Patsy Ramsey

[Prahasaurus]

I don't think there is any serious controversy about the veracity of the Ramsey's story. They are clearly lying. There are numerous instances of this. Their stories just don't make sense. The key question is why are they being so deceptive? Is it because they both killed her? Burke killed her and they are covering up? Just JR, with him manipulating PR to remember things differently? Just PR, with JR going along so he doesn't lose a wife in addition to a daughter?

 

[andreww]

I don't think there is any serious controversy about the veracity of the Ramsey's story. They are clearly lying. There are numerous instances of this. Their stories just don't make sense. The key question is why are they being so deceptive? Is it because they both killed her? Burke killed her and they are covering up? Just JR, with him manipulating PR to remember things differently? Just PR, with JR going along so he doesn't lose a wife in addition to a daughter?

Exactly Prahasaurus.

I think police missed a huge opportunity in not pressing the Ramseys on their inaccuracies during the interviews. In just about every episode of The First 48 Hours I've ever seen, tahts exactly how they get to the bottom of things. Keep pushing until the suspect eventually cracks. Isn't that covered in Interrogation 101???

 

[Anti-K]

I promise I will stop going off track with this; I think we are going to end up agreeing to disagree. But you don't find it weird that (and I am concentrating on the note thing because this is what I was researching so had read most recently) neither of them can confidently say "I did this and she/he did that" even if they remembered wrong?

From both of them it is "I think, maybe, probably, I don't know". They are both confident that JR was in the shower when PR got up. They are both confident that she didn't shower but just got dressed. Then the vagueness creeps in. They can't remember which floor they met on. Maybe PR checked JBR's room before she found JR, maybe after - neither of them can say for sure. Maybe PR handed JR the note, maybe he found it at the bottom of the stairs. Maybe she only scanned the note, maybe she read more later. Maybe JR checked on BR, maybe they both did - can't say exactly when.

They both go unsure at the same moment - I find that odd.

Coincidentally, if RDI and one of them wrote the ransom note, then the whole note discovery wouldn't really have happened and that just happens to be one of the moments neither of them can recall very clearly. No smoking gun I admit, but one more strange coincidence in a whole string of them.

Oh and strangely their memory is ok for DOI.

It does seem to me that much of the vagueness, etc is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, Mrs Ramsey can’t remember or vaguely remembers a particular sequence. One person sees this as being indicative of lying, another sees it as being expected considering the circumstance. Another person interprets it another way.

Here’s an example: you think, if RDI, they wrote the note, and would therefore be vague in their recollection of its discovery. I think, if RDI,* the recollection would be clear, plain and simple - I got out of bed. I went to Jonbenet’s bedroom. There was a note on her bed. She was gone. I called the police.

Some see lies and deception everywhere, others do not. I’ve never considered these opinions and interpretations to be evidence of much more than a person’s own prejudice and/or bias (yes, I’m guilty of that sort of thing, too! of course!).

It is simply not a fact that vague and/or uncertain memories are indicative of lying.

*if RDI, I do not think there would be a note
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM.

Although I have pretty much always been RDI, that was one of the questions I had. Why go to the extent of faking a ransom note? Why not just ring the police and say "I woke up and my daughter's missing".
And then I read Superdave's take on it and it made sense to me. I am sure you know what it is but I will say it again - the note gives the police a focus away from the people in the house that night. If you ring the police saying she is missing, the first people they investigate are the immediate family. If there is a ransom note then there is a mysterious, unknown entity to investigate.

Why the rigmarole with the stairwell and the hallway? I have no idea. Maybe they ran out of time and that was the best idea they could come up with, considering they had little to no sleep, if RDI. Shock and panic made them confused and they couldn't think straight? (Cheap shot, sorry, but what is good for the goose and all that...). Maybe there was a reason, as yet unknown to me, that they needed the ransom note to be found in the hallway. Maybe someone else has a better idea.

