I can't find a hole in this theory...

[pistolina]

Patsy also said she told JR that she was going to call the police, and went ahead and did it. Their statements have conflicted regarding whose idea it was to call the police.

Do you have a link for that? According to her interview with the police, her story is the same as JR.
http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Snip:
PR: And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did. I called them and uh, and then I called the Whites and the Fernies and told them that she had been kidnapped or said come over quickly or something and they came over and the policeman came and uh, then the Whites and the Fernies were there and uh . . .Oh, I think the policeman was asking, you know, he kind of like, I think he kind of got us (inaudible) in the sun room or something.
Snip

 

[pistolina]

Yeah, that's John's version of what happened. But he's a suspect, so why do we have to believe him? The problem is that Patsy doesn't challenge him, which gives the appearance of agreement. But what if it didn't happen that way, what do you suppose Patsy would have said: "No John you're wrong, the call was my idea and you were against it"? I don't think so. How would that look? I think this is one of a few different instances of where Patsy either lied or went along with John's version of what happened, because any disagreement between them would look suspicious.

I deal with this issue on my blog here.

Thanks but I've read your blog.

PR says the same thing in 2 different interviews. (you can find it again in her second interview with BPD http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm) That is more than the appearance of agreement, that is agreement. Personally I would see nothing wrong with PR asking JR "What do I do" and JR saying "We should do what the note says and get the money they want”. According to this theory that was the whole reason the note was written, right? And the police couldn’t fault him for not wanting harm to come to his kidnapped daughter by following the ransom demand. But that’s not what happened. Not only did she call the police, she called half the neighborhood.

Nope I don’t buy it. They were both in on the staging. And IMO the RN gave the Rs a reason not to search the house for JBR. They wanted the cops to find her but that took too long for JR so he had to step in a speed up the process.

 

[dodie20]

Yeah, that's John's version of what happened. But he's a suspect, so why do we have to believe him? The problem is that Patsy doesn't challenge him, which gives the appearance of agreement. But what if it didn't happen that way, what do you suppose Patsy would have said: "No John you're wrong, the call was my idea and you were against it"? I don't think so. How would that look? I think this is one of a few different instances of where Patsy either lied or went along with John's version of what happened, because any disagreement between them would look suspicious.

I deal with this issue on my blog here.

We can't second guess these people or try to figure out what they were thinking. I've read that it was JR's idea to call 911, PR backed up that story and so did BR. Later, I heard that PR later claimed it was her idea, but her changing her story is what looks suspicious. But it was PR, for whatever reason, who called 911, moo

 

[pistolina]

Snip

because even if it doesn't solve the case, it's still a piece to the puzzle, and IMO, no pieces should be tossed out. In this situation for instance, it's logical to assume that if the neighbors heard and saw out of the ordinary things, going on in the Ramsey house, then the people in the Ramsey house, saw and heard the same things. I know this goes against some theories, of only 1 person being in the know, but all of these witness statements shouldn't be ignored. And personally, I think there's enough evidence to back up the original statement of the scream, to take it seriously. IMO, there are a few possibilities here...either JR, PR, or BR made JB scream, and the others investigated, or PR made JB scream, and it was ignored by the others, because they were used to PR and JB fighting and screaming, (backed up by the housekeeper). But even if this is what happened, they had a good idea of what happened, when JB was missing the next morning. So, after considering all the neighbor's statements, I think it's slim that anybody except PR, acted completely alone. MOO.

I agree with the bolded part. And I have always wondered if the scream heard from the basement came from PR. I know that according to all reports that JBR was unconscious after the head bash but I have always felt that during the strangulation JBR did something that made PR realized that she was not dead. This realization made PR scream like a banshee. MOO

 

[otg]

We can't second guess these people or try to figure out what they were thinking. I've read that it was JR's idea to call 911, PR backed up that story and so did BR. Later, I heard that PR later claimed it was her idea, but her changing her story is what looks suspicious. But it was PR, for whatever reason, who called 911, moo

:what: What? So did BR?

:waitasec: How would he know?

