Patsy Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think that directive- to treat them as victims- came about in the first day of the investigation. That is why the parents were not separated/questioned/arrested as soon as the body was "found". I believe there was some speculation that a phone call was made to the BPD and/or DA's office from the Assistant Governor that morning shortly after the 911 call. And I believe that phone records would show a call made from the R's home or cell phone to either someone at that office or someone with connections to that office. And I believe it is one of the main reasons the phone records were not made available to LE.
If it had been anyone else, the house would have been cleared of all non-essential persons (this specifically means all the RDI friends, clergy and "victim's advocates"). The family would have been required to turn over the clothing they wore to the Whites as well as clothing they had on that day (for Patsy is was the same). This would have happened before they were allowed to leave the home. They would have been taken into custody first.

They have the phone records so they know exactly who that call was made to. I am going to bet it was something more benign and less conspiracy-ish.

 

[bettybaby00]

Interesting. I was always under the assumption that the call that they were trying to hide was a call to a lawyer before the 911 call. Your idea does make more sense.

Well there was certainly nothing preventing them from making more than one phone call!

Personally, it's my belief only one call was made. Mike Bynum had the connections, and the power to get a heck a of a lot done in a very short period of time with out batting an eye. This is evidenced by how quickly Ramsey defense team investigators minions went to work.

And thank you DeeDee and Gramcracker for answering my question

 

[gramcracker]

the SW for the phone records was issued Long After The Event and, in fact, records for pertinent dates had disappeared/no longer existed (take your pick). which the phone company rep insisted could not have happened

 

[Anti-K]

Can't forget this little tidbit...



Kolar kindle location: 1940

This discussion makes me again wonder who was possibly called that night/morning b/c I find it more than odd that LE was directed from the get go to treat the family as "victims." Why would LE need to be reminded that the Rs were victims when they were responding to a possible kidnapping? I've always looked at the RN as a means to buy them time: time to be perceived as victims. And it worked IMO, b/c after spending hours in that house, waiting for a ransom call, surrounded by family friends, their minister, and Windex wielding victim advocates, the police were then suddenly confronted with a body rather than dealing with a ransom demand, and suddenly the Rs were walking out the front door without a backward glance. This likely would have never happened withou the RN.

Does anyone have the info on when / how the directive to treat them as victims came about?

This is in reference to the quote from Kolar’s book: In reviewing similar cases, there had only been one instance in which a child had been taken for ransom and then found murdered in the home: it was the JonBenét Ramsey homicide investigation.

What is meant by “similar cases?” And, how does this “fact” support the RDI position? It does not. It supports no position. It tells us that no one – NO ONE (that means, parent OR intruder) – is known to have ever done such a thing.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

This is in reference to the quote from Kolar’s book: In reviewing similar cases, there had only been one instance in which a child had been taken for ransom and then found murdered in the home: it was the JonBenét Ramsey homicide investigation.

What is meant by “similar cases?” And, how does this “fact” support the RDI position? It does not. It supports no position. It tells us that no one – NO ONE (that means, parent OR intruder) – is known to have ever done such a thing.
...

AK

Did I say it proved RDI? I was quoting this post...

Originally Posted by chlban
Yes, that would have made much more sense. I also cannot see John signing off on that ludicrous note.

In the years since, it seems many of the parents that have pulled this off have just done so with the child "disappearing". No Ransom Note. That was, IMO, Patsy's biggest mistake.

Which in context, addresses the idea that a RN and a dead body in the house don't go together, and in this instance, it's one of the main reasons the FBI felt there was parental involvement. Similar cases would mean, I think, cases where there is a RN, and an actual missing person, or a murdered person with no seemingly apparent intent that it had been a kidnapping.

Of course I don't know definitively that is what they meant, 'cause I can't "prove" it. Pretty sure none of us can prove anything.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

the SW for the phone records was issued Long After The Event and, in fact, records for pertinent dates had disappeared/no longer existed (take your pick). which the phone company rep insisted could not have happened

Sorry, Do you have a link to an official source? Because it is standard to get phone records. My bet is it was done ASAP and that the police had them all along.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Heavy sigh.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This is in reference to the quote from Kolar’s book: In reviewing similar cases, there had only been one instance in which a child had been taken for ransom and then found murdered in the home: it was the JonBenét Ramsey homicide investigation.

What is meant by “similar cases?” And, how does this “fact” support the RDI position? It does not. It supports no position. It tells us that no one – NO ONE (that means, parent OR intruder) – is known to have ever done such a thing.
...

