Patsy Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If JonBenet appeared dead (undetectable pulse and respiration) it doesn't matter if the head injury was visible or not.

She was not dead. She was breathing and had a heart beat. It is not some science fiction drug that makes people appear dead. She was not dead. The problem is that you have to stretch so far out of normal to make up a scenario in which the family does this to her.

IT is just not factual or plausible. There is no history of abuse or mistreatment. None.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

That's what I say, too. I even started a thread on it:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4863970&postcount=1"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Loved to Death[/ame]

And there's this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CG...nBenet" "she is spectacular in death"&f=false

 

[BBB167893]

Did Patsy Ramsey ever express in public any guilt over JonBenet's death? Any blame for putting her into beauty pageants? Any guilt into not securing the house more?

I don't know about publicly, THE BUNK, but I do know this. During her 1998 interview with Tom Haney, Patsy said that if she had it to do all over again, she would have made the house like a fortress, complete with guard dogs. She didn't exactly practice what she preached, though, if the 2001 "break-in" is anything to go by.

As for guilt over putting her into beauty pageants, none that I ever heard of. In fact, she often defended that practice, saying that if anyone else had a problem with it, that was their problem.

 

[BBB167893]

The issue is there is nothing against Patsy so they make stuff up. Can you imagine if we were all held to the same scrutiny?

She was in pageants and she was not a great housekeeper.. Oh boy.

Talk about missing the point! wow.

 

[Frigga]

Nothing against Patsy?

Patsy was not able to be excluded as the author of the ransom note.

That is extremely damning evidence right there.

 

[Frigga]

Whoever wrote that note did it to throw investigators off. There is no other reason for it. It was fake. Not true. Why?

 

[Frigga]

It is possible, and reasonable that the Ramsey's hire/retain attorneys (I'm all for it) and still cooperate with the investigation. Agree to be interviewed with counsel present. Turn over clothing, phone records, medical records etc.- anything being asked. They were innocent according to a few here. Why wouldn't they do these basic things to assist with the investigation- they were innocent right? With nothing to hide- right? Only wanted the intruder/killer caught- right?

 

[lawstudent]

Nothing against Patsy?

Patsy was not able to be excluded as the author of the ransom note.

That is extremely damning evidence right there.

How is it extremely damning? Not able to be excluded does not mean she wrote it.

Now, I certainly have my suspicions about the ransom note, and would not be surprised to learn Patsy wrote it, but this is what I mean about the evidence we have. Not excluded is completely different from guilty. Excluded is fairly close to innocent, but the opposite doesn't apply. It's something to pay attention to, certainly, but it's not "damning."

And yes, it's possible she appeared dead and so they never thought otherwise, but it's not particularly common. It's thought she lived for some hours after, right? It seems unlikely they didn't detect anything during that time, because it wasn't as if they left her somewhere thinking she was dead, or quickly threw her in the water believing she was dead. If it happened that way, they were around her for some time, and as her parents, presumably would have really tried to see if she was breathing, unlike the average person who leaves someone to die without realizing it.

 

[lawstudent]

It is possible, and reasonable that the Ramsey's hire/retain attorneys (I'm all for it) and still cooperate with the investigation. Agree to be interviewed with counsel present. Turn over clothing, phone records, medical records etc.- anything being asked. They were innocent according to a few here. Why wouldn't they do these basic things to assist with the investigation- they were innocent right? With nothing to hide- right? Only wanted the intruder/killer caught- right?

This must have been addressed many times, so forgive me for not knowing better, but why was this stuff not subpoenaed? The police being afraid to be aggressive with the Ramseys? Worried about lack of probable cause?

The clothing, phone records, and medical records thing is quite odd to me, but I'd like to know a bit more about the timing of those requests etc. as there seems to be some debate.

As for participating in interviews, I don't think it would be wise to do so if they didn't have useful suspects to offer. An attorney would stop virtually all the questions. A case where I do remember the attorney sitting in on the client's interview was the situation with Dr. Conrad Murray, and he likely would never have been charged had he not done that interview, so I have no idea what his attorney was thinking. Having an attorney with you isn't much help unless they're shutting you up as far as talking to the police is concerned. In a media interview or something like that, it's more useful, because you can direct the conversation and the attorney will stop you when necessary.

 

[gramcracker]

IMO there was no foreknowledge re the DA's office. nothing more than a lucky break during a perfect storm. wealth and status kept the hoi polloi LEOs at arm's length until the legal shield was in place against the gathering storm

 

[gramcracker]

IMO one thing we can't do is compare this crime to dissimilar crimes. a specific type of behavior is expected when a very young child dies in her own home: immediate and unlimited cooperation from the child's family

 

[bettybaby00]

It's hard to answer any of this without knowing how the heck she got that head injury.

