Patsy Ramsey

[Cailin Rua]

In some ways I feel like the issues in this case are illustrated by a comparison to the Casey Anthony case.

In that case, she has few supporters who argue her innocence, but there's certainly disagreement about what exactly happened to Caylee. It would be tough to agree on a charge, as it was for those jurors, even if the evidence is quite clear she was involved.

Then we have cases like the Amy Bishop one back when she first committed murder by shooting her brother - the further you go back, the more likely it was that intrafamily violence would not be suspected or at least not be acted on. I can only imagine how many people used to murder family members without being discovered - look at how many have been revealed in the last few decades. It just wasn't considered likely, and the media was different, and police had different sorts of agendas. It's hard to compare cases from even the 90s to the details of a modern case.

Going back to Casey Anthony, in that case, I feel like the evidence about her as a person and her behavior point more towards someone who would plan to kill her child, but yet the actual incident seems more like the act of someone who totally panicked and had no plan. Plus we have no real evidence of how she died so it doesn't seem like an attack so much as either a negligent accident or a quiet smothering. In the Ramsey case, their general behavior and presentation would lead more people to think this was an accident that spiraled out of control, but the way she was found and the molestation aspect indicate more intent, and you have the very violent manner of death. It would be a tricky case to prosecute.

WRT CA, I don't think it has to be either/or. You can think about an idea, get comfortable with it, maybe google up a few ideas, and then put it into action when presented with a sudden stressor.

Motive is a weird beast. Juries seem to want something clear like an insurance policy, but it's usually a combination of things that might not make sense to someone who doesn't generally think of murder as a possible solution to a problem.

 

[lawstudent]

This is something that is very telling in the theories presented by the RDIs I've presented my own theory on here how it could have happened. But most of the posts I see are talking about things that have nothing to do with the actual crime. It's all gossip and hearsay and rumor and "hinky meter" theories.

I'm still waiting for a clear theory to be spelled out that explains how it went down.

Bottom line for me, the parents saying that there was no sign that someone had been in the house was something they wouldn't say if they wanted to pretend someone had come into the house. Even a flipped over rug would have been "something"

I don't think anyone is capable of presenting a real great theory for a number of reasons, mainly the incomplete investigation, the strangeness of the situation in general, and the amount of rumors surrounding it. Then the issue is that the rumors are also quite controlled because this was a far less media-saturated time, so it's hard to even sort through them through cross-comparisons and electronic records etc. Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely we'll ever know the truth. That's why I was saying I did not get the certainty. Personally, I heavily lean RDI, but have no great explanation, and there are a few big things that make me have my doubts and make me keep IDI as a possibility. Unless someone opens his or her mouth, we're kind of stuck at this point I think.

 

[DeDee]

2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 12:

"Standing next to the wall phone, I instantly dial 911, and try to make the voice on the other end of the line understand. It is as if she doesn't believe what I am saying. I slam the phone back into its cradle on the wall. Got to have someone here, I think. I dial the Fernies' number. "We need help!" I scream "Please come over here!" I take another deep breath and grab the phone again from it's cradle, dialing the Whites this time. "JonBenet's missing!" I yell into the phone. "Please get over here. We need you! I hang up immediately and slump against the wall."

 

[Cailin Rua]

Stressing that you think it was an "inside job" makes sense if you are going to point a finger at your housekeeper. Then at your friends and neighbors--curious if any of them had keys to the house.

 

[lawstudent]

WRT CA, I don't think it has to be either/or. You can think about an idea, get comfortable with it, maybe google up a few ideas, and then put it into action when presented with a sudden stressor.

Motive is a weird beast. Juries seem to want something clear like an insurance policy, but it's usually a combination of things that might not make sense to someone who doesn't generally think of murder as a possible solution to a problem.