AK

I don't believe this to be true. I don't believe a lot of what Kolar has to say but I don't believe this for a fact. Just his opinion.

And also, just because someone has not done it before does not mean it was not done. There is a new depravity almost every day. People who like to torture and kill and have bizarre reasoning and methods. I don't believe their is a crime that has not been done before.

 

[Anti-K]

Did I say it proved RDI? I was quoting this post...




Which in context, addresses the idea that a RN and a dead body in the house don't go together, and in this instance, it's one of the main reasons the FBI felt there was parental involvement. Similar cases would mean, I think, cases where there is a RN, and an actual missing person, or a murdered person with no seemingly apparent intent that it had been a kidnapping.

Of course I don't know definitively that is what they meant, 'cause I can't "prove" it. Pretty sure none of us can prove anything.

No, bettybaby00, you didn’t say that it proved RDI. But, I didn’t say that you said that, either.
.

I’m not sure if I agree that both body and note in the house were one of the main reasons that the FBI felt there was parental involvement. And, I’m not sure if there advice to “look at the parents” necessarily means much more than that: look at the parents.

I think that the body and the note are reasons to look away from the parents as it shows that no (guilty) parent has ever reported a kidnapping before they disposed of the body. Tis sort of thing has just never happened before.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

No, bettybaby00, you didn’t say that it proved RDI. But, I didn’t say that you said that, either.
.

I’m not sure if I agree that both body and note in the house were one of the main reasons that the FBI felt there was parental involvement. And, I’m not sure if there advice to “look at the parents” necessarily means much more than that: look at the parents.

I think that the body and the note are reasons to look away from the parents as it shows that no (guilty) parent has ever reported a kidnapping before they disposed of the body. Tis sort of thing has just never happened before.
...

AK

i would amend that to no convicted parent. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one other case where "kidnapping" explained the missing child, when many people believe it was also the parents in that case. Also, I can't recall now if the Rosenberg case was before or after the Ramsey case. but that was another supposed "kidnapping" took place that I don't think anyone believed.

Fake kidnappings have explained more than one missing child. The difference here is the note and the body in the house. Stupid mistakes, but it hardly proves innocence.

The RN was just so "Patsy", regardless of the handwriting, that it screams her guilt, IMO. A drama queen's version of a Ransom Note.

Otherwise I think the "no other guilty parents" argument is a weak. No other guilty parent ever strapped their kids into a car and drove them into a lake, but that didn't stop Susan Smith and it certainly didn't make her innocent. People find new and inventive ways to kill, and/or cover up killings all the time.

 

[THE BUNK]

i would amend that to no convicted parent. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one other case where "kidnapping" explained the missing child, when many people believe it was also the parents in that case. Also, I can't recall now if the Rosenberg case was before or after the Ramsey case. but that was another supposed "kidnapping" took place that I don't think anyone believed.

Fake kidnappings have explained more than one missing child. The difference here is the note and the body in the house. Stupid mistakes, but it hardly proves innocence.

The RN was just so "Patsy", regardless of the handwriting, that it screams her guilt, IMO. A drama queen's version of a Ransom Note.

Otherwise I think the "no other guilty parents" argument is a weak. No other guilty parent ever strapped their kids into a car and drove them into a lake, but that didn't stop Susan Smith and it certainly didn't make her innocent. People find new and inventive ways to kill, and/or cover up killings all the time.

The biggest problem with Anti K's argument is that there has not been any intruder that has exhibited the MO of this murder, either. That cancels out the "no other guilty parents" argument.

If you believe all the evidence is real in this case, this murder is bizarre from BOTH an RDI and IDI perspective.

Of course if you believe some of the evidence is false or manufactured...then this case really only makes sense from one perspective.

 

[gramcracker]

Sorry, Do you have a link to an official source? Because it is standard to get phone records. My bet is it was done ASAP and that the police had them all along.

AFAIK none of us have links to official sources re phone records. my bet (which is the same thing you have) is that Steve Thomas was telling the truth when he quoted the phone company rep who said "What took you so long? I've been expecting you for months/since last year. Usually the police departments come to us with subpoenas right away."

of course it is standard to get phone records. that is the entire point. AH stopped LE from doing the standard things, in his zeal to protect the Rs and/or not bite the hands that fed him and/or not experience his worst nightmare coming true ...

