Jon Benet's Family Exhonerated

[mariab]

The interviewer is Barbara Walters. She looks old and Jewish. Hard to miss. ;-)

[louisa]

Since reading about this case for the very first time, only a couple of weeks ago, I've been giving it some serious thought. At first I thought Patsy did it and John covered for her.

Now it all seems to slip into place. Just supposing for a minute......and picture the scene.........the family get home from the party. John puts the kids to bed but they're too excited to sleep. JonBenet is hungry - the kids go down to the kitchen and Burke gets the pineapple bowl and JonBenet eats straight from the bowl without touching it (just picking the pieces out with her fingers).

A while later the kids start bickering and screaming. Burke....already full of resentment and jealousy over JonBenet being mom's favourite - the child the parents devote nearly all their love and energy to.....he gets one of his dad's golf clubs and gives JonBenet a whack over the head. A boy of his age would definitely have the strength to cave in a small child's skull with a whack from a golf club. (Remember that he had - once before - hit JonBenet on the head with a golf club and gotten away with it - luckily he had not harmed her seriously back then).

The parents rush in and see what has happened. What should they do? They agree to make it look like a kidnapping and Patsy sits down to write the ransom note. After Patsy makes the 911 call - the parents send Burke to bed with strict instructions to stay there and say NOTHING. One of both of the parents (thinking JonBenet is already dead) put the garotte on and interfere with the child's genitals to look as those she has been sexually molested.

The rest is history.

This scenario completely explains John and Patsy's mood and attitude during the coming days, months and years. The detectives thought it strange that - just a day after the murder - when the Ramseys were staying with friends - that John asked for someone to get his golf bag from the house.

The scenario also explains why John didn't turn against Patsy (if he thought Patsy had murdered his beloved daughter) and vice versa. They put up a united front to protect their child, who was now the most important thing in both their lives. If you recall, they managed to get Burke out of the house before JonBenet's body was discovered. This was a very good move on their part. (The police thought it odd that the parents of a kidnapped child - it was thought to be a kidnapping at that time - would wish to send their remaining child away from them, instead of keeping him close).

The fact that the couple tried to pin the blame on every single person they knew, including all their close friends, shows that they were not the good Christians that they would have us believe.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Louisa. I believe Patsy's fingerprints, and not Burke's, were found on the bowl. While a 10 year old boy might be able to cave in a skull with a golf club, the weapon in all probability was the large flashlight, and Burke was not a special needs child, so I don't think a swing of that magnitude could have been in play. Also, the parents let Burke return to school relatively quickly, suggesting that maybe he didn't have personal knowledge of what happened (which is what he claims to this day).

I think it's not insignificant that Patsy, a former beauty queen, was turning 40 years old the next day.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[louisa]

Hi Tom

Two lots of fingerprints were found on the bowl of pineapple - Patsy's AND Burke's.

I think it's natural that he would continue to deny involvement. His parents went to the ends of the earth to cover for him, even to the point of turning themselves into suspects. I don't think he would ever let them - or Patsy's memory down. He probably sees it that they sacrificed themselves for him.

That is, of course, if Burke did it. I haven't entirely ruled Patsy out but there are a lot of things that just don't fit with the 'Patsy did it' theory. If one of the parents was responsible, would the other one honestly cover for them......with no sign of resentment, either then or in later years? However - they could both cover for their precious son - who was really all they had left. I can see why they could, and would, be able to present a sustained and united front.

Whichever way you look at it - the person who tightened the garotte was the one who actually killed JonBenet. I wonder if Patsy thought that she was already dead at that time? The head wound wasn't visible and Patsy may have thought a garotte would show an obvious sign of murder?

It's still inconceivable how a mother could do that to a child she loved, even if she thought her daughter was dead at that time.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Louisa. It's more likely Patsy killed Jon Benet, than Burke, though he's a possibility. And the coroner was not certain if the blow to the head or the garroting killed her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[louisa]

Hi Tom

In the book I read - the Steve Thomas one - I'm almost certain it stated that the blow to the head came before the garrotting. I presumed that forensics found this out. I'll have to re-read that part I think.

Steve Thomas pointed the finger at Patsy. However, even if he secretly thought that Burke had been responsible for the murder - would he have stated that in his book? He may not have wanted to implicate a child of 9 without real proof.

The whack on the head - that must have taken more than just a child falling or being pushed against a hard surface. JonBenet was only 4ft tall and wouldn't have had very far to fall. I think the head injury must have been caused by somebody intentionally striking her with something heavy. Why in the world would the parents wish to kill her like this - the day after Christmas as well? That's why Burke seems more likely AND he was strong enough. He may not have intended to actually kill her.

Was the torch ever looked at forensically? It was never stated to be the murder weapon. Surely it would have had hairs etc., on it from the child's head?