This is a great point, and I agree. The problem is that oftentimes the motive isn't going to make perfect sense because people don't always act 100% rationally or simply don't know better. Or something has been up for a while and then the scenario presents itself, as you were saying with CA. My point was that this results in a difficult case for a jury, and that's why I can see why the Ramseys were not prosecuted in this case and why I don't know if a better investigation early on would have made any difference in terms of that. If the Ramseys did it, I think the jury would have had a hard time deciding on a charge because of the motive issue - I think they'd have had a real hard time believing they did anything on purpose, but the accident scenario has never been plausibly explained IMO. With CA, there was more of a gray area that could have justified settling on a lower charge, but in this case, it seems more either/or. And if I were on a jury, I wouldn't necessarily need a motive if I felt the evidence was overwhelming as to what happened, but with this case and to a lesser extent the CA case, I can't even begin to delineate what actually happened, so I would not feel comfortable convicting. Someone like Scott Peterson, on the other hand, was convicted on a lot of circumstantial evidence, but I feel like I could reliably explain what probably happened. The motive of merely having a mistress does not explain what he did, and I don't think it will ever make sense to most people and maybe even himself, but I don't have doubts as to his guilt. If I were on the jury, I don't know if I'd feel differently when I had to say beyond a reasonable doubt. I generally try to keep an open mind and rarely feel comfortable that someone is 100% guilty or innocent, but I will say there was a case on a show the other day where I was convinced the guy did it and it turned out he hadn't, so it's tough.

 

[lawstudent]

Stressing that you think it was an "inside job" makes sense if you are going to point a finger at your housekeeper. Then at your friends and neighbors--curious if any of them had keys to the house.

Yes, the inside job theory makes a lot more sense in terms of how this was set up, but blaming the housekeeper wouldn't really go with strangling. That's not associated with women or with a kidnapping gone wrong. Not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see that as particularly likely. And the friends/neighbors thing would only really work if you had some suspicious person in your life who you knew you could reliably cast suspicion on. That's why people who stage deaths almost always do it as an accident or stranger attack - you'd also have to be pretty confident that the person didn't have an alibi.

2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 12:

"Standing next to the wall phone, I instantly dial 911, and try to make the voice on the other end of the line understand. It is as if she doesn't believe what I am saying. I slam the phone back into its cradle on the wall. Got to have someone here, I think. I dial the Fernies' number. "We need help!" I scream "Please come over here!" I take another deep breath and grab the phone again from it's cradle, dialing the Whites this time. "JonBenet's missing!" I yell into the phone. "Please get over here. We need you! I hang up immediately and slump against the wall."

This definitely suggests that Patsy doesn't believe the ransom note. Unless she hasn't read the second page yet? "Missing" not "kidnapped" - that would make a lot more sense in terms of calling people over, to come up with ideas or look for her. If IDI, I can believe that the Ramseys did not believe that ransom note and weren't worried she'd actually be harmed. If RDI, it is strange they'd want people to come over because she was "missing" which implies they will go "look" when she's in the house. Saying she's been "taken" would be more expected in order to redirect the focus. And if it was real thought out, telling the police anywhere you suspect she could have been taken, to get them looking there. I wouldn't want to draw anyone to my house if I thought the child had been taken - that's the one place you wouldn't want the energy concentrated. Ask them to drive around or check in with people who might be involved - but, I suppose asking them to come over so you can explain first and have someone listen to you is also reasonable.

 

[gramcracker]

if the parents and BR were the only people in the house that morning the lack of interaction between the parents would have been even more noticable than it was. and it was noticed. PR was surrounded by the women and JR interacted somewhat with the men but consistently kept more to himself. it was natural for BR to be in bed early that morning but as the day wore on it would be unnatural for him to remain alone upstairs and perhaps his presence was not desired downstairs with LE and their questions. even if it was the parents being questioned perhaps his reactions to their answers would betray/reveal things better kept hidden. the removal of BR from the home flowed smoothly with family friends conveniently being there to whisk him away

the five people invited to the house provided a buffer between the parents who appeared to have no desire to interact. nothing was stopping them from sitting together and comforting each other and conversing. the lack of interaction and the avoidance of each other was noticed and reported. so much so that one of the victim advocates in the house assumed they were a divorced couple

that morning was the last time PR answered LE's questions until four months later. she was not questioned while providing fingerprints/various bodily samples prior to April. JR answered questions minimally the following night and provided very little input to the detectives. by the next morning it was announced that all questions were to be submitted in writing to their attys via the DA's office - an end run around LE. whether or not it was orchestrated is endlessly debated but there is no denying the actual sequence of events and that all of it was to the R's immediate advantage

nothing more loudly demonstrates that these wealthy people were afforded special treatment than the summoning of the two victim advocates to the home. nothing more clearly demonstrates that TPTB did not, and did not care to, view them as suspects