I'll throw a similar question to you - If IDI, why leave the ransom note on the stairs? Why not JBR's bed or the kitchen bench or dining table or stuck on the front or back door? There seem to be a whole bunch of places more logical than the stairs. Don't you think that was a strange place to leave it if IDI?

If IDI, I think that it is possible that the killer exited the house via the butler door and that he left the note on the stairs on his way out as his final act; he laid it out as he did so that it would be immediately noticed by someone going up/down or approaching the stairs. But, really, who knows?
.

I’m familiar with the argument that the Ramseys used the note as some sort of distraction – look over there! This explanation only makes sense if the body had been disposed of. As it is, the discovery of the body in the house turns suspicions towards the Ramseys, and the situation is worsened by the realization that the note was written in the house and with materials from the house. This explanation, on several grounds, is absurd and nonsensical. But, maybe they did it anyway; right?

BTW, I don’t see any signs of shock or panic. This crime seems planned out. Some thought and consideration went into it. Time was taken.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

If IDI, I think that it is possible that the killer exited the house via the butler door and that he left the note on the stairs on his way out as his final act; he laid it out as he did so that it would be immediately noticed by someone going up/down or approaching the stairs. But, really, who knows?
.
AK

BBM

From Johns first interview

JR: Yeah. And when I went down and looked around the house that morning, and I think I’d made a statement or at least I read, I know I said this, that all the doors were locked and I had checked, I believe, every door on the first floor. And they were, appeared to be locked.
ST: So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?
JR: I believed I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. I did go out once. I went out to the door that leads into the garage to see if it was locked because there’s a bunch of boxes piled in front of it and you couldn’t get to it from the inside of the garage. So I did in fact go out of the house once, which would have been for, you know, half a minute.

 

[mochii]

Anti-K, I know you touched on this a little bit in your comment -- but the note being there does make sense ... and with a body in the basement. As stated, there had to be some explanation on JB's whereabouts. If she had just disappeared, or if they found her murdered elsewhere in the house (with no explanation), attention WOULD be directed at the family. Enter ransom note. Now you have a explanation on why she's not in the home, and why her body is hidden in the basement. The "foreign faction" went too far, seemingly freaked, left the body and got the hell outta there. It's speculated JB died anywhere from 11PM-1AM. This gives the Ramsey's 4+ hours to stage a scene, calm their nerves, adrenaline, and deal with the consequences later. In my mind, I believe the Ramsey's thought they would never be considered suspects because they're an affluent, white, successful family in suburbia. And then of course when the 911 call was made the gravity of the situation came back into play....

The RN distracted police long enough for the plan to be carried out successfully. What they didn't plan for was the dog-and-cat chase that would soon follow, as I mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph, I don't think the Ramsey's though they would ever be considered in the crime.

I am also willing to give the family the benefit of the doubt. Contrary to a comment I made earlier, yes, I believe they would remember a majority of the details of what happened that night/morning. But I can say I am sure they have some PTSD which would explain why some parts may be blocked out in their mind ... but I don't think to the extent they seem to. It's like a whole day was completely erased from their minds. Maybe the Men in Black?

 

[andreww]

It does seem to me that much of the vagueness, etc is in the eye of the beholder.


Here’s an example: you think, if RDI, they wrote the note, and would therefore be vague in their recollection of its discovery. I think, if RDI,* the recollection would be clear, plain and simple - I got out of bed. I went to Jonbenet’s bedroom. There was a note on her bed. She was gone. I called the police.