Another thing that occurred to me - changing the subject slightly - John Ramsey was only worth about 6m. That's a lot of money but not in high finance circles. Surely that wouldn't be enough to have lawyers jumping through hoops and the District Attorney in his pocket, especially trying to get him off on a murder charge of this magnitude? I'm wondering they were all Freemasons or something?

[Richard E. Nixon]

It's about time that Boulder Police admitted their HUGE error in this case. They allowed a murderer to go free because they were so convinced that the parents were guilty.

There was a very interesting suspect in this case. He was a known pedophile who preferred girls the age of JonBenet. He owened the same type of stun gun used on the victim. And he owend the same type and size of boots that made a print near where JonBenet's body was found. And he lived near by. This man killed himself before Boulder Police could get to him so we will never know. But he was a better suspect than the parents.

[louisa]

Hi Richard,

I'm glad you resurrected this thread because it's an interesting case and I've only just (last summer) gotten around to buying some books and reading about it.

However, I have to disagree with you. There was no evidence that anybody broke into the Ramsey house that Christmas night. I don't think the marks found on JonBenet's body were ever proved to be from a stun gun.

I'm wondering why you would think that a paedophile would wish to break into an occupied home in the middle of a freezing night to sexually assault a child, while her parents are sleeping not far away?

Then to go look for a paper and pen and sit down and write two rambling pages of a ransom note, when he knows that he has already killed the little girl? Then to take her body downstairs and try to conceal it.

The ransom note itself suggests that it was written at leisure by Patsy. The police know when something has been 'staged' and this note, and the crime scene, had all the hallmarks of being staged.

The phrases used in the ransom note are dubious. It states "We are a foreign faction". I seriously doubt if a 'foreign faction' would refer to themselves as such. It also gives phrases like "Don't try to grow a brain John" (a line from a ransom note in the movie Dirty Harry) and "Don't even talk to a dog" (a line from a ransom note in the movie 'Speed). This suggests that the writer was writing in a way they thought a ransom note would sound.

The police made HUGE mistakes, yes I would definitely agree with that. The main mistake was not sealing off the crime scene and sending in forensics immediately.

[louisa]

New information has just been released. It would seem that the Grand Jury did in fact vote to indict Patsy and John Ramsey for the murder of their daughter but the District Attorney Alex Hunter decided that a trial should not go ahead because it might fail.

What a ridiculous argument. Apparently he knew that the costs of the case (if it failed to convict the couple) would fall onto the District Attorney's Department and Boulder's D.A. did not have the funds. Crazy.

I have just read a fairly recent book on this case, the one by James Kolar. Although he sees Patsy as guilty, he thinks she may have covered up for her son Burke who was only 9 years old at the time. Kolar suspects the boy of killing JonBenet.

For my money the best and most definitive book on this case is still the one by Steve Thomas - the foremost detective on the case at the time. The Ramseys subsequently sued Thomas for libel. I suspect that Kolar didn't want the same to happen to him so avoids sticking his neck out in his book and pointing his finger too directly.

Kolar asks the reader to read between the lines and come to their own conclusions. Not a satisfactory way for a book to be written in my opinion. There are also a few minor factual errors and a lot of typos. A confusing read for anyone not au fait with this case.

[sdreid]

Why waste time and money on a Grand Jury proceeding if you aren't going to act on their finding?

[JW-D]

Patsy the Drama Queen

I haven't followed the case closely and consistently enough to form a firm opinion as to the identity of JBR's killer but watching videos of Patsy convinced me she wrote the so-called ransom note. Either she was covering for a family member OR she believed an intruder killed JBR but that the police would suspect a family member.

It's true that police do investigate family members and close friends before or during the same time they look for stranger killers. But if Patsy hadn't muddied the waters investigators (other than the overwhelmed & under-experienced locals) might have gotten closer to the truth soon enough to do some good justice wise.

[louisa]

She got away with murder.

I never really felt that Patsy Ramsey was intereviewed aggressively enough. She was being tiptoed around for fear of upsetting her.

I strongly suspect that her lawyers knew that she would break down under cross examination and they were being paid enough money to see that that never happened.

[RivkahChaya]

She got away with murder.

I never really felt that Patsy Ramsey was intereviewed aggressively enough. She was being tiptoed around for fear of upsetting her.

I strongly suspect that her lawyers knew that she would break down under cross examination and they were being paid enough money to see that that never happened.

Patsy Ramsey's health was poor, and her mental health wasn't great. Apparently, she'd been taking antidepressants since her cancer diagnosis, and she was taking pretty strong anti-anxiety meds after her daughter died (which is why she was so spacey on TV). Whether she was taking the anti-anxiety drugs before her daughter died, and just upped the dose, or it was a new med, I don't know, but attempts to interview her may have been unproductive, even to the point that anything she said may not have been admissible, because it was said under the influence of drugs. Which, incidentally, was a damn good reason for her to have a lawyer any time she talked to anyone, whether police, or press.

