Patsy Ramsey

[UKGuy]

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.

DeeDee249,
Here is a Det. Arndt's alleged verbatim quote:

Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, 1996-12-27

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth

I interpret this quote as follows: The size-12's were already bloodstained, before she was wiped down. They were removed then she was wiped down, then redressed in them, but placed back to front from the original orientation. Thus allowing Coroner Meyer to infer JonBenet had been wiped by a cloth no less, JR's woolen Israeli shirt?

If JonBenet had bled after being redressed in clean size-12's Coroner Meyer might not have been able to infer JonBenet had been wiped down, since the bloodstain location would have matched the approximate origin of the blood source?

.

 

[otg]

Would someone please explain to me how anyone would expect the reported bloodstains in the crotch of the size-12 panties to match up (anatomically) considering how they would fit on someone who normally wears a size-6? The way they would be worn would have to be either with the crotch hanging down to her knees or with the waistband pulled up to her chest. I imagine they were put on with the waistband in the correct position, and then the tight-fitting long johns pulled up correctly over them. This would cause all the excess panty material to simply bunch up or fold over against the crotch. What should ordinarily be the back of the panties might be in the front, or the front crotch of the panties might be folded over in the back. IOW, I don’t think anyone should be surprised at the allegation that the medical examiner couldn’t match up the bloodstains with the vaginal bleeding (as has been reported).

 

[Detective Pinkie]

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 think there has been a bit of confusion between what you are saying and what Olivia is saying.

Olivia is saying that, as far as she knows, at the time of the 911 call the ransom note was still on the stairwell with John reading it so she believes that the phone may have been too far away from the note for Patsy to have seen it. Fernie says the note was on the floor near the butler pantry door so either John moved from the stairwell with the note to closer to the door and phone or it was moved later so Patsy was still too far from the note at the time of the call. That is reliant on the phone being where people said it was in the above pictures and it not being a cordless phone.

Mama2JML and Anti-K are saying Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door. But the question is when did it move from the stairs to the hall floor? Because John says he didn't touch it , right? So when was it moved - before, during or after the call? And if not till after, Olivia is questioning whether Patsy could read the note on the stairway from the phone. That is one of the suggestions made in response to the question of how Patsy knew so much about a ransom note she only scanned. Olivia is testing that theory and I believe she has a point. If anyone can point out when the note was moved, that would be helpful.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I think there has been a bit of confusion between what you are saying and what Olivia is saying.

Olivia is saying that, as far as she knows, at the time of the 911 call the ransom note was still on the stairwell with John reading it so she believes that the phone may have been too far away from the note for Patsy to have seen it. Fernie says the note was on the floor near the butler pantry door so either John moved from the stairwell with the note to closer to the door and phone or it was moved later so Patsy was still too far from the note at the time of the call. That is reliant on the phone being where people said it was in the above pictures and it not being a cordless phone.

Mama2JML and Anti-K are saying Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door. But the question is when did it move from the stairs to the hall floor? Because John says he didn't touch it , right? So when was it moved - before, during or after the call? And if not till after, Olivia is questioning whether Patsy could read the note on the stairway from the phone. That is one of the suggestions made in response to the question of how Patsy knew so much about a ransom note she only scanned. Olivia is testing that theory and I believe she has a point. If anyone can point out when the note was moved, that would be helpful.

You've got it, Detective Pinkie! That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Tawny]

John and Patsy's 'testimonies' conflict with themselves, so I don't know how they're considered consistent with anyone else's.

 

[Mama2JML]

I think there has been a bit of confusion between what you are saying and what Olivia is saying.

Olivia is saying that, as far as she knows, at the time of the 911 call the ransom note was still on the stairwell with John reading it so she believes that the phone may have been too far away from the note for Patsy to have seen it. Fernie says the note was on the floor near the butler pantry door so either John moved from the stairwell with the note to closer to the door and phone or it was moved later so Patsy was still too far from the note at the time of the call. That is reliant on the phone being where people said it was in the above pictures and it not being a cordless phone.