... actually mounting a prosecution/conducting a trial (the horror!) :freakedout:

 

[Mama2JML]

i would amend that to no convicted parent. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one other case where "kidnapping" explained the missing child, when many people believe it was also the parents in that case. Also, I can't recall now if the Rosenberg case was before or after the Ramsey case. but that was another supposed "kidnapping" took place that I don't think anyone believed.

Fake kidnappings have explained more than one missing child. The difference here is the note and the body in the house. Stupid mistakes, but it hardly proves innocence.

Are you referring to the Aisenberg case? If so, it's another head scratcher, for sure. Very sad, regardless of WDI.

The RN was just so "Patsy", regardless of the handwriting, that it screams her guilt, IMO. A drama queen's version of a Ransom Note.

I realize this is the position of most RDIs, but I don't understand why. I am nearly 100% convinced PR did not write that note.

Otherwise I think the "no other guilty parents" argument is a weak. No other guilty parent ever strapped their kids into a car and drove them into a lake, but that didn't stop Susan Smith and it certainly didn't make her innocent. People find new and inventive ways to kill, and/or cover up killings all the time.

The problem with the JBR case (re: the facts to which we are privy) is a lack of substantial evidence of Ramsey guilt and more than a reasonable amount of evidence, exculpatory in nature. JMHO.

 

[ukrberserker23]

Are you referring to the Aisenberg case? If so, it's another head scratcher, for sure. Very sad, regardless of WDI.

I realize this is the position of most RDIs, but I don't understand why. I am nearly 100% convinced PR did not write that note.

The problem with the JBR case (re: the facts to which we are privy) is a lack of substantial evidence of Ramsey guilt and more than a reasonable amount of evidence, exculpatory in nature. JMHO.

The real clincher that proves Patsy wrote the RN is the phraseology of it. John was from Michigan, and no one would ever call him a southerner. Patsy was my homegirl from WV, where I still reside. My own mother has stated the same thing to me. " Why don't you use that good southern common sense." I doubt if any of the Ramsey's friends in Boulder were from any southern state. A small "foreign faction" wouldn't say anything like that. They might have said to use your good American common sense. Patsy killed JonBenet after catching her in the basement with John. I'm working up an explanation of that opinion, but need to write it out first, not compose on the fly.

 

[Zzzz]

The real clincher that proves Patsy wrote the RN is the phraseology of it. John was from Michigan, and no one would ever call him a southerner. Patsy was my homegirl from WV, where I still reside. My own mother has stated the same thing to me. " Why don't you use that good southern common sense." I doubt if any of the Ramsey's friends in Boulder were from any southern state. A small "foreign faction" wouldn't say anything like that. They might have said to use your good American common sense. Patsy killed JonBenet after catching her in the basement with John. I'm working up an explanation of that opinion, but need to write it out first, not compose on the fly.

And a "small foreign faction" would never describe itself that way. Foreign to what? Entities don't call themselves foreign.

 

[Anti-K]

i would amend that to no convicted parent. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one other case where "kidnapping" explained the missing child, when many people believe it was also the parents in that case. Also, I can't recall now if the Rosenberg case was before or after the Ramsey case. but that was another supposed "kidnapping" took place that I don't think anyone believed.

Fake kidnappings have explained more than one missing child. The difference here is the note and the body in the house. Stupid mistakes, but it hardly proves innocence.

The RN was just so "Patsy", regardless of the handwriting, that it screams her guilt, IMO. A drama queen's version of a Ransom Note.

Otherwise I think the "no other guilty parents" argument is a weak. No other guilty parent ever strapped their kids into a car and drove them into a lake, but that didn't stop Susan Smith and it certainly didn't make her innocent. People find new and inventive ways to kill, and/or cover up killings all the time.

If you go back to my original post <1> on this topic: my argument is that the fact that the Ramsey case is the only &#8220;instance in which a child had been taken for ransom and then found murdered in the home&#8221; does not support RDI or IDI. <1> http://tinyurl.com/psye65r
This is not a "no other guilty parents" argument.

Yes, in a subsequent post I said that this same fact is a reason to look away from the Ramseys. I see how some might see this as a "no other guilty parents" argument, but that is not the argument I was making. I&#8217;m not referring to the fact that no one has done such a thing, but I am referring to the REASONS why no one has done such a thing.