 

[Meara]

(edited for brevity) As I said, to me, the RN bought them time. Time to be viewed and treated as victims, which then ultimately allowed them to walk out the front door into the "protective custody" of their lawyers. Not a single LE official at the scene that morning considered/treated them as suspects of a crime, and the fact that it took so long to find JRB actually worked to their benifit. They had hours to present as victims while conveying the kidnapping for ransom narrative.

"Pending further information," meant once JRB was found, LE were forced to quickly change gears, and by the time they could fully appreciate that fact, the Rs were out the door.

As soon as they were safely away from LE, they and their team were free to subvert all normal investigative protocols. All they had to do was hang tight until they were out of that house and then anything was possible. They loose nothing by standing firm in their lie. If the the plan succeeds then they're home free.

BBM

That's the best summary of what happened I've seen anywhere. :cheers:

 

[Anti-K]

well, for the sake of argument let's say they knew the note was fake, after all this silent intruder (s) came so unprepared they had to source pen and paper from the R's, at the same time they were so clever that they could fake PR's handwriting almost perfectly.

if the note is fake and the Rs know it they also know that they have to, at least, go through the motions: call the cops, panic, gather friends for support and as witnesses

as far as i know the Rs asked people to come over, they called the whites and the others

at this point everyone thinks JB is gone, out of the house. the cops are treating the Rs as victims of a kidnapping, the house hasn't been secured as a CS and the cops and everyone else not involved w the staging thinks JB is in a place unknown.

i think they took a gamble and it paid off. maybe (and this is my MOO, i feel like a cow when i see those letters) the idea was to "discover" JB outside the house but FW taking into his own to search for her forced their hand to "discover" JB's body

there are so many maybes...the police should have never allowed FW to go searching as he could have contaminated the CS, at that point nobody (except those involved) knew where the kidnappers had been hiding or how they entered the house. allowing people to come and go at will did nothing but complicate matters more

AK, how do you explain the RN that was written all w materials found in the R's house and with almost identical handwriting to PR? i am not being demanding i just would like to have another perspective on the RN


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

The killer may have used Ramsey materials as part of a plan to misdirect the authorities, or to minimize self-incriminating evidence, or to cast suspicion on the Ramseys, or as a joke (or insult) on the Ramseys, or on a whim, or as part of a larger plan or fantasy known only to him; etc...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Again, I think this depends on the person, but my idea of "going through the motions" would never include calling other people to come over. It's just strange to me. I could see calling a friend or family member who is a police officer, or someone you think might know more about what happened if JonBenet had been old enough to, for example, have school friends who might know if she'd been having problems, or her grandparents so they don't hear on the news, maybe even a pastor, but several family friends? I mean I guess it depends on the types of relationships you have, but it's just a weird reaction to me in the initial hours. It's just speculation, though.

If it was intended that her body be found outside, I think that changes a whole lot in terms of how everything fits together. But because we can't know, I feel like it's really hard to decide what actually happened. Those are the details I'm talking about - the ones we can't know. The whole thing makes more sense from a RDI perspective if she was to be found outside. But then why call people over? Call the police and then hope they go on a chase and you can sneak her away. I don't know that the Ramseys viewed the house as a crime scene, whether they were involved or not, and I'm pretty sure they didn't. Everyone thought she was gone or was supposed to be gone and that's why no one took proper security measures. Only in hindsight does the house appear to be the crime scene, and there's not much to contaminate if there are no signs of a struggle and at that point no one assumes she was injured yet.

I don't think the RN was identical to Patsy's handwriting. She couldn't be ruled out, and there are similarities for sure. But identical is a stretch.



Your first point is a very good point that I had not considered. However, if they thought the police would be out on a hunt and a while had gone by before other investigators arrived, the friends could have been invited over to alleviate the awkwardness and restlessness in the meantime, whether they were involved or not. I mean, they were just waiting around, right? I don't believe it was a calculated plan way in advance, but it just could have seemed like a good way to keep conversation from going places they didn't want or to take the focus off of them due to either guilt or grief.