Mama2JML and Anti-K are saying Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door. But the question is when did it move from the stairs to the hall floor? Because John says he didn't touch it , right? So when was it moved - before, during or after the call? And if not till after, Olivia is questioning whether Patsy could read the note on the stairway from the phone. That is one of the suggestions made in response to the question of how Patsy knew so much about a ransom note she only scanned. Olivia is testing that theory and I believe she has a point. If anyone can point out when the note was moved, that would be helpful.

I have no knowledge of that which is BBM, above. Someone moved the note to the floor, if (at minimum) we are to believe Offiver French. I understand why one would question the testimony of John & Patsy. ...&, even, John Fernie. BUT, we have the sworn testimony of a LEO confirming the sworn testimony of a witness, which is in line with BOTH Ramseys recollections. I do not understand how one could feel confident in theorizing something entirely different than what the consistencies among the testimonies of these four individuals reveals.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

So this is from the JR interview April 97 on A Candy Rose:

TT: Actually why don’t I just talk to you and I’ll go back and try to get some of the things we missed. Kind of talk to you just like you did on the 25th. You guys meet on the landing, what happened after that?
JR: Well I’m, it’s a lot of screaming going on around that, but we saw the note and read the first part. Ah, I think I might have run upstairs to look in JonBenet’s room. At one point I laid it on the floor and spread it out so I could read it real fast without having to sit and read it. At some point we checked Burke, I think I checked Burke. Patsy asked what should we do, and I said call the police, and she called 911.
TT: Patsy called 911 (inaudible).
JR: Yeah. It was, I remember she was on the phone, I was, I think that was when I was looking at the note again, which was on the floor and I was in the back hallway.

So BBM - They both read the first part of the note then checked on JBR. John then says he laid it on the floor in the hall way so he could read it quicker. This is mentioned in DOI and I can find the quote if you need it. Then he is looking at the note in the hallway while Patsy phoned 911.
So it looks like the note was moved and it may have been by John. But didn't he deny touching it because there was a question about why his fingerprints weren't on it? I will keep digging but if someone else has the info at hand, that would be great.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

PR interview interview same day from A Candy Rose:

TT: Okay.
PR: . . .from my bathroom. Um, I started down the spiral stairs and when I got nearly to the bottom I saw these three pieces of paper, like notebook size paper, on, on the run of the stairs and uh, I went on down and turned around and started reading, reading it. . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: And uh, I, I remember reading the first couple of lines and I kind of, didn’t know what it was or uh, and then I (inaudible) you know after the first couple of lines I, it dawned on me, it said something about, ‘We have your daughter’ or something . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: And I uh, I ran back upstairs and pushed open the door to her room and she wasn’t in her bed.
TT: Okay.
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.

BBM. So Patsy remembers John handling the note and spreading it out on the floor. She doesn't specify the hallway but she does say floor not stair so I think it is safe to assume that John did spread the note out on the floor and probably in the hallway. I believe the quote in DOI says something about the light in the hallway so maybe there wasn't a light or a good light in the stairwell. And we do have John touching the note. So is it Patsy that denied touching the note and I misremembered? She does say she stepped to below the note and turned around to read it, which is weird. Not sure why she didn't just bend down and pick it up.

 

[Anti-K]

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.

No, you have your doors mixed up. Fernie did not view the note through the butler door, and it was not the butler door that he said was locked. The butler door is on the opposite side of the house.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think there has been a bit of confusion between what you are saying and what Olivia is saying.

Olivia is saying that, as far as she knows, at the time of the 911 call the ransom note was still on the stairwell with John reading it so she believes that the phone may have been too far away from the note for Patsy to have seen it. Fernie says the note was on the floor near the butler pantry door so either John moved from the stairwell with the note to closer to the door and phone or it was moved later so Patsy was still too far from the note at the time of the call. That is reliant on the phone being where people said it was in the above pictures and it not being a cordless phone.