:floorlaugh: He was fast asleep!
.

 

[midwest mama]

Do you have a link for that? According to her interview with the police, her story is the same as JR.
http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Snip:
PR: And I uh, screamed for John. He was up in our bedroom still and he came running down and uh, I told him that there was a note that said she had been kidnapped. And uh, uh, I think he, he said, I said, ‘What should I do. What should I do,’ or something and he said, ‘Call the police,’ and I think somewhere, I remember I said something about, you know, check Burke or something and I think he ran back and checked burke and I ran back down the stairs and then he came downstairs. He was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did. I called them and uh, and then I called the Whites and the Fernies and told them that she had been kidnapped or said come over quickly or something and they came over and the policeman came and uh, then the Whites and the Fernies were there and uh . . .Oh, I think the policeman was asking, you know, he kind of like, I think he kind of got us (inaudible) in the sun room or something.
Snip

I'll hunt through some of my reading to see what I come up with, and if no direct link available, then my apologies for making the statement without documented validation. :blushing:

 

[Chrishope]

Thanks but I've read your blog.

PR says the same thing in 2 different interviews. (you can find it again in her second interview with BPD http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm) That is more than the appearance of agreement, that is agreement. Personally I would see nothing wrong with PR asking JR "What do I do" and JR saying "We should do what the note says and get the money they want”. According to this theory that was the whole reason the note was written, right? And the police couldn’t fault him for not wanting harm to come to his kidnapped daughter by following the ransom demand. But that’s not what happened. Not only did she call the police, she called half the neighborhood.

Nope I don’t buy it. They were both in on the staging. And IMO the RN gave the Rs a reason not to search the house for JBR. They wanted the cops to find her but that took too long for JR so he had to step in a speed up the process.

If they actually wanted the cops to find the body, why hide it in the WC? Why write a RN? Why not just stage an intruder/killer scenario? Leave the body in her bed, open a door a crack to serve as the point of entry, then call the police.

 

[dodie20]

:what: What? So did BR?

:waitasec: How would he know?

:floorlaugh: He was fast asleep!
.

JR admitted in an interview, that BR was awake that morning. I think, if I'm remembering correctly, this came out after grand jury procedings.

 

[rashomon]

quote=midwest mama;8287888]
And, from PMPT, pg 56: "Under the black light, the coroner saw a residue on the child's upper thigh that could have come from semen, though residue from blood and even from certain kinds of soaps could appear the same way under the black light. Nevertheless, the detectives conjectured that they were semen traces." :what: I can see that this is one of those places where conjecture could not hold up in a courtroom, but if we are supposed to be looking at a case and forming a theory based upon the opinions of credible sources, I think the case detectives deserve our respect of their opinion.

But lab tests did not reveal any traces of semen. Iirc, the residue was from blood that had been wiped off.

 

[rashomon]

Do you really think John would have let Patsy make that call if he really wanted it made? He'd have called himself, for sure.

From Patsy's police interview:

http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

He [John]was just in his underwear and he uh, took the note and I remember him being down hunched on the floor read, with all three pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, ‘Call 911’ or ‘Call the police,’ or something and then I did.

According to your theory, John didn't want Patsy to call the police. How do you explain the contradiction?

 

[UKGuy]

This bothered me, so today I had a talk with the bank manager of one of the larger banks in my home town. He was not aware of any requirement to contact law enforcement under such circumstances. He said he would have a talk with the person and encourage him to use an alternative to cash, but if he insisted on cash, and had the money in his account, he would accommodate him. And, no, he would not feel the need to contact the authorities.

The only problem is that he does not usually have that much cash on hand, so if the person wanted the full amount he'd have to wait about 24 hours. Makes sense because most banks nowadays transact money electronically. Whether the same problem would have existed back in 1996 I don't know.

Regardless, what's important to understand is that the note would have given John complete control over the situation, so he could have easily improvised around any problem of that sort. He would not have cared at all whether he could raise $118,000 or not, because his "kidnappers" were a complete fiction. He would have wanted to go to the bank and request that amount in cash for sure, because that would have been part of the script. But if he were only able to raise, say, $30,000, so what?

