Patsy Ramsey

[Chewy]

No I'm interested in an answer. But yet again we don't get an answer.

If they have the DA in the pocket they wouldn't have been able to manipulate that then for an "accident," only a massive murder.

Really?

 

[Chewy]

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.

This actually makes more sense to me than any of the arguments I've seen. Saying that they wanted a huge drama associated with her death, is weird but makes sense.

But then I still don't understand why the ransom note would have only said $118,000.

 

[chlban]

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

BBM

This brings me back to one of my two favored theories, which is it was Patsy, then their behavior that morning makes absolute sense as does Patsy inviting half of Boulder over. She did not want to be confronted by John and, at the same time, wanted the sympathy she knew she could muster from the fake kidnapping.

I have always thought their behavior to one another that morning was at least almost as telling as their refusal to cooperate with LE. Even when parents are divorced, or separated, I have seen them cling to each other when a child is missing or killed. Because, really, who but the other parent can fully empathize? Additionally wouldn't you be asking each other (and Burke) questions about what they might have seen, heard, remembered?

But again, having a houseful of people is a good way to avoid your husband confonting you.

 

[chlban]

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"

I have apparently missed whoever it is that is putting forth the theory that the Ramseys had the DA in their pocket. I would think if they had him in their pocket they likely wouldn't have bothered staging. I don't think they knew any such thing.

I doubt very much that the Ramseys knew, ahead of time, that AH was a wimp and a coward that rarely prosectued anyone when a plea deal was so much easier. I doubt they knew that he would be afraid of their wealth and potential power. That was, IMO, pure luck.

I think I also missed the theory that relies on Patsy being a selfish pageant girl 20 years earlier. I guess I need to check in more often.

What I have seen are some viable theories and fair number of posters, myself included, who don't pretend to "know" what happened that night.

Some of us have a couple of favored theories as to which Ramsey did it, but I know I am not 100% convinced who did what and why/when/where. All that i am 100% convinced of is that there was no outside intruder, so that means someone who lived in that house was responsible. Maybe more than one someone, maybe not.

I was not aware that having a theory you approved of was a requirement for posting here. Like I said, I guess I need to check in more often.

 

[bettybaby00]

You've been given answers; you just don't like them. You reject RDI, and that's your prerogative.

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.

Why is it acceptable that your possible Patsy theory doesn't cross every T and dot every I? Yet you expect RDIs to have all the answers. Every person here posts their ideas and opinion based on how they interpret the evidence. Each person, much like investigators, views specific aspects and evidence of the case based on the "weight" they believe those things hold. You view certain things as gossip and speculation; that's your opinion. IDI theories suffer the same burden, b/c none of us know with certainty what happened.

Snipped

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.

Yes you have.

 

[Cailin Rua]

It's a common defense attorney tactic to dramatically ask "Well if my client is SO SMART then WHY didn't they do X, Y or Z??!!1" the answer, of course, is that murder, or an "accidental" death you can't explain in a benign way, is *stressful* and people will do one or two things that are clever and then make a silly mistake or oversight.

It's just how people's brains work--they tell what seems to them to be a reasonable story at the time and a better alternative might not pop into their head until it's too late.

Even the most cold-blooded, methodical contract killers screw up sometimes.

 

[Cailin Rua]

When I was in fifth grade, why did I try to change a D to an A when I could have made a much more plausible B? It's a mystery.

 

[BOESP]

This actually makes more sense to me than any of the arguments I've seen. Saying that they wanted a huge drama associated with her death, is weird but makes sense.

But then I still don't understand why the ransom note would have only said $118,000.

Only the killer knows the answer to your question.

Besides, the amount isn't important in solving this crime. It's a fake ransom note. JonBenet wasn't kidnapped (in the broadest sense of the word).

