JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

Now why would patsy do that?

I don't believe Patsy asked them to do anything. She was uncommunicative, just sitting on the couch, crying and soaking up all the attention, according to most opinions.
Why wipe down her prints when this is her house, they are all over the place, aren't they?

[louisa]

Hellooooo - As soon as the kidnapper removes the body from the house, he must either freeze it, or bury it.
If JB died around midnight she is well on the way to decomposing by the time of the phone call about 10:00 am, add a couple of hours for John to get the money, plus another couple to make that arduous delivery somewhere in the state.

But that makes no sense does it?

If this person intended to kidnap JonBenet he would have taken her away after she was unconscious after he hit her with that heavy object. She wasn't going to wake up.

Then he could have taken her back to a place of his choosing and done whatever evil he had in mind, and taken his time about it.

Why couldn't he have had it fixed, afterall this was last summer.

Patsy said she had asked her housekeeper to get her husband to fix it but he never got around to it.

The people who Patsy called that morning, they arrived about the same time as the first officers - they started cleaning up, wiping the kitchen down.
Even while the police were dusting for fingerprints, they were being followed by the neighbors with dust cloths wiping away the powder - it sounds like a Keystone Cops sketch.
There's no wonder no prints were found.

And these neighbours dusted and wiped the basement area as well?




Which leads me to this question (which I've touched on before) - John Ramsey is supposed to be a very clever man isn't he? Started up his own business that went on to make millions?)

He has just received a ransom note from a kidnapper so will know that the entire house is a crime scene which could contain valuable DNA that could lead to the perpetrator getting apprehended - yet he just sat there in his kitchen calmly reading his mail while all these people milled around the kitchen and living rooms, tramping through the house and cleaning up with clothes?

My theory is that he didn't give a hoot, the same goes for Patsy, because the more people that contaminated the crime scene, the better it would be themselves.

[Harry D]

And also....that is much more like a typical ransom note. Straight to the point - THE MONEY! No waffling on for two and a half pages, about what a good businesman you are and telling the parents to be well rested etc etc..

You know that the Lindbergh kidnapper wrote thirteen ransom notes in total, right?

It could've been that JonBenet's murderer wanted to put as much detail as possible into one ransom letter as the more phone calls he had to make, the better chance the police would have of tracking his location. I will admit that it's slightly unusual that the kidnapper didn't call. He might have tried winging it in the hope that JonBenet's body hadn't been found yet, but then again I don't know how quickly the news broke about her death. And it might have been that the kidnapper decided to write the whole thing off anyway rather than risk getting caught.

You still haven't adequately explained why Patsy would concoct a ransom letter without staging a kidnapping. Like I said, why not pretend that JonBenet had gone missing and they found her corpse in the basement? They didn't need to write a ransom letter to add a criminal element to their scenario, they already had a murder victim.

Also, I've seen it argued that the intruder couldn't have been both a sexual predator and a ransom kidnapper, because their underlying motivations are completely different. One is driven by lust, the other is driven by greed. My response to that? The serial killer Israel Keyes. Keyes kidnapped 18 year-old Samantha Koenig from her job at a coffee shop. That same night he sexually assaulted her and strangled her to death. After returning from a cruise two weeks later, he stitched her eyes open and posed her dead body for a hostage photo and demanded $30,000 in ransom, which was how the police were ultimately able to catch him as he was caught withdrawing the money at an ATM. So there you go, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[louisa]

Now why would patsy do that?

Bcause she knew that friends would leave more of themselves, in the form of fingerprints, hairs and fibres, (general DNA) than they managed to clean off in a wipe of a kitchen work surface, or whatever.

As per the last paragraph of my above post.

[louisa]

You still haven't adequately explained why Patsy would concoct a ransom letter without staging a kidnapping. Like I said, why not pretend that JonBenet had gone missing and they found her corpse in the basement? They didn't need to write a ransom letter to add a criminal element to their scenario, they already had a murder victim.

Harry, if I had the answer to that question I would be cleverer than anyone has managed to be so far.