Mama2JML and Anti-K are saying Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door. But the question is when did it move from the stairs to the hall floor? Because John says he didn't touch it , right? So when was it moved - before, during or after the call? And if not till after, Olivia is questioning whether Patsy could read the note on the stairway from the phone. That is one of the suggestions made in response to the question of how Patsy knew so much about a ransom note she only scanned. Olivia is testing that theory and I believe she has a point. If anyone can point out when the note was moved, that would be helpful.

You, also, have your doors mixed up. The butler door is on the opposite side of the house. the butler door lead into the lower hall (See floor plan as posted above: http://tinyurl.com/n74npdf ).
.

I’m not really saying that “Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door.”

I said, in part, “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.” I am claiming confusions and uncertainty (as expected, if IDI) and the shaping and reshaping of memory as time goes by and questions asked and the tale retold (as expected, if IDI, because memory is MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE).
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Would someone please explain to me how anyone would expect the reported bloodstains in the crotch of the size-12 panties to match up (anatomically) considering how they would fit on someone who normally wears a size-6? The way they would be worn would have to be either with the crotch hanging down to her knees or with the waistband pulled up to her chest. I imagine they were put on with the waistband in the correct position, and then the tight-fitting long johns pulled up correctly over them. This would cause all the excess panty material to simply bunch up or fold over against the crotch. What should ordinarily be the back of the panties might be in the front, or the front crotch of the panties might be folded over in the back. IOW, I don’t think anyone should be surprised at the allegation that the medical examiner couldn’t match up the bloodstains with the vaginal bleeding (as has been reported).

otg,
For Coroner Meyer to make the inference he did regarding JonBenet being wiped down, on the basis of the location of of the bloodstains, along with the dark fibers, etc, I assume he can rule out random bunching as you suggest, presumably the bloodstain was either at the front or back depending on your view?

.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

JR Interview June 98

22 LOU SMIT: You run down the stairs?
23 JOHN RAMSEY: You know, Patsy is hysterical.
24 I don't remember exactly what she said. I believe
25 that it was like, (They have JonBenet,̃ and she
0132
1 gave me this note?
2 LOU SMIT: Where were you at that time?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: I think I was either landing
4 here or I had gone partially down the stairs. It
5 was somewhere in this area.
6 LOU SMIT: You would have been on the second
7 floor then?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I think. But it seems
9 to me that somewhere here on the second floor,
10 partially down the stairs.
11 LOU SMIT: She had the note in her hand?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: As I recall, I remember I spread
13 it out on the floor just kind to absorb everything
14 quickly.
15 LOU SMIT: Tell me how you spread that out.
16 I mean, do you remember how the pages were like,
17 three --
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Well there were three together and I
19 just kind of spread them out. I think there were
20 three pages. I spread them out next to each other
21 so I could look at the whole thing instantly.
22 LOU SMIT: Okay.
23 JOHN RAMSEY: And I remember just screaming.
24 Just --
25 LOU SMIT: What was the first thing then that
0133
1 struck you when you read the note? I mean your
2 first impression after reading that?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Well you first impression was
4 that you can't believe it. And I can remember, we
5 have your daughter. And it's the strangest feeling
6 I could ever imagine.
7 LOU SMIT: Are you standing reading the
8 (INAUDIBLE)?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I kind of got on my knees,
10 because I had them on the floor.


BBM.

So again JR is saying he put the note on the floor. So he didn't read it on the stairs, well not solely on the stairs. He did put it on the floor. Now, where on the floor he doesn't say but we can assume it is where French and Fernie saw it. Here he also says that Patsy handed him the note. So we have both of them handling the note. I am sure one of them denied handling the note because there was questions about why there were no fingerprints from that person, but now I am not sure who that was. So I think we can say that during the 911 call the note was on the floor in the hallway.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

You, also, have your doors mixed up. The butler door is on the opposite side of the house. the butler door lead into the lower hall (See floor plan as posted above: http://tinyurl.com/n74npdf ).
.

I’m not really saying that “Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door.”