I'm not 100% Ramsey did it, so I was posing that more as a hypothetical, but you make good points regarding the delay in questioning. It definitely was not a perfect plan if that's what happened, but if you find a dead body in the house, you are going to get immediate questions and a lockdown of the house, and maybe even arrests. There's no real way to report that to 911 and really give any good explanation that's remotely plausible. A kidnapping may send police away (not in reality, but I could see people thinking this), giving you time to get rid of the body or at least make it look more like a kidnapping. It also at the very least makes your initial reaction easier to come up with because you don't have to offer an explanation of what happened, and it paints you in a sympathetic, panicked light that is harder to read. The house being secured makes no sense - I agree on that point. That's one of the things that makes me doubt RDI.

If it was intended that her body be found outside, than why were people called before the body was removed from the house? If they intended on moving the body than why is it in the basement (as opposed to the garage or trunk of car, etc)? Not calling the police is better than hoping the police would go out on a chase. Hoping the police would go out on a chase doesn’t explain calling friends, etc. over! And, how much easier would it be to dispose of a body with police already out looking and on alert?

Any benefit accrued from calling the police would be negated as soon as it is discovered that 1) the note was written in the house, and 2) the body is in the house.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, the inside job theory makes a lot more sense in terms of how this was set up, but blaming the housekeeper wouldn't really go with strangling. That's not associated with women or with a kidnapping gone wrong. Not saying it's impossible, but I just don't see that as particularly likely. And the friends/neighbors thing would only really work if you had some suspicious person in your life who you knew you could reliably cast suspicion on. That's why people who stage deaths almost always do it as an accident or stranger attack - you'd also have to be pretty confident that the person didn't have an alibi.



This definitely suggests that Patsy doesn't believe the ransom note. Unless she hasn't read the second page yet? "Missing" not "kidnapped" - that would make a lot more sense in terms of calling people over, to come up with ideas or look for her. If IDI, I can believe that the Ramseys did not believe that ransom note and weren't worried she'd actually be harmed. If RDI, it is strange they'd want people to come over because she was "missing" which implies they will go "look" when she's in the house. Saying she's been "taken" would be more expected in order to redirect the focus. And if it was real thought out, telling the police anywhere you suspect she could have been taken, to get them looking there. I wouldn't want to draw anyone to my house if I thought the child had been taken - that's the one place you wouldn't want the energy concentrated. Ask them to drive around or check in with people who might be involved - but, I suppose asking them to come over so you can explain first and have someone listen to you is also reasonable.

There would be NO benefit and maximum risk associated with the Ramseys – if RDI - trying to posit an inside job. An inside job points inside, and there’s no one more inside than them! So, what happens when LHP, or White or whoever is cleared? There’s no one more inside than the Ramseys.
.

She only read the first page. There are no threats on the first page. When asked she read – Because she’d only read the first page, when asked by the 911 operatorwho the note was from Mrs Ramsey went straight to the last page and read from the bottom up – SBTC; Victory!
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

she knew there was no threats on the first page because she wrote the note. saying she read only the first page provided plausible deniability

 

[Chewy]

I love how it's the Ramseys who "subverted" a normal investigation. Not the cops screwing it up. The only way the RDI works thus far in the theories presented is that the Ramseys had the DA in their pocket, coerced a professional police force, got their friends to lie for them, were able to control a 9 year old boy so that he "went along with their plan without a slip" and then on and on and on.

It's just a lame theory to suggest that "THIS" is how they pulled it off.

AND this all supposedly happened "accidentally" IOW they didn't plan it before the night of the crime. But they were evil geniuses with the best connections and luck in the world.

Sorry that's just not a realistic theory.