I don't think anyone actually thinks "Oh, the DA will cover this up no problem!" unless they are the DA's kid or the President of the US or something. The Ramseys weren't that influential. I could see them thinking "No one is going to believe we would beat our child, so if we say this was an accident, who will question it?" Or if, say, Burke hit her, I could see them thinking "They'll believe it's kids goofing around if we say that." I think many families would believe they could convince the DA something was an accident if they had always seemed presentable and respected.

One of the issues I have with RDI is that the injury was not visible and she was not dead. The crazy staging seems like such a leap. I know it's possible they heard the skull crack and knew it was bad, but I just don't know. And I know it would be possible to mistake her for dead, but it just seems they would have tried a bit more to save her and play it off as an accident at that point.

Obviously one issue was the sexual assault, but the evidence on that is still a bit murky so I can't quite figure out how that played out.

And I just don't know how you would present it to a jury and explain what actually happened. Such a strong head bash but no one knows exactly what happened. This isn't a situation with a crazy beating or shaking injuries or something that you can say was definitely the parents losing control. It just seems like there would be doubt.

Also, I think people would be very surprised at the conditions of many people's homes, at least at some points in their lives.

You know what's interesting about this comment? How one poster grabs onto one piece of it and exclaims, "exactly," while ignoring the 1st sentence which is the obvious answer to the "DA in their pocket" misrepresentation that has been going on for pages and pages. No one ever said that.

Believing that the DA was influenced at times by the Rs lawyers is pretty obvious, if people don't want to see that theres not much that can be said. But I will offer 2 examples, and then the ignore feature will once again be put to good use.

The "island of privacy" issue...

Present with Smit and representing the D.A.’s office was special prosecutor Mike Kane. John Ramsey was accompanied by attorney Bryan Morgan and their private investigator David Williams. Morgan expressed the desire of wanting to continue to cooperate with the D.A.’s office, but there was a caveat. Morgan stated that the family felt the need to withhold certain medical records from the criminal inquiry, claiming that they deserved an “island of privacy” when it came to the investigation into JonBenét’s murder. The following is an excerpt from that interview:

Morgan: “I have a real problem with certain kinds of medical records. These people are entitled to an island of privacy to try to recover what they’ve been through.” “I think you will get virtually everything you’ve described with the possible exception of personal medical records that I think John and Patsy are at least entitled to make a reasonable decision on….” “I’ve already discussed these matters with Hoffstrom and he knows how we operate.” ​

Hmmm, wonder what "he knows how we operate" means?

2)the Krebs debacle: why was it that when AH deemed her allegations credible, it was only FWs name that came out? Why was it that although NK accused John Ramsey as well no one ever heard about it until the records became public?

 

[BOESP]

She was not dead. She was breathing and had a heart beat. It is not some science fiction drug that makes people appear dead. She was not dead. The problem is that you have to stretch so far out of normal to make up a scenario in which the family does this to her.

IT is just not factual or plausible. There is no history of abuse or mistreatment. None.

Like I said, if breathing and heartbeat were undetectable to the untrained human eye belonging to a person who had no medical equipment on site with which to test for respiration and pulse, that untrained person might assume JonBenet was already dead, especially if said untrained person was in a panic.

Unless one spent a lot of time with or lived with the Ramseys one would not know what went on behind closed doors. Linda Hoffman-Pugh reported that JonBenet, when Patsy would take Jonbenet into the bathroom and close the door, often screamed and screamed loudly. I believe Mrs. Pugh.

Just as you've said about other folks' posts I don't put a lot of store in non-sourced statements of opinions. We all have one. :twocents:

 

[lawstudent]

Like I said, if breathing and heartbeat were undetectable to the untrained human eye belonging to a person who had no medical equipment on site with which to test for respiration and pulse, that untrained person might assume JonBenet was already dead, especially if said untrained person was in a panic.

Unless one spent a lot of time with or lived with the Ramseys one would not know what went on behind closed doors. Linda Hoffman-Pugh reported that JonBenet, when Patsy would take Jonbenet into the bathroom and close the door, often screamed and screamed loudly. I believe Mrs. Pugh.