I said, in part, “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.” I am claiming confusions and uncertainty (as expected, if IDI) and the shaping and reshaping of memory as time goes by and questions asked and the tale retold (as expected, if IDI, because memory is MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE).
...

AK

BBM.

But RDI has a response that fits that too. IDI does not solely explain the vagueness and inconsistencies. If RDI and they are inconsistent, they could be lying. Or they later changed the story to fit facts that came out. And it is easier to say I don't know than to lie and be caught. It helps to delay the formal interview with police because you can use that as an excuse. "It was too long ago, I don't remember".

According to the interviews I posted JR is saying that he did move the note from the stairs to the hall and that is where he and the note were during the 911 call. I don't think that can be seen as too confused or uncertain. The problem is if they change that story later. Then you have to ask why they are being inconsistent and uncertain. Hmmm I wonder why we felt there was some confusion as to where the note was?

 

[icedtea4me]

I think there has been a bit of confusion between what you are saying and what Olivia is saying.

Olivia is saying that, as far as she knows, at the time of the 911 call the ransom note was still on the stairwell with John reading it so she believes that the phone may have been too far away from the note for Patsy to have seen it. Fernie says the note was on the floor near the butler pantry door so either John moved from the stairwell with the note to closer to the door and phone or it was moved later so Patsy was still too far from the note at the time of the call. That is reliant on the phone being where people said it was in the above pictures and it not being a cordless phone.

Mama2JML and Anti-K are saying Patsy was close enough to read it because Fernie was able to read it from the door. But the question is when did it move from the stairs to the hall floor? Because John says he didn't touch it , right? So when was it moved - before, during or after the call? And if not till after, Olivia is questioning whether Patsy could read the note on the stairway from the phone. That is one of the suggestions made in response to the question of how Patsy knew so much about a ransom note she only scanned. Olivia is testing that theory and I believe she has a point. If anyone can point out when the note was moved, that would be helpful.

This is from Patsy's June 1998 BPD interview:

23 TOM HANEY: Maybe this time with a
24 broken line you can just indicate going back
25 down.
0044
1 (MS. RAMSEY COMPLIES.)
2 TOM HANEY: You're still the green
3 one. You come down the spiral stairs. The note
4 is--
5 PATSY RAMSEY: The note is --
6 TOM HANEY: -- same place,
7 different place?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Somewhere in this
9 area, maybe still on the floor or something, you
10 know. I don't know what happened to it exactly
11 when I bounded upstairs. I think it was right
12 there somewhere.

How can the note still be on the floor when she made no mention prior to that about it being on the floor?

 

[OliviaG1996]

This is from Patsy's June 1998 BPD interview:

23 TOM HANEY: Maybe this time with a
24 broken line you can just indicate going back
25 down.
0044
1 (MS. RAMSEY COMPLIES.)
2 TOM HANEY: You're still the green
3 one. You come down the spiral stairs. The note
4 is--
5 PATSY RAMSEY: The note is --
6 TOM HANEY: -- same place,
7 different place?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Somewhere in this
9 area, maybe still on the floor, you
10 know. I don't know what happened to it exactly
11 when I bounded upstairs. I think it was right
12 there somewhere.

How can the note still be on the floor when she made no mention prior to that about it being on the floor?

Great observation! Also, why does she say what was BBM? According to the Ramseys, BR was in his room on the second floor while JR was on the third. How could she, "not know what happened to [the note] exactly"? No one could move the note since no one was downstairs.... right?

 

[DeeDee249]

I do not believe the panties had blood on them before she was wiped down. Even though they were much too big for her, pulling the long johns up over them would bring them closer to the body. The extra fabric might bunch up, but the crotch wouldn't droop far away from her body as of she were wearing them alone or under a nightdress. If you can picture her lying down in them, I can see how the blood drops might have ended up there, even though they would not match up to her injuries had she been standing in them and if the crotch fit the way panties are supposed to fit.