Yes, fake kidnappings have been used to explain &#8220;more than one missing child.&#8221; But, in each and every case the perpetrator(s) reported the kidnapping AFTER they had disposed of the body. Indeed, the body disposal is the reason for reporting (faking) the kidnapping. No disposal = no kidnapping; no disposal = no reason to even think of a kidnapping.

<1> http://tinyurl.com/psye65r
...

AK

 

[chlban]

Are you referring to the Aisenberg case? If so, it's another head scratcher, for sure. Very sad, regardless of WDI.

I realize this is the position of most RDIs, but I don't understand why. I am nearly 100% convinced PR did not write that note.

The problem with the JBR case (re: the facts to which we are privy) is a lack of substantial evidence of Ramsey guilt and more than a reasonable amount of evidence, exculpatory in nature. JMHO.

Yes, thank you, it was the Eisenberg case I was referring to.

As to why, at least in my opinion, the RN screams Patsy is the overdramatic nature. I believe Patsy was a Narcissist. It is common for that type to be drama queens (or Kings, I suppose). That RN is so overly dramatic as to be absurd. The language too, screams Patsy.

As for the lack of evidence of Ramsey guilt, I believe it was Vincent Bugliosi who said, something to the effect, that the best evidence of their guilt was the lack of evidence of an intruder. I would agree with that statement. That, and in my mind at least the Ransom Note.

However, In spite of my distaste for AH and his cowardly ways , I do believe that this was a case that screams reasonable doubt, although I don't believe there is reasonable doubt of an intruder. However there is massive reasonable doubt as to which Ramsey or Ramsey's actually committed the crime.

Back to Patsy's personality, I have been on a re-reading binge this summer, reading old books I haven't read in years. One I am currrently on (having just finished PMPT and coming away as convinced as ever a RDI) is a book about Betty Broderick. She murdered her Ex-husband and his new wife in their beds in 1989 here in So. California. Case was huge at the time. At any rate, I think Patsy and Betty share the same personality disorder. Through most of Betty's adult life she was considered the "perfect" mother. I mean, more so than Patsy ever was, she was just super mom and was known for her love of all children. Yet when her husband left her for another woman she fell apart and her Narcissistic personality took over. During the years between his leaving and her killing him, all she cared about was money, her anger, and revenge. She treated her children horribly over and over. She became a different person.

Of course Betty did not kill her children and I personally have never believed Patsy meant (at least with the head blow) to kill her child. I have, however, always believed that once the initial damage was done with the head blow, her personality took over and it became all about her. I know many people have trouble believing a "loving" mother could do the things that I believe Patsy intentionally did to her child after what I think was a momentary loss of control. But reading about Betty again has just strengthened my belief that it truly is always about the narcissist to the narcissist.

 

[CherCher]

If you go back to my original post <1> on this topic: my argument is that the fact that the Ramsey case is the only “instance in which a child had been taken for ransom and then found murdered in the home” does not support RDI or IDI. <1> http://tinyurl.com/psye65r
This is not a "no other guilty parents" argument.

Yes, in a subsequent post I said that this same fact is a reason to look away from the Ramseys. I see how some might see this as a "no other guilty parents" argument, but that is not the argument I was making. I’m not referring to the fact that no one has done such a thing, but I am referring to the REASONS why no one has done such a thing.

Yes, fake kidnappings have been used to explain “more than one missing child.” But, in each and every case the perpetrator(s) reported the kidnapping AFTER they had disposed of the body. Indeed, the body disposal is the reason for reporting (faking) the kidnapping. No disposal = no kidnapping; no disposal = no reason to even think of a kidnapping.

<1> http://tinyurl.com/psye65r
...

AK

Then why leave a long winded ransom note if there was no kidnapping? That one thing is the rub.

 

[CherCher]

When I lived in NYS there was a case of a woman who was a single Mom who wanted to be free from her motherhood responsibilities. She wasn't rich. She had no prior record of child abuse, and indeed was seen as a wonderful mother by everyone who knew her best. But she smothered her daughter in a bid to be free from the responsibility. She buried her daughter in a backyard I think. She wrote a ransom note and included one of her daughter's mittens. This woman didn't have the benefit of a million dollar law firm or the friendship of the DA. Her story was in the news for a few days and then most people with a brain realized that she did it.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Then why leave a long winded ransom note if there was no kidnapping? That one thing is the rub.

Exactly. Why would the intruder leave the body and the ransom note? If you still want the ransom, take the body with you. If you are going to leave the body then the ransom note is useless and just more evidence.