Just as you've said about other folks' posts I don't put a lot of store in non-sourced statements of opinions. We all have one. :twocents:

That's not really possible though - breathing is not non-detectable ever. It may become harder to detect, but you don't need equipment. A pulse you might need equipment, but given how long she supposedly lived I don't know if it would have gotten that bad. Her heart didn't stop - it was a head injury. I'm just not sure. I know if you become super hypothermic it could be really, really hard to tell whether you are alive, but in an injury like this I don't think it could be undetectable. When people think someone is dead and they are wrong, they usually didn't check very carefully - the person didn't respond and went limp and they panicked.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Like I said, if breathing and heartbeat were undetectable to the untrained human eye belonging to a person who had no medical equipment on site with which to test for respiration and pulse, that untrained person might assume JonBenet was already dead, especially if said untrained person was in a panic.

Unless one spent a lot of time with or lived with the Ramseys one would not know what went on behind closed doors. Linda Hoffman-Pugh reported that JonBenet, when Patsy would take Jonbenet into the bathroom and close the door, often screamed and screamed loudly. I believe Mrs. Pugh.

Just as you've said about other folks' posts I don't put a lot of store in non-sourced statements of opinions. We all have one. :twocents:

Yeah, Not possible. And no child just goes.. OH well. I guess they are dead...

Um no.. This is the real world. She was breathing and alive.

 

[bettybaby00]

How is it extremely damning? Not able to be excluded does not mean she wrote it.

Now, I certainly have my suspicions about the ransom note, and would not be surprised to learn Patsy wrote it, but this is what I mean about the evidence we have. Not excluded is completely different from guilty. Excluded is fairly close to innocent, but the opposite doesn't apply. It's something to pay attention to, certainly, but it's not "damning."

"Damning" becomes a characterization when there are other indicators of parental involvement.

And yes, it's possible she appeared dead and so they never thought otherwise, but it's not particularly common. It's thought she lived for some hours after, right? It seems unlikely they didn't detect anything during that time, because it wasn't as if they left her somewhere thinking she was dead, or quickly threw her in the water believing she was dead. If it happened that way, they were around her for some time, and as her parents, presumably would have really tried to see if she was breathing, unlike the average person who leaves someone to die without realizing it.

We don't know that. Who's to say how it all happened. The consensus was 45 minutes to 2 hours between the head bash and strangulation based on brain swelling and the observed necrosis. It was also concluded that she would have never regained consciousness. We have no idea what happened after the head blow. It's possible, especially if BR, that who ever did it "ran away" from the event, or possibly waited to see if she would "wake up." It's very possible that believing her dead, she was left downstairs alone for a period of time. If so, her systems would have been even further repressed from when the blow first occurred. We don't know.

This is why the "sexual sadist" scenario doesn't fit for me. An unconscious victim isn't what they want.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"Damning" becomes a characterization when there are other indicators of parental involvement.



We don't know that. Who's to say how it all happened. The consensus was 45 minutes to 2 hours between the head bash and strangulation based on brain swelling and the observed necrosis. It was also concluded that she would have never regained consciousness. We have no idea what happened after the head blow. It's possible, especially if BR, that who ever did it "ran away" from the event, or possibly waited to see if she would "wake up." It's very possible that believing her dead, she was left downstairs alone for a period of time. If so, her systems would have been even further repressed that when the blow first occurred. We don't know.

This is why the "sexual sadist" scenario doesn't fit for me. An unconscious victim isn't what they want.

The point is no one knows so to assume the crazy story instead of the more reasonable with a family who has no history of abuse, is just out there.

Judge Judy.. If it doesn't make sense, It just isn't true.

 

[pukasonqo2]

She was not dead. She was breathing and had a heart beat. It is not some science fiction drug that makes people appear dead. She was not dead. The problem is that you have to stretch so far out of normal to make up a scenario in which the family does this to her.

IT is just not factual or plausible. There is no history of abuse or mistreatment. None.

the operative word in the post you quoted is appeared dead to the untrained Rs. she wasn't hooked to a monitor, had been bashed quite viciously over the head, body is in shock and systems are starting to shut down which could result in decreased intakes on breath and heart starting to beat slower

nobody knows how far after the head bash she was found or has the time of attack ben established?

was it ever made public if JB could have survived w medical attention? would she be back to herself or disabled somehow


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[bettybaby00]

She would have never survived the head blow.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

the operative word in the post you quoted is appeared dead to the untrained Rs. she wasn't hooked to a monitor, had been bashed quite viciously over the head, body is in shock and systems are starting to shut down which could result in decreased intakes on breath and heart starting to beat slower

nobody knows how far after the head bash she was found or has the time of attack ben established?

was it ever made public if JB could have survived w medical attention? would she be back to herself or disabled somehow


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

Sorry, this is ridiculous. You know if someone is alive or dead. All you have to do is put your head to their chest. You don't need fancy equipment just an ear..

If this was the case there would be a lot of people murdered to cover up knocks on the head..