Patsy Ramsey

[Anti-K]

And WHOSE fault was that?!



Especially THESE people for some reason.

Plenty of blame to go around on that one.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

View attachment 72844

If the place I've marked in blue is where the phone PR was using was located, there is no way she could've seen the ransom note from over JR's shoulder. That is, of course, if the phone had a cord attached, which, since it was 1996, I'm assuming it did.

According to the sworn testimony of John Fernie, he approached the house from the alley and observed the note (laid out on the floor) through the locked patio door denoted by the red arrow. Officer French confirmed Fernie's recollection, & vice versa. The red "x" denotes the location of the phone, and the red "0" encircles an area of the back hall that would account for the testimony provided by Fernie, French, JR & PR.

 

[OliviaG1996]

According to the sworn testimony of John Fernie, he approached the house from the alley and observed the note (laid out on the floor) through the locked patio door denoted by the red arrow. Officer French confirmed Fernie's recollection, & vice versa. The red "x" denotes the location of the phone, and the red "0" encircles an area of the back hall that would account for the testimony provided by Fernie, French, JR & PR.

Well, if I'm understanding the diagram correctly, the area of the ransom note changed when John Fernie saw it through the door. It still doesn't explain how Patsy Ramsey would be able to see it from where the phone was, all the way over to the spiral staircase. It's a greater distance from the phone to the spiral staircase than from where Mr. Fernie was standing to the "0" area. Plus, we don't know how reliable John Fernie's statements are since he changed his story. Here are some quotes from ACandyRose:

JOHN FERNIE: "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."
(Comment: So, did Mr. Fernie go in, turn the note, read it, leave, and then knock on the front door?)

JOHN FERNIE: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."
(Comment: Mr. Fernie answered my question for me. How did he read it from outside if the door was locked and the note was facing the other way?)

I don't believe Mr. Fernie's inconsistencies have anything to do with the murder, by the way. I believe if he was able to read the ransom note from outside, it was because the note was brought closer.

 

[Anti-K]

Well, if I'm understanding the diagram correctly, the area of the ransom note changed when John Fernie saw it through the door. It still doesn't explain how Patsy Ramsey would be able to see it from where the phone was, all the way over to the spiral staircase. It's a greater distance from the phone to the spiral staircase than from where Mr. Fernie was standing to the "0" area. Plus, we don't know how reliable John Fernie's statements are since he changed his story. Here are some quotes from ACandyRose:

JOHN FERNIE: "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."
(Comment: So, did Mr. Fernie go in, turn the note, read it, leave, and then knock on the front door?)

JOHN FERNIE: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."
(Comment: Mr. Fernie answered my question for me. How did he read it from outside if the door was locked and the note was facing the other way?)

I don't believe Mr. Fernie's inconsistencies have anything to do with the murder, by the way. I believe if he was able to read the ransom note from outside, it was because the note was brought closer.

Okay, I’m curious. Where is Fernie being inconsistent?
...

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

Okay, I’m curious. Where is Fernie being inconsistent?
...

AK

Either the ransom note was facing him so he could read it or it wasn't. How could he read it upside down?

 

[Mama2JML]

The RN was no longer on the staircase when Officer French & John Fernie first observed it. The 3 pages were laid out, on the floor, not far from the phone.

 

[OliviaG1996]

The RN was no longer on the staircase when Officer French & John Fernie first observed it. The 3 pages were laid out, on the floor, not far from the phone.

Yes, exactly. That is why it was easy for Mr. Fernie to read the note. It was closer to him than it was to Patsy while she was on the phone.

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes, exactly. That is why it was easy for Mr. Fernie to read the note. It was closer to him than it was to Patsy while she was on the phone.

How so? I'm not following you...

 

[OliviaG1996]

How so? I'm not following you...

If I'm understanding correctly, you say the ransom note was no longer on the spiral staircase when John Fernie first observed it. It was in close proximity to the phone, which is closer to the door outside where John Fernie was inspecting it. The note is now closer to Mr. Fernie than it would've been if it was placed on the spiral staircase. The distance between Fernie and the new location of the note (near the phone) is relatively shorter than the original location of the note (spiral staircase) and PR (where the phone is). Therefore, comparing John Fernie reading the note from outside to Patsy being able to read the note from across the house doesn't make much sense to me. It would be very helpful if there were actual measurements of the interior of the house (in ft., for example)!