When the time came to report to the police, he could have told them that unfortunately he was unable to raise the full amount. The bank manager would be his witness. He could say he explained that to the "kidnappers" when they called. And they said, OK, no problem, just take the cash to such and such place in such and such woods, where we'll be waiting in a black chevy.

He could tell the police just about anything he wanted to, so long as it fit reasonably well with his "ransom" note scenario. Of course, they'd be suspicious, no question. But if all had gone according to plan, there would be NO evidence, no way to prove he'd done anything illegal.

docg,
You should investigate further. I've known about this limit for years. I've read about drug gangs all over USofA depositing $9,999 in batches at different banks on a daily basis, so to launder drugs profits, and avoid automatically notifying the FBI.

With money laundering and transfer of funds to criminal entities which plan crimes of violence. The FBI are particularly interested in anyone who tranfers sums equal to or over $10,000. Maybe it has been increased due to inflation, most countries have this reporting requirement.

The FBI also has direct electronic access to all bank accounts, although its normally done on an anonymous audit basis, any red-flags, and you will be automatically reported.

Your bank manager prefers you not know what happens in the administrative background.


.
.

 

[UKGuy]

From Patsy's police interview:
According to your theory, John didn't want Patsy to call the police. How do you explain the contradiction?

rashomon,

Oh, you spoilt the party, like I said a close look at the detail and the holes start to appear.


Nice Find.




.

 

[UKGuy]

I think you've confused two different situations. As I understand it, cash transactions are monitored in the manner you've described. However, this would not have been a transaction but a simple withdrawal of funds already owned by the person making the withdrawal. No danger of money laundering there. I see no reason to believe the manager was being untruthful. As far as John was concerned, I'm sure he would have been well known at his bank and would also have known the manager, and would be well aware of what bank protocols were.

But even if you are right, which I very much doubt, it wouldn't matter, because as I said, John was in a position to play it any way he could. Even if he wound up withdrawing $9,000 he could still claim it was OK with the "kidnappers." Because there weren't any, remember?

docg,
All money transfers over $10,000 are flagged up. Honest or dishonest the FBI and other agencies want to know when it happens since it is a red flag indicator.

As you say John might have known this and as a work around the rule, done a number of withdrawals at different branches to avoid the reporting rule.

.

 

[Chrishope]

Currency transaction reports (CTRs) are required on all transfers of $10K or more, on all accounts, private and corporate. Typically the reporting is electronic, and automatic.

Wire transfers, checks, and other non-cash transactions are not subject to the reporting requirement, though this would not help JR much, as he needed $118K in cash. 100s and 20s.

But, applications are granted for individuals to be exempted from the requirement. About 60,000 applications were made in 2007. How many were approved is unknown. (This is just for info, I'm not suggesting JR had been granted an exemption, though of course, we do not know. Let's assume not, just for the sake of discussion)

http://www.ehow.com/about_4672449_transactions-do-banks-report-irs_.html


But this requirement doesn't really hurt doc's theory at all. What's at issue isn't the reporting itself, but the timing. As long as he can dispose of the body and make the fake delivery instruction call before authorities are on him, he's all set.

There were 15 million CTRs in 2007. With that kind of volume (obviously different in '96 but likely in the 10s of millions) it's unlikely that information would be acted on quickly. Perhaps not at all, given that the purpose of the report is to stymie money laundering. Someone at treasury needs to assess the circumstances of the transfer and decide if it's indicative of criminal activity. Given that there is already a CTR for the deposit of his bonus ($118K), if that were not already considered suspicious, there might not be any reason to be suspicious of the withdrawal. But even if treasury had suspicions, is this something treasury is likely to follow up on within minutes? hours? Is there a treasury agent at JR's door before he gets back from the bank?

The real danger is in the bank employee, whether manager or teller, contacting the local police. They would be the ones to respond quickly to a possible kidnapping. The local office of the FBI might also respond quickly. But there is no requirement that transactions of $10k or more be reported to the local police, or the local branch of the FBI. There is only a requirement to send a report to the treasury department.

