard about behavior in PR that can be described this way. Hell hath no fury like a crossed Southern Belle, especially if she has Cluster B traits. Yikes. *

You've also given me the chance to clarify something. Although the rage itself comes on with no immediate warning, it's the middle part of three stages of an IED episode. There is a prodromal stage in which tension builds in the affected person, the rage behavior, and the aftermath, in which the person feels both remorse and justification but, most notably, relief at the release of tension. There are lots of disagreements among psychologists about these things, so I'm summarizing here. Some say the prodromal phase is minimal, for example, while others say that in children it can go on for two weeks. Some say the overall behavior shows defiance, aggression, and opposition, while others say there may be little to no highly aggressive behavior between EID episodes. Anyway, the main point here is to explain why it's accurate to refer both to a build-up of tension and to an explosion of rage without immediate warning. HTH : )

* Cluster B in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is the group of personality disorders that includes Narcissistic, Histrionic, Borderline, and Antisocial.