AK

You are oversimplifying. Lets just say for argument sake that the Ramseys did do this. You would have to agree that they probably wouldn't have gone to bed right? So they need to get their ducks in order as to how the events of that morning transpired. They need to say they awoke at 5:30 because that is the latest believable time they could wake up given that they needed to be out of the house by 6:30. So they can't just say they found the note and called police because they need to account for every second of the 28 minutes between the time they woke up and the time Officer French arrived on the scene. Both stories should match to a certain extent. But none of what they say seems to make any sense at all. John gets up at 5:30, an hour before they need to one out of the house, and decides to leave Patsy sleeping while he has a shower? He's apparently in there for more than 15 minutes as he still wasn't dressed when Patsy called him, so how long was he going to let her sleep? Patsy on the other hand wakes sometime after 5:30 and says she didn't notice the time (really?). She spends 20 minutes doing hair, makeup and getting dressed (in the same outfit she wore the previous night, something friends say she would never be caught dead doing), then spends 10 minutes in the laundry room doing something she can't remember. She calls John, checks on Burke and calls 911. Her timeline just doesn't add up.

She says John is in his underwear. John never mentions getting dressed after the call, but he must have. In 7 minutes he goes up three floors, dresses, comes down, checks every door on the main floor, goes outside and checks the garage, and is there to hear his wife call all their friends. No sense at all, and they both should have been challenged on every point.

 

[andreww]

Maybe the Men in Black?

You've solved it, the Men in Black are the Foreign Faction :happydance:

We can all go home now!

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

From Johns first interview

JR: Yeah. And when I went down and looked around the house that morning, and I think I’d made a statement or at least I read, I know I said this, that all the doors were locked and I had checked, I believe, every door on the first floor. And they were, appeared to be locked.
ST: So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?
JR: I believed I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. I did go out once. I went out to the door that leads into the garage to see if it was locked because there’s a bunch of boxes piled in front of it and you couldn’t get to it from the inside of the garage. So I did in fact go out of the house once, which would have been for, you know, half a minute.

Yes, well, this is a problem for RDI. If the Ramseys wanted investigators to believe that someone – a kidnapper, or anyone – came into their home than it makes no senses for Mr Ramsey to say that all the doors were locked.

But, were they all locked? This seems a matter of some controversy. For example, it appears that the door leading from the garage to the house was left unlocked as a matter of routine. One of the friends arriving that morning, Fernie iirc, supposedly reported that the butler door was open (unlocked or ajar).

Beckner, iirc, explained this by saying that the door had been left open by a crime tech, but the crime techs did not arrive until after Fernie (assuming it was Fernie) arrived.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K, I know you touched on this a little bit in your comment -- but the note being there does make sense ... and with a body in the basement. As stated, there had to be some explanation on JB's whereabouts. If she had just disappeared, or if they found her murdered elsewhere in the house (with no explanation), attention WOULD be directed at the family. Enter ransom note. Now you have a explanation on why she's not in the home, and why her body is hidden in the basement. The "foreign faction" went too far, seemingly freaked, left the body and got the hell outta there. It's speculated JB died anywhere from 11PM-1AM. This gives the Ramsey's 4+ hours to stage a scene, calm their nerves, adrenaline, and deal with the consequences later. In my mind, I believe the Ramsey's thought they would never be considered suspects because they're an affluent, white, successful family in suburbia. And then of course when the 911 call was made the gravity of the situation came back into play....

The RN distracted police long enough for the plan to be carried out successfully. What they didn't plan for was the dog-and-cat chase that would soon follow, as I mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph, I don't think the Ramsey's though they would ever be considered in the crime.

I am also willing to give the family the benefit of the doubt. Contrary to a comment I made earlier, yes, I believe they would remember a majority of the details of what happened that night/morning. But I can say I am sure they have some PTSD which would explain why some parts may be blocked out in their mind ... but I don't think to the extent they seem to. It's like a whole day was completely erased from their minds. Maybe the Men in Black?

If the body had been disposed of, than I could believe what RDI are saying about the note. At least, insofar as an intended purpose.