 

[BoldBear]

Sorry to butt in, but I can read something upside down written with a sharpie. Reading upside down just takes me more time. I might not be able to get every word but I'd be able to get enough to understand that there was a problem. I'd also give the police enough credit to have tested this. Didn't Kolar say that the police eventually stayed about a week at the house testing theories (after the Ramsey's moved out)? That was when they did all the lighting research and point-of-view on the windowless room. This also wouldn't be too hard to test. Just get a copy of the ransom note and an outside door with a window. See how far you can see the note on the floor. In November in Boulder, I don't think the sun would be up before about 7:00 AM so there wouldn't be much glare on the window. The house itself would have blocked any direct sunlight that early in the morning.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Sorry to butt in, but I can read something upside down written with a sharpie. Reading upside down just takes me more time. I might not be able to get every word but I'd be able to get enough to understand that there was a problem. I'd also give the police enough credit to have tested this. Didn't Kolar say that the police eventually stayed about a week at the house testing theories (after the Ramsey's moved out)? That was when they did all the lighting research and point-of-view on the windowless room. This also wouldn't be too hard to test. Just get a copy of the ransom note and an outside door with a window. See how far you can see the note on the floor. In November in Boulder, I don't think the sun would be up before about 7:00 AM so there wouldn't be much glare on the window. The house itself would have blocked any direct sunlight that early in the morning.

Oh, you're not butting in, BoldBear! All opinions are welcome! :seeya:

Well, of course it's possible to take 2 minutes or so out in the cold at 6 in the morning to read part of a note upside down, but is it really probable? Especially if your close friend just called to say their daughter has been kidnapped. I would think that Mr. Fernie would want to get inside the house as soon as possible to hear what the heck happened but, alas, I am not Mr. Fernie! Plus, going back to the 'reading the note' part of my reply, Mr. Fernie was in his fifties in 1996. Reading something upside-down about 10 feet or so away is hard enough for me, and I'm only 19.

 

[Mama2JML]

Oh, you're not butting in, BoldBear! All opinions are welcome! :seeya:

Well, of course it's possible to take 2 minutes or so out in the cold at 6 in the morning to read part of a note upside down, but is it really probable? Especially if your close friend just called to say their daughter has been kidnapped. I would think that Mr. Fernie would want to get inside the house as soon as possible to hear what the heck happened but, alas, I am not Mr. Fernie! Plus, going back to the 'reading the note' part of my reply, Mr. Fernie was in his fifties in 1996. Reading something upside-down about 10 feet or so away is hard enough for me, and I'm only 19.

Have you read his deposition? I'd recommend that for sure.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Have you read his deposition? I'd recommend that for sure.

Yes, I have. To be honest, I don't even know why we got on the subject of John Fernie being able to read the note. I'm not even questioning whether or not he did/could read the note. If he could, it was because it was a shorter distance away from him than it was to PR when she was reciting the note to the 911 operator. Other than that, there's no point in discussing Mr. Fernie's testimony. IMO.

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes, I have. To be honest, I don't even know why we got on the subject of John Fernie being able to read the note. I'm not even questioning whether or not he did/could read the note. If he could, it was because it was a shorter distance away from him than it was to PR when she was reciting the note to the 911 operator. Other than that, there's no point in discussing Mr. Fernie's testimony. IMO.

The point is this: The testimonies of Fernie, French, Patsy & John are consistent.

I don't understand how you've determined the distances, nor do I understand why you've said "PR was reciting the note to the 911 operator"?...

 

[OliviaG1996]

The point is this: The testimonies of Fernie, French, Patsy & John are consistent.

I don't understand how you've determined the distances, nor do I understand why you've said "PR was reciting the note to the 911 operator"?...

I've determined the distances (not in exact ft.) by looking at the diagram and seeing that the distance between where Fernie is standing and the area marked "0" is less than half of the distance between the phone and spiral staircase.

PR was reciting the note to the 911 operator by saying "S.B.T.C., Victory!" as if she was reading the note from the bottom-up, as Anti-K has written. As I've said, it would be more helpful to see the exact distance between the phone and the staircase because I don't understand how PR would have been able to read the note from that far of a distance. Especially considering how large the house was. I believe she either had the note in her hands already, or she somehow remembered those four random letters. I'd say the former is more likely.

 

[Anti-K]

Either the ransom note was facing him so he could read it or it wasn't. How could he read it upside down?

Still nothing inconsistent. He read the note through the door. It was upside down. He never said it wasn’t.

I think that this just goes to show that you can find something wrong with something said by anyone. Now, afaik, no one thinks Fernie was involved in the crime in any way, but here we are with some thinking that there was something wrong with what he had to say, or how it said it, or whatever. This is just how people are; it’s how we talk; it’s how we remember.

And, we miss so much when all we have are words. No tone, no expression, no movement, no body language, no smilies and emoticons; nothing. Sometimes, no context.