So JR can either take the bank manager into his confidence and ask him not to call the police, or FBI, even though he knows an electronic CTR will be filed automatically, or he can make up some other story - he found a really good deal on a used cabin cruiser, or a Porsche, or ......whatever. He can withdraw the money w/o tipping the bank employee that there is a "kidnapping" going on. For that matter, he doesn't really have to give a reason for withdrawing his own money. All that is going to happen is an electronic report will be filed. It's unlikely it will be acted upon before he completes his plan.

 

[Whaleshark]

Why on earth would they want the cops to find her??

So bear with me here -- try and follow the logic -

So why would John need to go get the body at all then, and put her right in their face? If his orig. plan was screwed & he wasn't planning on going to get the body till later that evening in his ‘original plan’, and had planned to dispose of her body anyway, then why would he think he needed to go get her now? If he was planning on keeping her hidden in the house till later, should it have mattered - even though the police were staying put, not leaving, and not allowing him to follow his orig. plan? – It shouldn't matter, because he should not ‘know’ that she is hidden in the house, in the wine cellar, esp. if he supposedly looked for her earlier...

If he didn't want the cops to find her, and he planned to get rid of the body, he didn't have any urgent need to go get her. What's the difference in him bringing her up now, or letting them find her then at that point, since his 'original plan' was blown?
I know; I know – if there is a RN there should be no body.
Yes, but then if there now has to be a body because his plan is screwed, he should at least not be the one to go straight to the hidden room and find her!
Best at that point, to definitely NOT be the one to find her….
(Unless of course, the RN is just a note to point to an intruder, not to literally follow the Ransom Note….there’s a thought.)

Automatically, it made him look more guilty to go straight where she was and happen to find her, rather than just leave her there and not be the one to find her. Even if she would have started to stink or whatever, why does he need to go?….

And if he planned to dispose of the body in the first place, then he couldn't have been worried about a 'proper burial' if she's going to be out in the elements -- UNLESS he planned on being able to 'recover' her right away, which then wouldn't have mattered where she was 'dumped', or where she was ‘found’ -
if HE was to be the one to find her, or told by the kidnappers where to find her, or to have been the one to pick her up, right?

So, if he was planning on getting the body out of the house, to 'pick her up from the kidnappers', then he has to take her body to the 'pick up' place, right?
But then was he just going to drive to a location, keep her in the car, then say he found her there? Was he to drop her off in the elements and leave her there for a while, risking someone else find her? If he wanted to make sure he was the one who got her back, and wanted her body for burial, why wouldn’t he just keep her in the car and not drop her anywhere; better yet, why take her anywhere at all? If no one else knew where she was hidden, & the other Ramseys are to be out of the house, then why does he need to plan to remove the body from the house at all, if he will be the one to go get her?

So then if he is the one to go ‘pick her up’, the police are never called like he supposedly wanted, and he’s following his original plan, & got rid of the ransom note, does he just have the body at that point, and nothing to show for evidence of an intruder/kidnapper? Or, no body & no ransom note either?

So to answer that, you've said he may have planned then to make a copy of the RN for police. Ok, but if he’s planning on ‘picking up’ her body, & if he has a RN copy, he STILL ends up with a RN and a dead body. And if he comes back with only a body, and no RN, he looks even more guilty, because he’s the only witness to everything and there’s no evidence of anyone else.

…So, if he’s planning on NOT having the body recovered, saying the kidnappers denied him the body, then he definitely needs some proof of a RN, because no call to police was made, he’s back to having a missing daughter, and his whereabouts during all this time are unaccounted for….

And at some point a 911 call still has to be made anyway.

If he is going to leave her ’missing’, he’s got to have SOME proof of the kidnappers – whether it’s a copy of the RN or the original, he’s got to have some proof – and if we are to think he’s planning and calculating enough to stage all this and plan to go make these errands, then to say he planned on saying the kidnappers might have asked for the RN back because he would say that they said they didn’t want their handwriting figured out…Well—first, how would they not expect him just to make a copy of the ransom note while he is out getting the money or whatever? Which you said he would have thought to make for himself to give to the police anyway… So if he would have thought to make a copy, then why would he not think the kidnappers would think he might make one?