This is a re=post, so some might want to skip:
If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You are oversimplifying. Lets just say for argument sake that the Ramseys did do this. You would have to agree that they probably wouldn't have gone to bed right? So they need to get their ducks in order as to how the events of that morning transpired. They need to say they awoke at 5:30 because that is the latest believable time they could wake up given that they needed to be out of the house by 6:30. So they can't just say they found the note and called police because they need to account for every second of the 28 minutes between the time they woke up and the time Officer French arrived on the scene. Both stories should match to a certain extent. But none of what they say seems to make any sense at all. John gets up at 5:30, an hour before they need to one out of the house, and decides to leave Patsy sleeping while he has a shower? He's apparently in there for more than 15 minutes as he still wasn't dressed when Patsy called him, so how long was he going to let her sleep? Patsy on the other hand wakes sometime after 5:30 and says she didn't notice the time (really?). She spends 20 minutes doing hair, makeup and getting dressed (in the same outfit she wore the previous night, something friends say she would never be caught dead doing), then spends 10 minutes in the laundry room doing something she can't remember. She calls John, checks on Burke and calls 911. Her timeline just doesn't add up.

She says John is in his underwear. John never mentions getting dressed after the call, but he must have. In 7 minutes he goes up three floors, dresses, comes down, checks every door on the main floor, goes outside and checks the garage, and is there to hear his wife call all their friends. No sense at all, and they both should have been challenged on every point.

As stated previously: Some see lies and deception everywhere, others do not. I’ve never considered these opinions and interpretations to be evidence of much more than a person’s own prejudice and/or bias (yes, I’m guilty of that sort of thing, too! of course!).
.

It really would have been as simple as this: I got out of bed. I went to Jonbenet’s bedroom. There was a note on her bed. She was gone. I called the police.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Yes, well, this is a problem for RDI. If the Ramseys wanted investigators to believe that someone – a kidnapper, or anyone – came into their home than it makes no senses for Mr Ramsey to say that all the doors were locked.

But, were they all locked? This seems a matter of some controversy. For example, it appears that the door leading from the garage to the house was left unlocked as a matter of routine. One of the friends arriving that morning, Fernie iirc, supposedly reported that the butler door was open (unlocked or ajar).

Beckner, iirc, explained this by saying that the door had been left open by a crime tech, but the crime techs did not arrive until after Fernie (assuming it was Fernie) arrived.
...

AK

John was very firm that he checked ALL the doors. As to why he wouldn't just say that one of them was open? Not sure, but we do know that there was some odd behaviour from John about the train room window. Finding it open, not saying anything then latching it without telling anybody including LE? Who the heck would do that??? You've got your daughter missing, and you just ignore that huge clue? In my opinion the whole "point of entry" detail simply slipped their minds. John later does some back-pedalling four months later saying the window was open. Again, WHY? If the window had been broken the previous summer, logically the person that cleaned it up would have latched it. So the million dollar question is whether John is lying. It would be interesting to hear whether Fleet noticed if the window was open when he went in the basement prior to John locking it.

 

[andreww]

If the body had been disposed of, than I could believe what RDI are saying about the note. At least, insofar as an intended purpose.

This is a re=post, so some might want to skip:
If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.
...

AK

We really don't know what the Ramseys were thinking at that point. In John's interview he said he saw the white blanket instantly when he opened the door, yet Fleet didn't see anything when he opened the door earlier. Was her body hidden? Did the Ramseys expect the police to leave at some point? Who knows.

Despite all your assertions, the ransom note worked like a charm doing everything it was intended to do and your argument is based on nothing but speculation.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

If IDI, I think that it is possible that the killer exited the house via the butler door and that he left the note on the stairs on his way out as his final act; he laid it out as he did so that it would be immediately noticed by someone going up/down or approaching the stairs. But, really, who knows?
.

I’m familiar with the argument that the Ramseys used the note as some sort of distraction – look over there! This explanation only makes sense if the body had been disposed of. As it is, the discovery of the body in the house turns suspicions towards the Ramseys, and the situation is worsened by the realization that the note was written in the house and with materials from the house. This explanation, on several grounds, is absurd and nonsensical. But, maybe they did it anyway; right?

BTW, I don’t see any signs of shock or panic. This crime seems planned out. Some thought and consideration went into it. Time was taken.
...