I have already given my theory, in numerous posts - I believe that, in their confusion and panic, the Ramseys decided to make it look like a kidnapping and Patsy wrote the kidnap letter..... and then much later, when time was getting on and they were panicking even more, they didn't know what to do - were they going to make it look like a kidnap gone bad? A murder for sexual reasons? What do do?

In the end they got so muddled and confused that they left evidence of all three.

The original plan may have been to remove the body but after discussion they decided that John might be seen leaving the house or forensics may find that the car had been used after the time they said they had gone to bed. Also they would have had to have thought of a place to put the body and they were not able to think of anywhere off the top of their heads.

Who knows?

You know that the Lindbergh kidnapper wrote thirteen ransom notes in total, right?

But he didn't write them all at once, and he didn't write any of them while he was INSIDE the house, did he? He brought the first one with him, as kidnappers always do.
.

[louisa]

Also, I've seen it argued that the intruder couldn't have been both a sexual predator and a ransom kidnapper, because their underlying motivations are completely different. One is driven by lust, the other is driven by greed. My response to that? The serial killer Israel Keyes. Keyes kidnapped 18 year-old Samantha Koenig from her job at a coffee shop. That same night he sexually assaulted her and strangled her to death. After returning from a cruise two weeks later, he stitched her eyes open and posed her dead body for a hostage photo and demanded $30,000 in ransom, which was how the police were ultimately able to catch him as he was caught withdrawing the money at an ATM. So there you go, the two are not mutually exclusive.

But Harry, the above has no bearing on the JB case. It is completely different.

Sexually assaulted her - are you meaning he raped her? If he took a photo of the dead body for a 'hostage photo' then why, if people knew she was dead, did they agree to pay the ransom?

The Lindbergs paid up because they thought their baby was still alive.

Your man did not hang around in a house for hours penning a 3 page ransom note, then abducted a small child, killed her and left the body in situ, and escaped without leaving anything of himself behind.

[louisa]

At Least 10 Professionals Concluded Patsy Was Author

While an original document is preferable for analysis, in this case it was not necessary. This particular ransom note was written with a thick felt tip pen which, even on an original document, will give no indication of the pressure used by the writer.

For information: Chet Ubowski was the only Forensic Document Examiner who testified before the Grand Jury. He was chosen because he was considered to be the foremost leader in the field of document analysis

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation

Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters stated “I believe she wrote it.”

"We had noticed earlier that in prehomicide writings, Patsy consistently used the manuscript “a,” but posthomicide, it disappeared from her samples of writing. This was a major find, for it looked as if she was consciously changing her lettering. She had more handwriting styles than a class of sixth graders and was seemingly able to change as easily as turning on and off different computer fonts.

I thought about how big a mistake it had been to provide the defense lawyers with a copy of the note. A suspect could study it prior to giving writing samples and consciously avoid certain characteristics, such as the style of writing the first letter of the alphabet".

Gideon Epstein - Forensic Document Examiner

"Based on the presently available documents, there are strong indications that Patsy Ramsey is the author of the ransom note".

David S. Liebman - Certified Document Examiner

"There are far too many similarities and consistencies revealed in the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note for it to be coincidence. In light of the number of comparisons and similarities between Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note writer the chances of a third party also sharing the same characteristics is astronomical. In my professional opinion Patsy Ramsey is the ransom note writer".

Tom Miller, Attorney, Court Qualified Expert Witness in Questioned Documents

"Based upon available exemplars, compared to the purposed "ransom note" in the JonBenet Ramsey murder, the handwriting is probably that of Patsy Ramsey".

Cina L. Wong - Certified Document Examiner

"I have made a careful examination and comparison of the 'ransom note' and the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey. I have reached the conclusion that the handwritings and the 'ransom note' were written by the same person. It is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the 'ransom note'".
Larry F. Ziegler - Forensic Document Examiner

"It was determined, and is still determined by myself that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note".

"Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner,

He was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). Speckin's report stated: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:9-14) "When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to eliminate her as the author." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:25 through p. 139:1-6). Infinitesimal Chance of Intruder Match to Patsy.