 

[pukasonqo2]

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.

regarding falling off the stairs of drowning; her injuries were inconsistent with a fall and she would have to be alive to actually drown. the autopsy would show minimal water in her lungs, it would also show that her head injury was a consequence of blunt force trauma by an object, not a fall

there are no conspiracy theories. the BPD behave deferentially because the suspects were rich and white not because their surname is R. if they were black, latino, asian or white trash do you think they would have allowed them so much leeway? you are northamerican, you know how racist and classist your country can be

if the Rs were transplanted with all their riches to southamerica i know the outcome would have been the same. in my country money talks.


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[lawstudent]

Bottom line: whoever did this knew enough to take steps to hide what happened, but made some very risky and seemingly irrational decisions. That's how humans are. Most people aren't idiots, but they're also not masterminds.

I wonder how many people knew much about autopsies at the time, before the crime show explosion. All the time you see cases where the autopsy clearly belies the explanation, or someone fails to realize the body will be tested for drugs, head injuries, etc. A lot of people probably don't even get the importance of lungs and how they can reveal whether submersion or a fire occurred before or after death.

 

[CherCher]

It's a common defense attorney tactic to dramatically ask "Well if my client is SO SMART then WHY didn't they do X, Y or Z??!!1" the answer, of course, is that murder, or an "accidental" death you can't explain in a benign way, is *stressful* and people will do one or two things that are clever and then make a silly mistake or oversight.

It's just how people's brains work--they tell what seems to them to be a reasonable story at the time and a better alternative might not pop into their head until it's too late.

Even the most cold-blooded, methodical contract killers screw up sometimes.

Yup. I have heard over and over from convicted criminals "well if I were guilty wouldn't I have done this or that differently?"
That is the guilty party's way of saying ..."Damn, I SHOULD have done it that way."

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Patsy did this and hid nothing from anyone, not even herself. In fact she left a treasure map and invited treasure hunters in to join in the fun: It's up to you now treasure hunters!

 

[DeeDee249]

This actually makes more sense to me than any of the arguments I've seen. Saying that they wanted a huge drama associated with her death, is weird but makes sense.

But then I still don't understand why the ransom note would have only said $118,000.

That amount was the amount of JR's Christmas bonus that year. Asking for that amount was one way to hint that the "intruder" was a disgruntled Access Graphics employee or business associate. Asking for that specific amount was thought to be so much more effective at pointing the blame towards a business associate, more effective that the more typical million $ or more that one might expect.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

118 refers to the Psalms. IMO.

 

[Cailin Rua]

Yup. I have heard over and over from convicted criminals "well if I were guilty wouldn't I have done this or that differently?"
That is the guilty party's way of saying ..."Damn, I SHOULD have done it that way."

"I'm invoking my constitutional right to a do-over!"

 

[Chewy]

regarding falling off the stairs of drowning; her injuries were inconsistent with a fall and she would have to be alive to actually drown. the autopsy would show minimal water in her lungs, it would also show that her head injury was a consequence of blunt force trauma by an object, not a fall

there are no conspiracy theories. the BPD behave deferentially because the suspects were rich and white not because their surname is R. if they were black, latino, asian or white trash do you think they would have allowed them so much leeway? you are northamerican, you know how racist and classist your country can be

if the Rs were transplanted with all their riches to southamerica i know the outcome would have been the same. in my country money talks.


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

First of all, I didn't say drown her. I said hit her head in the shower. And again this doesn't make ANY sense.

People are arguing that they had enough clout with the DA (you know, the one who presses the charges) to dodge a murder by setting up this huge staging of the scene.

But they didn't have enough clout to get the DA not to press charges. You can't have it BOTH ways. Either they were able to manipulate the DA or they weren't. And saying they could manipulate the DA is a "conspiracy theory."

Definition of a conspiracy theory:

conspiracy theory
noun
1.
a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2.
the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.


Blunt force trauma to the head isn't 100 percent provable whether she was hit or hit her head. There's always a different interpretation. If she cracked her head on the side of the bathtub, it's possible for her to have a similar injury. And the argument here is that they had all this power to create a cover up and get away with it. So why wouldn't they just use that power and clout to cover up the murder that way?

And since the Ramseys are not people who can magically x ray her head with their eyes, they'd not be able to determine how the injury looked anyway.