AK

I have a busy day today and I want to answer this better so I want to make a quick note now and come back to this much later when I have time.

I don't have a complete, moment by moment theory of what happened. I have ideas about who was involved in some things and I am unsure who did what with other things. As time goes on I am leaning more toward the theory that the body was not meant to be found in the house that day.

I believe that they did not move it by the time the police were called ( and there can be several reasons why this happened which I won't go into now) and so planned to move it later. I think that the morning did not go as they expected and being exhausted (you have to admit, if RDI and both were heavily involved in the staging, they have had little to no sleep and would have to be exhausted) one or the other or both just needed JBR's body to be found to get it all done. There are many reasons for this and again I will get into that later if you want.

So the ransom note does work because in the original plan I don't think the body was supposed to be found. I think the plan changed with necessity, desperation, a combination or some other reason. Also, if one of them finds the body they have more control of the crime scene than if someone else finds it.

 

[mochii]

If the body had been disposed of, than I could believe what RDI are saying about the note. At least, insofar as an intended purpose.

This is a re=post, so some might want to skip:
If the Ramseys (if RDI) had disposed of the body before recalling 911, than there would be some reason for the note’s existence, but they decided to keep the body (or, never even considered disposing of it). This presents no reason for them to even consider a fake kidnapping. Faking a kidnapping is the answer to a question that would not have been asked.

Within the context of what the Ramseys would have needed to do (explain dead body in house) the ransom note becomes an absurdity. It contradicts their intent (explain dead body in house).

The note itself presents another absurdity and contradiction of intent (if RDI).

The note is on paper easily traced to the house and to an individual. It’s Christmas with all manner of not-so-easily-traceable wrapping paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, and scraps everywhere and only a scrap of something was needed.

In addition to the absurdity of using their own identifiable notepad we have the unnecessary length of the note with (supposed) “inside information” unnecessarily created almost as if they intentionally wanted to provide investigators with self-incriminating evidence.

Now, let’s say that the Ramseys disposed of certain items (as, if RDI, they must have). The intent would have been to prevent investigators discovery of incriminating evidence. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. Retaining the pen and the notepad (and, handing it to the police!) contradicts that intent. Unnecessarily incorporating the paint brush into the garrote, breaking it and putting the broken end in the paint tote contradicts that intent. Wiping (if wiped) the flashlight, but leaving it on the counter contradicts that intent.

But, the biggest contradiction and absurdity of all (if RDI) is the ransom note.
...

AK

I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to convey, so feel free to clear up some points I'll make regarding this statement. (Sorry, I'm new here and still trying to figure out everyone's input and analysis

I bolded the part that sticks to me the most: The ransom note explains the body, and makes it look like a kidnapping gone very, very wrong. So *IF* RDI, JonBenet is killed in the home. What do they do? They can't call the police because it's obvious someone inside the home did it if she were to just up and die in the middle of the night. They have to point fingers elsewhere and make it look like an outsider. The easiest way to do this? Ransom note.

I don't believe the Ramsey's wanted to dispose of the body. I made another post about it here today but I'll reiterate it here as well: they wanted the body for proper burial, disposing of it in nature would rid them of this -- and expose her to elements, and could possibly be traced back to them. Plus, what if someone saw one of their cars leaving in the dead of the night?

Undoubtedly, whatever happened to JBR that night was tragic. But if IDI did it, why did they not bring their own RN? What about the pineapple? I'm kind of veering off topic here -- since this is a thread for Patsy -- but the fact the RN & murder weapon were concocted of things found around the house is suspicious. What else would have they used? It'd be easy to hide rope and duct tape somewhere in that house (maybe the golf bag?). So I don't think the RN contradicts anything in the case ... if RDI. They only seem to support the claim (imo). If the rope & duct tape were found in the house it would have cast extreme suspicion on the family (how did the intruder find this rope? why do you have these things, etc.). One more thing to touch lightly on, if IDI did it, why did they remove everything (sans flashlight and RN)? If IDI took all their things, you'd think they'd grab the ransom note too -- now that would be a new wormhole for the Ramsey family. I feel like I keep veering off topic but I truly value your input AK, as I am trying to understand the IDI theory better, and get in the head of people who follow it. So thanks for your time!