Anyway, Fernie read the note, or part of the note, and he read it through the door window as it lie upside down on the floor. But, we have to parse it out from what he says and how he says it and from what we know.

And, the Ramseys have no clue. If IDI, than how could they remember the sequence and details of that morning? How could they? And, with each telling, with every question a prompting, the tale comes out as this and as that and confusion and uncertainty ensues; and the memory reforms and shapes and develops and there is nothing unusual or controversial about this. Where was the Mr and where was the note while the Mrs was on the phone? Where, exactly? They don’t know. We don’t know. But, if Mrs Ramsey read SBTC, Victory while on the phone then the note had to have been close enough for her to do that.
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

Question to AK and all others.

If sexual assault with an object took place at the death, concurrently, immediately prior but not earlier. the questions needed to be answered:
-what position JB was at the moment of sexual assault, was it the same as at the garroting, or they were turning her as a doll back and force?
-why her white pants was urine stained but not blood stained more profusely when at the death it all came out of . Her pants were on her and it would be more than several droplets of blood.
-where the rest of the blood on the carpet if sexual assault were at, concurrent and immediately prior to garroting but on the alive girl. It should be much more blood, if her heart was pumping
-was the particles of the cloth found on the carpet if some thick cloth was added for protection against blood
-when the wiping took place, if she had already her pants back when dying face down.


I do not see the sexual assault happened on the alive girl at, concurrent, immediately prior, bc it`s inconsistent with the factual evidence of her pants and carpet with urine stain but without blood , except several drops inside the underwear

If assault took place right after the death, after the not bloody urine came out on the carpet, after turning her back face up, assaulting the body with blood stopped running in her tissues, then it looks consistent to the crime scene evidence. Then it was enough to have just fabric glove(tan color perhaps, or dark ?) to collect small amount blood and wipe the body. Consistent to me, my opinion only.

 

[Anti-K]

Question to AK and all others.

If sexual assault with an object took place at the death, concurrently, immediately prior but not earlier. the questions needed to be answered:
-what position JB was at the moment of sexual assault, was it the same as at the garroting, or they were turning her as a doll back and force?
-why her white pants was urine stained but not blood stained more profusely when at the death it all came out of . Her pants were on her and it would be more than several droplets of blood.
-where the rest of the blood on the carpet if sexual assault were at, concurrent and immediately prior to garroting but on the alive girl. It should be much more blood, if her heart was pumping
-was the particles of the cloth found on the carpet if some thick cloth was added for protection against blood
-when the wiping took place, if she had already her pants back when dying face down.


I do not see the sexual assault happened on the alive girl at, concurrent, immediately prior, bc it`s inconsistent with the factual evidence of her pants and carpet with urine stain but without blood , except several drops inside the underwear

If assault took place right after the death, after the not bloody urine came out on the carpet, after turning her back face up, assaulting the body with blood stopped running in her tissues, then it looks consistent to the crime scene evidence. Then it was enough to have just fabric glove(tan color perhaps, or dark ?) to collect small amount blood and wipe the body. Consistent to me, my opinion only.

Tovarisch,
I think it’s important to understand that
1) tightening of the ligature would have taken a few seconds – one quick, hard pull
2) after one quick, hard pull the ligature would do its work and the killer would be hands free
3) a few minutes would have passed between the tightening of the ligature and the time of death

Now, let’s say that the bladder voids when the ligature is tightened. At this point, the victim is on her stomach. The bladder voids. Urine passes through the panties, the leggings and onto the carpet. The victim is alive but dying, she is at or near point of death.
The killer, hands free while the asphyxiation continues, now rolls the victim over and pulls down the leggings/panties and performs the sexual assault. She is at or near point of death.

He wipes the area and pulls up the leggings/panties. Blood drips onto the panties from the instrument used for penetration, or from the victim sometime during this phase: assault, wiping, redressing.

The bloodied cloth (glove?) used for the wiping is removed from the house by the killer, along with the instrument (tip of paintbrush?) used for the penetration.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

Interesting to note that Fernie mentions the glass door to the Butler's Pantry was locked. Wasn't there conflicting information about the door being open? I thought I remembered that one of the parents claimed the door was unlocked.

 

[DeeDee249]

One of the things the coroner noted was that the location of the blood drops in the panties did NOT match up with where the injuries were found. IMO, the clean panties were put on her after she was wiped down (and free of visible blood). Then, the longjohns (which had NO blood) were pulled back on. The blood oozed out, and the stagers were unaware of its presence, as it did not seep through to the long johns, an her torso was then covered by the blanket anyway.