I don't think anyone is capable of presenting a real great theory for a number of reasons, mainly the incomplete investigation, the strangeness of the situation in general, and the amount of rumors surrounding it. Then the issue is that the rumors are also quite controlled because this was a far less media-saturated time, so it's hard to even sort through them through cross-comparisons and electronic records etc. Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely we'll ever know the truth. That's why I was saying I did not get the certainty. Personally, I heavily lean RDI, but have no great explanation, and there are a few big things that make me have my doubts and make me keep IDI as a possibility. Unless someone opens his or her mouth, we're kind of stuck at this point I think.

I just don't buy this. There has been so much attention on this case and it's been torn apart for years. The reason we can't come up with a clear RDI scenario, is more likely, that they didn't do it. I can sort of understand the BDI theories, but this theory also relies on the idea that Burke hurt his sister and instead of a normal parent reaction of "OMG call 911" trying to save the child they decided to mutliate their daughters body.

It's like the train of thought and logic just doesn't make sense. Even though it's obvious that crimes aren't always logical and when emotions come in people do crazy things, there's still no way that this has been laid out that doesn't rely on some weird conspiracy theory.

The Ramseys used their power. So in other words, they had enough power to subvert an entire police force, investigation and DA office.

But they didn't have enough power to have the same DA rule her death "accidental" from a fall down the stairs.


If the argument is that the Ramseys had all this power and knew it, then why not simply put Jonbenet at the bottom of the stairs, or in the bathtub with water flooding over her and say

"She peed the bed and was afraid she'd get in trouble so she went to try to take a bath by herself and fell in the tub and cracked her head"


It's like people have one theory and that they decide what happened and then cram the puzzled pieces into some twisted busted warped version of it and try to pretend it's presented as a clear idea.

 

[DeDee]

This is something that is very telling in the theories presented by the RDIs I've presented my own theory on here how it could have happened. But most of the posts I see are talking about things that have nothing to do with the actual crime. It's all gossip and hearsay and rumor and "hinky meter" theories.

I'm still waiting for a clear theory to be spelled out that explains how it went down.

Bottom line for me, the parents saying that there was no sign that someone had been in the house was something they wouldn't say if they wanted to pretend someone had come into the house. Even a flipped over rug would have been "something"

If you have solved the crime in your theory, why do you continue to criticize others? I do believe you are exaggerating when you offensively state:
"But most of the posts I see are talking about things that have nothing to do with the actual crime. It's all gossip and hearsay and rumor and "hinky meter" theories."

I love how it's the Ramseys who "subverted" a normal investigation. Not the cops screwing it up. The only way the RDI works thus far in the theories presented is that the Ramseys had the DA in their pocket, coerced a professional police force, got their friends to lie for them, were able to control a 9 year old boy so that he "went along with their plan without a slip" and then on and on and on.

It's just a lame theory to suggest that "THIS" is how they pulled it off.

AND this all supposedly happened "accidentally" IOW they didn't plan it before the night of the crime. But they were evil geniuses with the best connections and luck in the world.

Sorry that's just not a realistic theory.

I just don't buy this. There has been so much attention on this case and it's been torn apart for years. The reason we can't come up with a clear RDI scenario, is more likely, that they didn't do it. I can sort of understand the BDI theories, but this theory also relies on the idea that Burke hurt his sister and instead of a normal parent reaction of "OMG call 911" trying to save the child they decided to mutliate their daughters body.

It's like the train of thought and logic just doesn't make sense. Even though it's obvious that crimes aren't always logical and when emotions come in people do crazy things, there's still no way that this has been laid out that doesn't rely on some weird conspiracy theory.

The Ramseys used their power. So in other words, they had enough power to subvert an entire police force, investigation and DA office.

But they didn't have enough power to have the same DA rule her death "accidental" from a fall down the stairs.

If the argument is that the Ramseys had all this power and knew it, then why not simply put Jonbenet at the bottom of the stairs, or in the bathtub with water flooding over her and say

"She peed the bed and was afraid she'd get in trouble so she went to try to take a bath by herself and fell in the tub and cracked her head"

It's like people have one theory and that they decide what happened and then cram the puzzled pieces into some twisted busted warped version of it and try to pretend it's presented as a clear idea.