 

[inspector rex]

I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to convey, so feel free to clear up some points I'll make regarding this statement. (Sorry, I'm new here and still trying to figure out everyone's input and analysis

I bolded the part that sticks to me the most: The ransom note explains the body, and makes it look like a kidnapping gone very, very wrong. So *IF* RDI, JonBenet is killed in the home. What do they do? They can't call the police because it's obvious someone inside the home did it if she were to just up and die in the middle of the night. They have to point fingers elsewhere and make it look like an outsider. The easiest way to do this? Ransom note.

I don't believe the Ramsey's wanted to dispose of the body. I made another post about it here today but I'll reiterate it here as well: they wanted the body for proper burial, disposing of it in nature would rid them of this -- and expose her to elements, and could possibly be traced back to them. Plus, what if someone saw one of their cars leaving in the dead of the night?

Undoubtedly, whatever happened to JBR that night was tragic. But if IDI did it, why did they not bring their own RN? What about the pineapple? I'm kind of veering off topic here -- since this is a thread for Patsy -- but the fact the RN & murder weapon were concocted of things found around the house is suspicious. What else would have they used? It'd be easy to hide rope and duct tape somewhere in that house (maybe the golf bag?). So I don't think the RN contradicts anything in the case ... if RDI. They only seem to support the claim (imo). If the rope & duct tape were found in the house it would have cast extreme suspicion on the family (how did the intruder find this rope? why do you have these things, etc.). One more thing to touch lightly on, if IDI did it, why did they remove everything (sans flashlight and RN)? If IDI took all their things, you'd think they'd grab the ransom note too -- now that would be a new wormhole for the Ramsey family. I feel like I keep veering off topic but I truly value your input AK, as I am trying to understand the IDI theory better, and get in the head of people who follow it. So thanks for your time!

What AK seems to be suggesting is that for the Ramseys to concoct a Ransom Note to cover a murder/accident (in order to point fingers elsewhere), by using their own notepaper and pen contradicts this (by pointing fingers at them).

Do you think that the investigators didn't bother to look thoroughly through the house for remnants of items used in the murder?

 

[midwest mama]

Is it possible Patsy was intended as a victim in this crime also? Maybe the killer thought he could set up PR by using forensic evidence traceable to her. The stage 4 ovarian cancer gave her a reprieve, but for how long? After all, it had already permanently "killed off" part of PR'S "womanhood" anyway. The part that could satisfy a guy's "manhood".

 

[Anti-K]

I have a busy day today and I want to answer this better so I want to make a quick note now and come back to this much later when I have time.

I don't have a complete, moment by moment theory of what happened. I have ideas about who was involved in some things and I am unsure who did what with other things. As time goes on I am leaning more toward the theory that the body was not meant to be found in the house that day.

I believe that they did not move it by the time the police were called ( and there can be several reasons why this happened which I won't go into now) and so planned to move it later. I think that the morning did not go as they expected and being exhausted (you have to admit, if RDI and both were heavily involved in the staging, they have had little to no sleep and would have to be exhausted) one or the other or both just needed JBR's body to be found to get it all done. There are many reasons for this and again I will get into that later if you want.

So the ransom note does work because in the original plan I don't think the body was supposed to be found. I think the plan changed with necessity, desperation, a combination or some other reason. Also, if one of them finds the body they have more control of the crime scene than if someone else finds it.

Unfortunately there are no simple RDI explanations. All of them are by necessity complex, and, you’ve touched upon this here. In order to make some sort of sense of the note one needs to believe that they did not expect the police to find the body in the house. But, they called the police.