Even if he thinks he is going to go through all that to get out of being caught – him doing all the stuff on his own with no ‘proof’ of anyone else, or anything else, really doesn’t make him less of a suspect. It makes him look more of a suspect. And if he’s supposed to be smart enough to put all that plan together, he’s got to be smart enough to know it doesn’t make him look any less guilty without some evidence of a kidnapper....

Thing is, if we don’t have a body, then we need to have the Ransom Note. The RN had to be just as important as evidence for the police, as you say it was for Patsy…. Body or no body, original or copy – it HAD to be for the police too. Otherwise, who cares if it’s 3 pages long, with a whole devised story? If he’s having Patsy read through it just once and he plans on getting rid of it, getting her and Burke out of the house, and getting on with his plan, what does it matter of the details, if only he was to see most of it?

But as you say, if there’s a RN there should be no body.

Ok, but if there was to be no body, there needed to be a Ransom Note.

Ransom Note is crucial, especially if there is no body.

The RN, then, is NOT just for Patsy – whether the body was really supposed to ever be removed from the house or not, there still has to be a RN.

Once we realize there still has to be a Ransom Note, we have to then know he was going to turn in the original, or make a copy. So then to believe that he would make a copy of what he already made, starts to get far-fetched. Then we have to go back into his whole plan scheme… and it gets more convoluted.

I just feel like we have to get so convoluted into what Act III of his plan would be, to believe he would believe that it would work that way.

You tell us to not speculate and go in circles about things that don’t add up and to just look at the whole picture….
But in order to imagine him having this as the original plan, we have to do just that – speculate the whole rest of his plan to see if it makes sense….

Don’t get me wrong, it’s 100% obvious that he is involved. I am just not so sure that he is the only one…..

 

[Chrishope]

All transactions on an account, even from different branches, are aggregated. So he can't escape the CTR by withdrawing 9,999 at various branches.

 

[BOESP]

<snipped>
Kolar's book (which I have only scanned over so far, but will go through in detail soon) seems to be another bombshell. Maybe this case is simpler than we all thought?

Good to see you posting again Rashomon. I like your statement. It fits right in with Occam's Razor.

 

[BOESP]

I read your theory. It looks to me like a typical PDI theory, with many details based only on speculation, not evidence. It reminds me of Steve Thomas's theory, which as I see it contains some very bizarre assumptions and serious contradictions. Yet a great many people such as yourself find it reasonable, which for me is one of the oddest aspects of this case. The most serious contradiction, which you, along with Steve Thomas, fail to address, is the reason for Patsy calling the police and handing over the ransom note with the body still in the house.

You must have over-looked all the posts explaining why.

 

[BOESP]

You make a good point, but if we look closely we see John distancing himself from all aspects of the crime. He chooses Patsy's pad and Patsy's pen, Patsy's brush and Burke's knife and nothing of his own connected with any part of the crime. So arranging for Patsy and not himself to discover the note strikes me as consistent with this pattern.

No plan is ever perfect, and John would have had no way of knowing Patsy would react the way she did. He probably assumed she'd either read the note first or hand it over to him and then let him decide what was best. But instead, it looks like she just read the first few lines and, in a panic, dialed 911 without thinking. You can tell from the recording that she is begging for help and wants police over there immediately.

Seems like you are basing much of your hypothesis on a belief that if John was involved he used reverse psychology at every turn.

By the way, Patsy was far from dumb. I steer clear of just about any theory that uses ad hominem arguments, even when they are explained as "who me...I didn't mean it that way" comments.

Here's a great link for checking your blog for "holes:"

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

 

[BOESP]

I've seen nothing that explains why, sorry. Saying they were stressed, they were in a hurry, they needed the body to be found, they were confused, didn't know what they were doing, those are not explanations, they are excuses for lame thinking.

Bolded above by me and posted by you ... classic ad hominem ....

There's a saying around here where I live: You can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.