We're talking IN the moment, not hind sight. IN the moment the argument here is that the Ramseys who had the DA in their pocket and knew they'd be able to use that power to get away with murder, decided to stage a whole crime scene, instead of making it look like an accident.

They used the ransom note from inside the house and then also told the cops when they arrived that they didn't see any forced entry and that all the doors were locked.

What kind of sense does that make?

It's just weird to see ideas put forth where the "thoughts and motives" of the Ramseys are dictated to have tunnel vision ONLY related to the way the crime was played out, and not any similar or easier version of what could have gone down a different way.

For example WHY would they want to cover up an accidental death with a murder??? What kind of sense does that make?

What's the motive straight through? It was an accident if they hit her over the head and didn't mean to kill her. So then the "thoughts and motives" are not the same as if it was premeditated.

It jumps all over the place which is why people won't lay out a straight theory all the way through. Because when you do, none of them make any sense.

That's why it's always hopping around and bits and piece and snide comments and snark instead of a clear lay out of the theories. Why all this "defensiveness" instead of just simply explaining the theory all the way through?


Example of a thought out and explained theory.

Theory

They didn't mean to kill her, Patsy lost her temper and hit her over the head because she caught John molesting her, she ran in the room to hit John and hit Jonbenet by mistake. They panic. Since Patsy technically is the one who killed her, John feels guilty and doesn't want to call the cops and get busted and have Patsy go down for murder. They both are afraid that they will be able to detect the molestation so they decide they need to mutilate the body in such a way to explain away the current evidence. Patsy has John take her to the basement and tells him he has to make it look really really bad unfortunately because then no one will believe that they were involved, because "who could do that to their own child." They have to make it look like an intruder did it. She goes in the kitchen and writes a ransom note while he does this. They decide to wait until morning to pretend they had slept through the whole thing.

Ok let's take this theory. If this is the case then it seems that they aren't operating like "I have the DA in my pocket and I'll make some phone calls so that when they arrive on the scene we'll get special treatment." If this is the case then all the "they knew they'd get away with it" doesn't make any sense.

As they are setting up this staging they are thinking "We have to make it look like an intruder broke in and did this" That's the MO. Okie Dokie. Then they figure they will break the window in the basement and put the suitcase there to make it look like this is how the intruder got in. But it's a lame set up, they don't realize that the "escape route" by the window isn't staged enough.

But they also use the notepad in the kitchen but then don't do anything to make it look like intruders had gotten into the house or were downstairs, nothing is turned over or out of place.

The cops arrive and they say all the doors are locked because they want them to think they broke in through the basement window.


Maybe. But then why put $118,000 in the ransom note? Why NOT act like they are terrified by the ransom note. Why not fake it and only call the police and not call all their friends. Sit on the couch like a movie holding each other and pretend they are terrified that she's been kidnapped.

It's like people are saying they have all this foresight for SOME things and ONLY those things that match what actually played out on the day of the crime.

In the above "Theory" Patsy is really a victim in this whole thing. John is the culprit. And now she's stuck with John for the rest of her life because he knows what really happened. If this is the case then where does all the vitriol towards Patsy fit in?

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Where does hyperbole fit in?

 

[Chewy]

In most of the "theories" that are being presented. Patsy's pageant past being brought up as an example of her evil and dastardly ways. Right about there.

 

[Frigga]

In most of the "theories" that are being presented. Patsy's pageant past being brought up as an example of her evil and dastardly ways. Right about there.

Boy, is that a twisted way of interpreting things. That is NOT at ALL what was meant in regard to Patsy's pageant days. It was Patsy's ability to be calm under tremendous pressure, deliver her lines, and have everyone eating out of her hands. Give me a break.

 

[Frigga]

... and let me add this- the stakes for a winning performance by Patsy for her pageant were a crown, coveted title, accolades, wardrobe and money. Nothing near the stakes for her performance for JonBenet's "kidnapping"- loss of status, reputation and FREEDOM! She would have gone to PRISON had her staging and performance (along with money and some tremendous dumb luck) not passed muster.