Of course, one could say that the Ramseys didn’t think that the police would find it, but then one has to wonder exactly what did they think the police would do? Disposing of items demonstrates forensic concern, so we know that must have considered that the police would do something. And, once alerted, police would be all eyes; right?

Anyway, I do have some interest in what you have to say on this, although I fear that it might not be anything new (to me). Hope your busy day went well and you got much accomplished.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to convey, so feel free to clear up some points I'll make regarding this statement. (Sorry, I'm new here and still trying to figure out everyone's input and analysis

I bolded the part that sticks to me the most: The ransom note explains the body, and makes it look like a kidnapping gone very, very wrong. So *IF* RDI, JonBenet is killed in the home. What do they do? They can't call the police because it's obvious someone inside the home did it if she were to just up and die in the middle of the night. They have to point fingers elsewhere and make it look like an outsider. The easiest way to do this? Ransom note.

I don't believe the Ramsey's wanted to dispose of the body. I made another post about it here today but I'll reiterate it here as well: they wanted the body for proper burial, disposing of it in nature would rid them of this -- and expose her to elements, and could possibly be traced back to them. Plus, what if someone saw one of their cars leaving in the dead of the night?

Undoubtedly, whatever happened to JBR that night was tragic. But if IDI did it, why did they not bring their own RN? What about the pineapple? I'm kind of veering off topic here -- since this is a thread for Patsy -- but the fact the RN & murder weapon were concocted of things found around the house is suspicious. What else would have they used? It'd be easy to hide rope and duct tape somewhere in that house (maybe the golf bag?). So I don't think the RN contradicts anything in the case ... if RDI. They only seem to support the claim (imo). If the rope & duct tape were found in the house it would have cast extreme suspicion on the family (how did the intruder find this rope? why do you have these things, etc.). One more thing to touch lightly on, if IDI did it, why did they remove everything (sans flashlight and RN)? If IDI took all their things, you'd think they'd grab the ransom note too -- now that would be a new wormhole for the Ramsey family. I feel like I keep veering off topic but I truly value your input AK, as I am trying to understand the IDI theory better, and get in the head of people who follow it. So thanks for your time!

People fake kidnappings to explain a victim’s absence. Or, they say the victim ran away, or they went out and never returned, etc. This is well documented and there is nothing controversial about this.

This is what (fake) kidnappings do – they explain an absence, and they are faked out of perceived necessity: we have to get rid of the body, or, we did get rid of the body. People are going to wonder where so-and-so went. What do we do? Let’s report a kidnapping.

When people cannot or will not dispose of their victim they then fake something to explain the body. Sometimes they fake an accident (many RDI believe the initial incident to be accidental, so not much to fake here!) Maybe they fake an intruder by breaking a window, cutting a screen, knocking things over, claiming they saw or heard something, etc.

Here we have the victim in the house. Kidnappers remove their victims. So, we have a contradiction. But, the contradictions (if RDI) don’t end there!!!
.
You’ve asked a lot of IDI questions and I don’t think this is the proper thread for me to answer in any detail. I’ll answer a few. There is an Intruder Theories Only thread. You could bring your questions there. Or, to the Are the Ramseys Involved or Not thread, where many of your questions were recently discussed (and answered).
...

AK

 

[Prahasaurus]

Is it possible Patsy was intended as a victim in this crime also? Maybe the killer thought he could set up PR by using forensic evidence traceable to her. The stage 4 ovarian cancer gave her a reprieve, but for how long? After all, it had already permanently "killed off" part of PR'S "womanhood" anyway. The part that could satisfy a guy's "manhood".

It's certainly possible that JR did it all himself. Then wrote the ransom note in a way that resembled her handwriting. He knew that his best chance was to generate as much "evidence" as possible that put suspicion on someone else: unknown intruder, neighbour, PR, whoever. The more confusing, the better. He wasn't worried she would be convicted because she didn't do it (assuming JR acted alone). All he needed was reasonable doubt. And the more the authorities suspected PR, they easier it would be to manipulate her to agree to his version of events.