Catfish said:
Hi capps,
Your point is well made. The sheer volume of their evasive answers tells us they were not interested in assisting the police.
(snip)
One is left to wonder just how much less useful information Patsy and John would have recalled had they not spent months (years) 'racking their brains' to remember the details of JonBenet's last hours on Earth.
-Catfish
The myth and theory goes, if the Ramseys had answered questions early on, rather than hiding behind their lawyers, they would have remembered more about the events surrounding their daughter's death and been of more help to the BPD. The myth continues that they could remember quite well for their book, Death of Innocence, but not for the police interviews--which occurred prior to the writing of their book.
But did they really?
I don't know; I don't remember. Been too long since I read DOI.
Regardless, the original myth still stands as unarguable fact.
Busting the Myth
From Patsy's interview in April of 1997, I counted 459 questions posed to her by Detectives Truillo and Thomas. Of those 459 questions, Patsy responded, 'I don't know,' or 'I can't remember,' 48 times, or 10%.
However, if we look at the responses, I find in 32 instances, while Patsy says, 'I don't know,' she goes on to respond in depth. For example:
JonBenet: The Police Files, pg 75
ST: Okay. When you came down the stairs the first time, did you touch the note that time?
PR: I dont recall doing that but...I may have.
Or:
ST: Do you recall, uh, did the note go back upstairs with you when you went up to check JonBenet's room?
PR: I don't remember exactly, but I don't think so. I think I just, you know, pounced up the stairs as fast as I could. I don't think I took it with me.
Subtracting the 'ambiguous' 'I don't recall' responses gives us a 3% response of 'I dont know' or 'I don't remember.'
Take a look at those two questions above. What purpose did they serve in finding the killer of JonBenet?
None. They were irrelevant because what ST and TT were attempting to do was get Patsy to confess to being the author of the note.
ST: So, certainly your fingerprints may very well be on the note and, and, and explained that way?
PR: Right. I, I mean I may have touched it, you know. (Pg 76)
We know Patsy's prints were not on the note, yet Thomas goes on to say, (pg. 101)
ST: Patsy, did you write the note?
PR: No, I did not write the note.
ST: Is there any reason, Patsy, that your blatted print of your hand will be on that paper when it test?
PR: I did not write the note and I don't, what's 'blatted?'
ST: This (palm) portion of your hand.
PR: I don't know. I mean, I picked it up or touched it, it may be on there, but I did not write the note.
April 30, 1997. Adequate time for print testing to have been run on the note. Certainly by that time Steve Thomas knew no fingerprints or palm prints had been found on the note, yet he goes after Patsy, attempting to get her to 'fess up.
Another question without relevance to the murder:
TT: Okay. About how many gifts were you wrapping that day to get ready to go?
PR: Oh, I don't know. A couple of shopping bags full.
An even better example:
ST: Why do you think someone did this, Patsy?
PR: I don't know.
Unless the detective asking this question believes the person being asked is the killer, that question has no relation to the murder investigation. It is a simple question, isn't it? Or--is it?
The intent of that type of question is pointedly aimed at the 'suspect.' A chance for the 'suspect' to unburden herself, to tell of the trials this child put them through, to vindicate herself in the death of the child.
Except Patsy didn't cave. Patsy didn't do it.
There are other questions where Patsy does indeed answer she doesn't recall events of that time. Such as:
ST: Do you remember on the night of the 25th, when you and John came home, what the lockup procedure, the security procedure for the house that night was?
PR: No, I don't.
I don't know how other families work, but in our family, the last person up to bed is the one to lock up. Since Patsy stayed with JonBenet to get her ready for bed while John went downstairs with Burke, and was already in bed when he came to their room, why would she know the lockup procedure?
There are many more questions exactly like that. Cases where the detectives ask Patsy what John was thinking, what John knew, what were John's impressions.
How is she to answer other than, 'I don't know,'?
And it is examples like these which clearly show the irrelevancy those questions posed in the investigation of JonBenet's murder and should not be counted as, 'I don't know' or 'I can't remember' responses.
I won't go through and count the responses to questions such as these to get an accurate percentage, but given that the interview questions answered with, 'I don't know,' or 'I don't remember' only tallied 10% to begin with, and degenerated to 3%, it cannot be accurately stated that the Ramseys couldn't answer questions that were important to the investigation with anything other than, 'I don't know,' or 'I can't remember.'
What does stand out in Patsy's initial interview is Steve Thomas' deception. Not only in regard to the non-existent fingerprints on the note, but in his statement that, "We know we are not a large police department, and I'm certainly the first to ask for help when something beyond me, or to go to the experts."
Yet BPD turned away offers of assistance from the CBI and the Sheriff's Department.
I have not done John Ramsey's interview. Perhaps there I will find all those 'pertinent to the investigation questions' that were answered with, 'I don't know,' or 'I can't remember.'
But I doubt it.
Rainsong