 

[Schmatz]

This is from Patsy's June 1998 BPD interview:

23 TOM HANEY: Maybe this time with a
24 broken line you can just indicate going back
25 down.
0044
1 (MS. RAMSEY COMPLIES.)
2 TOM HANEY: You're still the green
3 one. You come down the spiral stairs. The note
4 is--
5 PATSY RAMSEY: The note is --
6 TOM HANEY: -- same place,
7 different place?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Somewhere in this
9 area, maybe still on the floor or something, you
10 know. I don't know what happened to it exactly
11 when I bounded upstairs. I think it was right
12 there somewhere.

How can the note still be on the floor when she made no mention prior to that about it being on the floor?

Could this be as simple as a language difference?
She could refer to the note as being on the floor and mean "on the floor on the stairs". Not actually somewhere away from the stairs.

 

[icedtea4me]

Could this be as simple as a language difference?
She could refer to the note as being on the floor and mean "on the floor on the stairs". Not actually somewhere away from the stairs.

The floor can't be on the stairs.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM.

But RDI has a response that fits that too. IDI does not solely explain the vagueness and inconsistencies. If RDI and they are inconsistent, they could be lying. Or they later changed the story to fit facts that came out. And it is easier to say I don't know than to lie and be caught. It helps to delay the formal interview with police because you can use that as an excuse. "It was too long ago, I don't remember".

According to the interviews I posted JR is saying that he did move the note from the stairs to the hall and that is where he and the note were during the 911 call. I don't think that can be seen as too confused or uncertain. The problem is if they change that story later. Then you have to ask why they are being inconsistent and uncertain. Hmmm I wonder why we felt there was some confusion as to where the note was?

No, if IDI, cannot explain all vagueness and inconsistencies. Neither can RDI. But, the plain, simple, empirical fact that MEMORY IS MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE and that PEOPLE ARE NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE AS EYEWITNESSES can.

Suggested reading: http://tinyurl.com/k2wadx7 and http://tinyurl.com/n5lp4k6
.

If RDI: with months to prepare, and guidance from hired help – lawyers, etc – I think that we should see a little more consistency between versions told. More certainty with answers given.

As for, I don’t remember...

Someone else did this work, I take no credit, but, for example in the ’97 interview Mrs Ramsey was asked 459 questions she replied 'I don't know,' or 'I can't remember,' 48 times. 10%.

32 of the 48 times, she goes into some detail. So, we end up 3% i don’t remembers.

Many (most? all?) of these types of answers are given to questions that really don’t tell us anything meaningful, and many of them are not unexpected answers.
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

No, if IDI, cannot explain all vagueness and inconsistencies. Neither can RDI. But, the plain, simple, empirical fact that MEMORY IS MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE and that PEOPLE ARE NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE AS EYEWITNESSES can.

Suggested reading: http://tinyurl.com/k2wadx7 and http://tinyurl.com/n5lp4k6
.

If RDI: with months to prepare, and guidance from hired help – lawyers, etc – I think that we should see a little more consistency between versions told. More certainty with answers given.

As for, I don’t remember...

Someone else did this work, I take no credit, but, for example in the ’97 interview Mrs Ramsey was asked 459 questions she replied 'I don't know,' or 'I can't remember,' 48 times. 10%.

32 of the 48 times, she goes into some detail. So, we end up 3% i don’t remembers.

Many (most? all?) of these types of answers are given to questions that really don’t tell us anything meaningful, and many of them are not unexpected answers.
...

AK

Yes memory is malleable and fallible, but we usually have a better memory regarding an occasion that was important/momentous. I think that would be more so when you know you will have to speak to police later.

I was going through the 98 interview and PR used "I don't know" or "I can't/don't remember" or variation of, 48 times before I had gotten through a quarter, maybe even a fifth of the interview. I hit that number when she was speaking about the Whites and their falling out. So she forgot an awful lot in a year. And going into detail after you have said "I don't know/remember" doesn't mean a whole lot. Any discrepancies are covered by the fact that you said you didn't know/remember.