The fear of upsetting her was real; it was a fear of tainting later, "clean" interviews with crazy things she said under heavy sedation. They still needed to get some bare-bones witness information from her, where they carefully stuck to the facts-- what she saw and heard that morning, etc. It was probably hard. I have no idea what she was taking, but she may have been having difficulty sequencing events, and been highly suggestible.

You can't confuse Patsy Ramsey's "crazy" with homicidal tendencies.

Besides, JonBenet was in those creepy child beauty pageants, which, if you ask me, made her vulnerable to picking up a stalker, something that usually happens only to post-adolescents.

[louisa]

That 'stalker' theory has been proved to be rubbish. The police investigated over 200 'suspects' but their investigations kept them coming back to the Ramseys.

JonBenet was not sexually molested. It appeared - from the autopsy - that a piece of Patsy's paintbrush had been inserted into the vagina, probably to give the impression that it was a sexual motif. No DNA was found.

Are we to believe that a person broke into (or was already hiding) in the Ramsey home on Christmas night - ready to come out when everyone was in bed, then write a rambling ransom note (having had a few previous attempts on the same notepad) - replace the pen neatly back in it's jar - leave the note on the stairs - then abduct JonBenet (events not necessarily in that order of course) - tie her hands loosely, crush her skull (not noticeable until the autopsy), then strangle her and insert a paintbrush. Then after JonBenet was dead he put a piece of duct tape over her mouth.


Then of course he would have to leave the premises without leaving a trace of himself behind....squeezing back out of the small window in the basement, climbing up out of the well and replacing the grid - and not leaving any footprints in the snow.

As an amateur criminologist I'm sure you know that most murders committed within the home are perpetrated by family members. That is where the police should have started instead of allowing the crime scene to be trampled over.

Everything pointed towards Patsy but the Ramseys were shielded by their lawyers and by the District Attorney. They refused to be interviewed. Does that sound normal behaviour? You would have thought they'd be doing every possible to find the killer and tormentor of their precious child.

The Ramseys were religious nuts who I think believed that God would forgive this terrible act of anger that Patsy accidentally perpetrated on their daughter. When John Ramsey was asked what the killer should receive, if he was ever found, John replied 'Forgiveness'.

Forgiveness! ffs

[RivkahChaya]

My point wasn't about forgiveness, nor was it about doubt. It was about a rational decision by the police not to hound a woman in poor physical health, fragile mental health, and taking psychotropic drugs, because anything she told them would probably be ruled inadmissible in court. I remember how she came across in TV interviews-- she looked stoned out of her mind. She swayed even when she was sitting down. Her husband had his arm around her most of the time, probably to keep her from falling out of her chair.

Yes, I realize that police take confessions from alcoholics and drug addicts all the time, but they are usually homeless, or at least poor, alcoholics and drug addicts, who will have public defenders, and who were using street drugs, and whose BAC was not on the record.

Patsy Ramsey would have a team of gold-plated lawyers, and documentation of every Halcion, compazine, and Seroquel, phenobarb, or whatever else she'd been prescribed. Nothing she said would ever get to a jury. She could re-enact the murder with finger puppets, or make a series of dioramas with shoe boxes and Barbie dolls, and none of it would make it to a jury.

They needed her to decompress, and be sober and rational, or at least reach a baseline of functioning while medicated, and they also needed something besides a confession, if they were going to a jury.

I don't think the police believed at that point that they needed to worry about it, though. I don't think they thought Patsy Ramsey would be clever enough not to leave them a boatload of forensic evidence, and they'd be able to get her to plea bargain.

In the end, they never had much of any kind of evidence, because the police mishandled the crime scene. I don't know why. Maybe they were inexperienced enough to take a one-direction approach, and see it as just a kidnapping, and tap the phone while waiting for further contact from the kidnappers, so that by the time it was clear that it was both a murder, and the kidnapping was a hoax, the crime scene was thoroughly contaminated. Maybe they suspected Patsy from the very beginning, but thought if they let her be herself, she'd incriminate herself, whereas if they took her into custody right away, she'd shut up, and they might never even find the body.

I just don't know. I don't believe with certainty that she did it (I did at first, let me tell you). I do think she was a very strange person, though, whose motives and ideas are beyond me. I can't imagine why she'd kill her daughter on purpose, especially considering the degree to which she seemed to over-identify with her, but I can't imagine that she'd try to cover it up that way, if she killed her accidentally. In fact, I'm not sure why she'd cover it up at all-- she seemed like the kind of woman who would turn to her husband to "fix" things, and it doesn't seem like the sort of cover-up he would concoct. In the end, I'm just scratching my head.