Frankly, I do not care what you buy. It is grossly unfair to make accusations about others' theories. If we are so terribly misguided, why don't you find a forum that better suits your needs? TIA

 

[Chewy]

Instead of constantly worrying about making accusations about me, how about just spelling out a clear theory that doesn't rely on "Patsy was a selfish pageant girl 20 years earlier" and "They had the DA in their pocket" and "they controlled the crime scene"

How about sticking to the actual details in the crime and spelling it out.


The ping ponging of motive and attitudes don't add up and whenever I've asked people to consider how they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth I get a snarky personal insult instead of a real reply.


So again I'll ask

According to some people, the Ramseys' OWNED the DA and they were given special treatment when the cops got there. They controlled the crime scene and they were able to manipulate to get away with it. And the Ramseys KNEW they'd get away with it.

So again, I'll ask, if this is your theory, then why such an elaborate scene.

If the Ramseys knew they could "get away with it" because they "OWNED THE DA" and were easily able to control the cops, then why this big elaborate scheme.

Why not place Jonbenet in the bathtub and say she fell and hit her head. Leave the shower running to wash off all the evidence and Patsy is hysterical with grief and it's ruled a "terrible terrible accident."

 

[Venom]

Well if all our theories are so flawed and outrageous, then what is your theory?

 

[Venom]

If you have solved the crime in your theory, why do you continue to criticize others? I do believe you are exaggerating when you offensively state:
"But most of the posts I see are talking about things that have nothing to do with the actual crime. It's all gossip and hearsay and rumor and "hinky meter" theories."




Frankly, I do not care what you buy. It is grossly unfair to make accusations about others' theories. If we are so terribly misguided, why don't you find a forum that better suits your needs? TIA

Thanks, couldn't have stated it better myself.

 

[Chewy]

I don't know. I wrote a possible Patsy did it theory. I used the details FROM THE CRIME SCENE not stories about Patsy 20 years earlier.

I don't know what happened. But I don't understand what "theories' people are talking about here. I don't see any "theories" I see gossip and speculation.

And again, I'm talking about these "conspiracy theories" that require us to make that idea only fit the situation and not have any other implication in real life.

Like I said, (which I doubt will ever be answered) If the Ramseys were so well connected that they could get away with a murder, why wouldn't they just call the police and say she fell down the stairs or fell in the bathtub.

If they had the ability to manipulate the authorities why not just stage an accident and do it that way?

I've yet to get an answer to that question.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Instead of constantly worrying about making accusations about me, how about just spelling out a clear theory that doesn't rely on "Patsy was a selfish pageant girl 20 years earlier" and "They had the DA in their pocket" and "they controlled the crime scene"

How about sticking to the actual details in the crime and spelling it out.


The ping ponging of motive and attitudes don't add up and whenever I've asked people to consider how they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth I get a snarky personal insult instead of a real reply.


So again I'll ask

According to some people, the Ramseys' OWNED the DA and they were given special treatment when the cops got there. They controlled the crime scene and they were able to manipulate to get away with it. And the Ramseys KNEW they'd get away with it.

So again, I'll ask, if this is your theory, then why such an elaborate scene.

If the Ramseys knew they could "get away with it" because they "OWNED THE DA" and were easily able to control the cops, then why this big elaborate scheme.

Why not place Jonbenet in the bathtub and say she fell and hit her head. Leave the shower running to wash off all the evidence and Patsy is hysterical with grief and it's ruled a "terrible terrible accident."

Perhaps Patsy did not want JonBenet to be the victim of an accident. She didn't want her life to end in such a mundane way. Being the victim of a killer on Christmas who leaves a RN is more exciting and attention getting.

 

[bettybaby00]

You're not interested in an answer, you're interested in ridiculing people.

Staging her death as an accident in the bathtub, or a fall down the stairs wouldn't stand up against the autopsy, especially the EVIDENCE that points toward prior sexual abuse. Staging a kidnapping gone wrong holds up just long enough to allow the Rs to walk freely out the front door. Hell they were going to leave the state.

If you can't acknowledge that there was obvious, documented evidence they were afforded concessions that go against protocol, or that on more than one occasion the DAs office placed the Rs interests above justice for JonBenet then I think it's you that is guilty of trying to "cram the puzzle pieces into some twisted busted warped version of it and try to pretend it's presented as a clear idea."

:seeya: