Patsy Ramsey

[inspector rex]

Super Dave: Then, they would have to turn JB onto her stomach to apply the garrote.

Why? I don't understand.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, your sense of humor never fails.

If I had known that the "Hindu gods" thing was all you'd take away from that, tovarisch, I'd have left it out. I wasn't trying to be particularly funny. I was trying to demonstrate the logistical problems.

Concerning 2. The very light nature of the sexual contact at the death with following steps taken to hid from the public view any traces of it has no sense if the another reason that you did not want to mention, existed prior to death. Why bother and then hid it thoroughly?

Well, you're on the right track as to what I meant, tovarisch, but you're not quite there. What I meant was that, if I wanted to get nasty, I could paraphrase Judianne Densen-Gerber and say that the reason (or one reason) there was so little blood was due to JB's inner vagina having toughened up due to all the other times it had been penetrated.

As for your question, my normal response would be that it's futile to expect ANYTHING about a six-year-old's murder to make sense at all. But somehow, I get the feeling that wouldn't take.

So, here goes: I think it was a case of conflicting personalities, having no real idea what the crime should be, combined with revulsion at what they figured they had to do.

 

[BBB167893]

Why? I don't understand.

What's not to understand, rex? The knot was at the back of the neck. And even if it wasn't, how were they supposed to strangle her from the front? Add to that, from behind they wouldn't have to look her in the face.

 

[tovarisch]

If I had known that the "Hindu gods" thing was all you'd take away from that, tovarisch, I'd have left it out. I wasn't trying to be particularly funny. I was trying to demonstrate the logistical problems.



Well, you're on the right track as to what I meant, tovarisch, but you're not quite there. What I meant was that, if I wanted to get nasty, I could paraphrase Judianne Densen-Gerber and say that the reason (or one reason) there was so little blood was due to JB's inner vagina having toughened up due to all the other times it had been penetrated.

As for your question, my normal response would be that it's futile to expect ANYTHING about a six-year-old's murder to make sense at all. But somehow, I get the feeling that wouldn't take. So, here goes: I think it was a case of conflicting personalities combined with having no real idea what the crime should be.

Wrong. Virginity is given only once! I insist. Do you know miracles of double virginity? Bring those facts here.

If there was blood she was virgin. There was blood, but the amount consistent with the dead body violated.

 

[BBB167893]

Wrong. Virginity is given only once! I insist. Do you know miracles of double virginity? Bring those facts here.

WHAT?! I never said anything about virginity, double or otherwise! In fact, now that you bring it up, that only adds to my ammunition, since, if she'd had an intact hymen, she would have bled a fair deal more (unless, admittedly, you're right and she was already dead).

If there was blood she was virgin.

Says who?! I wasn't referring to the hymen. I was referring to the vaginal wall itself.

There was blood, but the amount consistent with the dead body violated.

We went way off the track somewhere. Let's see if we can't work our way back.

 

[BoldBear]

But last I checked, there is NO right to lie.

I've seen this statement before and it bothers me. I understand how it's clever, but at the same time it tends to short-out my brain. It has a 1000 different arguments attached to it. It implies that lying is illegal. Getting caught lying in court is illegal, but that's not true with a...oh, I don't know...a CNN interview. Someone lying during a police interview may not be doing it for the crime--there can be other reasons not associated with the crime. It's for the police to try to get to the bottom of the lie and try to find the truth. There really is no statement read to a suspect, "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, you are required to tell the truth."

Just throw-out what the Ramseys said happened that night and the following morning. Trying to understand what is true and what is a lie when they're clearly being deceptive is next to impossible.

 

[Anti-K]

Come on, pretty much every investigator that has worked on this case has commented at one point or another about inconsistencies and evasiveness in Patsy's interviews. Are you honestly going to sit here and put it all down to memory loss due to trauma? And not taking a suspect's police interviews as "evidence" isn't exactly what I'd call good sleuthing.

Inconsistencies and evasiveness are not necessarily lies.

I have not said that there were no inconsistencies (I’m not certain about evasiveness).

I have not said that trauma results in memory loss.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

That Patsy lied or was evasive about every single question asked of her. Getting any kind of answer was like pulling teeth. I will admit that her lawyers told her "don't lock yourself in to anything, always say "I think", "it probably" "maybe I" or "possibly I" as much as possible. When in doubt, you don't remember".

You are exaggerating. But, like I said, you’re entitled to your opinion.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

And I don't think you are completely wrong. They are going to forget things and there would be things that the are confused about because of shock an panic. I am just interested in what they are confused or vague about. Neither is sure who checked which bedroom when. Really? They managed to remember for DOI. They are not sure who picked up the note, Patsy may have, John probably did because it was moved. (And I am still trying to find out who later denied touching the note, if it happened.) Really, you are not sure if you picked up or were handed the note? I wonder if there is a connection between the vagueness and the events that probably didn't happen as stated if RDI. I wonder if their memories are more solid when speaking about things we can be pretty sure did happen. John is pretty clear about what happened when he found the body, but not what happened the first time he went to the basement.

Sure, I understand what you’re saying. We’re not really disagreeing very much on this, despite our being on opposite sides of the fence.
However...

While I appreciate what people are saying about clarity of memory for traumatic events, research/studies don’t; bear this out. Detailed, emotional, certain memories can be, and sometimes are false. This is not a controversial claim. Research bears this out.

I don’t know if we should expect Mrs Ramsey to remember who checked which bedroom when, or who touched the note, etc.

I do know that it is simply not a fact that vague and/or uncertain memories are indicative of lying.

I do know that if she (they?) wanted to lie about these things it could have been very simply done: 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

 

[Anti-K]

I sure hope I fall into the "all others" category.

1) Yes, as I see it, the killer would have needed to turn JB back and forth. Specifically, she would have to be on her back in order for the sexual "assault" to take place, as the location of the injury (the 7:00 position) is consistent with a right-handed person going down and to the left. Then, they would have to turn JB onto her stomach to apply the garrote. Lou Smit's theory (which is Patient Zero for IDIs) had both happening at the same time, with JB conscious and fighting the cord to boot. In order for all that to work, not only would they have to have JB's lower half facing up while her upper half was facing down, but in order to tighten and loosen the garrote as part of his game while molesting her, he'd need four arms. Anybody hear of any Hindu gods bopping around Boulder in December '96?

2) As to why there wasn't more blood from the "assault," I could give a few reasons. Most likely, even though she was still technically alive, her body was shutting down due to shock from the head blow. Also, due to the very light nature of the sexual contact (which is a tip-off for me right off, IMO). There's another reason, but unless someone insists, I'd rather not mention it.

I know that many IDI disagree with Smit on several points, and many have alternative theories.
.

The sexual assault and the asphyxiation could have occurred simultaneously.
1) tightening of the ligature would have taken a few seconds – one quick, hard pull
2) after one quick, hard pull the ligature would do its work and the killer would be hands free
3) a few minutes would have passed between the tightening of the ligature and the time of death
Now, let’s say that the bladder voids when the ligature is tightened. At this point, the victim is on her stomach. The bladder voids. Urine passes through the panties, the leggings and onto the carpet. The victim is alive but dying, she is at or near point of death.

The killer, hands free while the asphyxiation continues, now rolls the victim over and pulls down the leggings/panties and performs the sexual assault. She is at or near point of death.
...

AK

 

[Prahasaurus]

While I appreciate what people are saying about clarity of memory for traumatic events, research/studies don’t; bear this out. Detailed, emotional, certain memories can be, and sometimes are false. This is not a controversial claim. Research bears this out.

JR could have easily manipulated her memory. Let's assume she wasn't involved. Let's assume it was JR, acting alone. PR was traumatised. She was distraught. She was on medication. When she recovered from the shock, JR sat her down and said this:

"Look, I've been talking to the police. They have a crazy theory that someone in this house committed this crime. They've ruled me out because of the ransom note. But they keep asking me leading questions about you. And also about Burke. It's insane, I know, but they are convinced you wrote that note... So we must be very careful now, we cannot contradict each other, they will use any inconsistency to go after you, or perhaps even Burke. So let's go through this together and make sure our stories align. etc., etc."

He would make sure she agreed to his version. If she thought it was different, he would tell her she is wrong. She must think hard, so much is at stake, etc., etc. If she continued to push back, he would probably change his story so they remained aligned.

I'm not saying it happened like this, but memory is a very tenuous concept. It's amazing what we "remember" over time, especially if someone helps "adjust" our memory. And once modified, it becomes the new reality.

 

[Anti-K]

Well, as I see it, that's precisely the issue, Anti-K: their interviews do seem like they've been practiced. It's only when the interviewers drop something on them that their stories become "inconsistent."

Hey, don't take my word for it. Michael Kane, anyone:

When 'the system' falls short

By Charlie Brennan, News Staff Writer
December 18, 2001

Kane spent many hours questioning John and Patsy Ramsey about their daughter's murder. He said he believes they have yet to give him the straight story.

"When I met with them, I never felt that they were genuine," Kane said. "I always felt like I was talking to a press secretary who was giving responses with a spin.

"I always felt like their answers were very careful and, in some cases, scripted. And that caused me a lot of concern."

For anyone who hasn't read it, check this out:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/04032001ramseyenquirer.htm
Pressed for further details of that night, Patsy responded like a woman who has had lawyers in her life for too many years: "It was 4 1/2 years ago. I have not rehearsed or reread my previous statements."

And that's not the half of it! Someone read this and tell me that Patsy Ramsey wasn't sticking her tongue out and going "Nyah nyah!" at LE!

I don’t see anything wrong with Kane’s impressions.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K, I can remember 9/11 like it was yesterday. In fact, I can remember it BETTER than yesterday!

First, and I say this without prejudice, so what? You aren’t Mrs Ramsey.

Second, can you? Or, do you just think you can? Studies done don’t support what you’re saying. Your memories may be accurate, but they may not be. How would you know?

One study (of a few) that I’m aware of involved subjects who witnessed the Challenger (space shuttle) explosion. Persons were questioned the following morning: where were they, what were they doing, etc.

About three years later these subjects were re-interviewed (the one show could be found), “...subjects were in general extremely confident about the accuracy of their memories of hearing about the disaster and readily produced detailed memories of these events, their memories were in fact riddled with errors. These errors were not limited to the details of where they were and whom they were with, but included even the broadest possible facts. The errors suggested that, over several years, memories tend to deteriorate, although confidence in the memories may remain strong.”
...

AK

 

[andreww]

First, and I say this without prejudice, so what? You aren’t Mrs Ramsey.

Second, can you? Or, do you just think you can? Studies done don’t support what you’re saying. Your memories may be accurate, but they may not be. How would you know?

One study (of a few) that I’m aware of involved subjects who witnessed the Challenger (space shuttle) explosion. Persons were questioned the following morning: where were they, what were they doing, etc.

About three years later these subjects were re-interviewed (the one show could be found), “...subjects were in general extremely confident about the accuracy of their memories of hearing about the disaster and readily produced detailed memories of these events, their memories were in fact riddled with errors. These errors were not limited to the details of where they were and whom they were with, but included even the broadest possible facts. The errors suggested that, over several years, memories tend to deteriorate, although confidence in the memories may remain strong.”
...

AK

I really don't give a crap. They were evasive from the very moment John carried her dead body out of that basement. The reason their stories don't add up is because it didn't happen the way they said it did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

Sure, I understand what you’re saying. We’re not really disagreeing very much on this, despite our being on opposite sides of the fence.
However...

While I appreciate what people are saying about clarity of memory for traumatic events, research/studies don’t; bear this out. Detailed, emotional, certain memories can be, and sometimes are false. This is not a controversial claim. Research bears this out.

I don’t know if we should expect Mrs Ramsey to remember who checked which bedroom when, or who touched the note, etc.

I do know that it is simply not a fact that vague and/or uncertain memories are indicative of lying.

I do know that if she (they?) wanted to lie about these things it could have been very simply done: 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

To me that sounds robotic and rehearsed.

 

[andreww]

To tell you the truth, I would have anticipated that the Ramsey's were going to be uncooperative during their interviews given the four months it took to get them to sit down. If I were doing those interviews I would have started by taking a good amount of time asking questions about Burke, giving the impression that were seriously looking at him as the prime suspect. I think at the very least that Patsy would have been rattled and that she might have cracked. I guess they were afraid that she might have just walked out.

 

[inspector rex]

What's not to understand, rex? The knot was at the back of the neck. And even if it wasn't, how were they supposed to strangle her from the front? Add to that, from behind they wouldn't have to look her in the face.

Hmm, looks like just behind her right ear to me.

http://crimeshots.com/face1.jpg

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Sure, I understand what you’re saying. We’re not really disagreeing very much on this, despite our being on opposite sides of the fence.
However...

While I appreciate what people are saying about clarity of memory for traumatic events, research/studies don’t; bear this out. Detailed, emotional, certain memories can be, and sometimes are false. This is not a controversial claim. Research bears this out.

I don’t know if we should expect Mrs Ramsey to remember who checked which bedroom when, or who touched the note, etc.

I do know that it is simply not a fact that vague and/or uncertain memories are indicative of lying.

I do know that if she (they?) wanted to lie about these things it could have been very simply done: 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

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.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

I do know that if she (they?) wanted to lie about these things it could have been very simply done: 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

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?

 

[andreww]

BBM.


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.

Its all very dramatic isn't it? Patsy finds the note, only reading a couple of lines, then dashes up to check on he beloved daughter. She begins screaming for John who puts the note on the floor at the most lit part of the hallway (does this house have no light switches?) where on all fours he reads the note in his tighty whiteys whilst Patsy wails on the phone like a lioness that has lost her cub. End scene.

So now its 5:52, in precicely 7 minutes Officer french will be at the front door. John must finish reading the note, immediately make the decision to go up three floors, get fully dressed and return back down to the first floor. Thats doable, just barely, but didn't John say that he checked that the doors were all locked and that he left the house to check that the garage entrance was locked? Still doable? But lets add on to that that in his deposition John describes the conversations that Patsy is having with the various friends that she is now calling. Starts to sound very unlikely that he could accomplish all this in just less than 7 minutes doesn't it?

So lets think. Are these events affected by fading or distorted memory? I think not because there is no room for error as the events are all simple and specific. John read the note. John got dressed, John checked the doors and John heard the phone conversations. You cannot be mistaken about any of those things, either he did them or he didn't. So why doesn't the timeline add up? Why does John not mention being in his underwear or returning upstairs to get dressed in his interview? The most likely explanation is that John was already dressed and was with Patsy during the 911 call and the calls to their friends, just waiting for police to arrive.