However, Speckin reportedly was ready to testify that "there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs"

THE ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE






PATSY'S HANDWRITING SAMPLE

[Pcdunn]

The one thing I noticed between the two examples is that the original ransom note seems to have been written by someone with an unsteady hand, looking at the wobblieness of the overall writing. This could be explained by someone who was sick, nervous (as a parent who has either killed or found her daughter dead), or writing in a moving vehicle.
I also wonder if the writer wrote it with her non-dominant hand? That typically will produce shaky letters, I know from my own experience.

I lean strongly to the idea by the panel who felt Burke had some connection to the case, and his parents concocted the letter together, with Patsy doing the writing. This would explain their insistence that a killer was out to get people's children, as heard at one of the press conferences, their over-protectiveness towards Burke, and the filmed interview of Burke with the child psychologist in which he makes a hitting motion with his fist (more than once) when replying that he thought some bad guy had "bonked" his sister on her head.

With one child dead, they'd want to save Burke, their first-born. He was too young to be tried for murder under Colorado law, but would probably be sent to an institution of some sort, if the truth ever came out.

The thing which gives me pause about the parents covering this up is the garrote. I suppose John could have made it, having military training, but I just can't imagine any parent using it on their own child, especially if she was still alive. Maybe it depends on how driven he or they were, I guess...

Saw an ad on TV for a program about the case called "A Problem with the DNA" from Fox -- well, it's about time they admitted that! Seriously, using only three markers to when most samples require ten to twelve to be of any use one way or the other? (This information also came from the three-hour TV documentary on the case that aired last month.) Any way, if I catch the Fox show I'll let you know what it says.

[louisa]

The one thing I noticed between the two examples is that the original ransom note seems to have been written by someone with an unsteady hand, looking at the wobblieness of the overall writing. This could be explained by someone who was sick, nervous (as a parent who has either killed or found her daughter dead), or writing in a moving vehicle.
I also wonder if the writer wrote it with her non-dominant hand? That typically will produce shaky letters, I know from my own experience.

Hi Pat,

She wasn't going to use her normal way of writing in a ransom note.
Patsy was known to be ambidextrous.

The unsteady hand could just have been due to the stress she was under. I find that my writing suffers as well if I am pushed for time or nervous, and she would have been both.

I lean strongly to the idea by the panel who felt Burke had some connection to the case, and his parents concocted the letter together, with Patsy doing the writing. This would explain their insistence that a killer was out to get people's children, as heard at one of the press conferences, their over-protectiveness towards Burke, and the filmed interview of Burke with the child psychologist in which he makes a hitting motion with his fist (more than once) when replying that he thought some bad guy had "bonked" his sister on her head.

With one child dead, they'd want to save Burke, their first-born. He was too young to be tried for murder under Colorado law, but would probably be sent to an institution of some sort, if the truth ever came out.

That's also what I think.

The thing which gives me pause about the parents covering this up is the garrote. I suppose John could have made it, having military training, but I just can't imagine any parent using it on their own child, especially if she was still alive. Maybe it depends on how driven he or they were, I guess...

That has always been the stumbling block with my theory and that is why I have returned to believing that Burke did it, everything except write the ransom note.

The strange sexual stuff may have simply been a nine year old boy's curiosity and the garotte - well he may have seen that kind of thing in some magazine. Nowadays kids watch and read all kinds of macabre stuff.

It could also be why the parents got Burke out of the house at the earliest possible opportunity. They would have first told him - in no uncertain terms - that he was NOT to talk to anyone about what happened. I suspect old Patsy could be quite intimidating when she wanted to be.

[Harry D]

But Harry, the above has no bearing on the JB case. It is completely different.

It has plenty of bearing on the JonBenet case because critics have tried to use the conflicting motives of the perpetrator to discredit the intruder theory and pin it on the Ramseys. Someone like Israel Keyes dispels this myth.

Sexually assaulted her - are you meaning he raped her? If he took a photo of the dead body for a 'hostage photo' then why, if people knew she was dead, did they agree to pay the ransom?

Did you miss the part where I said he stitched her eyes open and posed the body? Keyes made it look as if she was still alive and held hostage, when in fact she was long dead. You can find the photo online, but I would warn you that the image stayed with me for some time when I first saw it.

Your man did not hang around in a house for hours penning a 3 page ransom note, then abducted a small child, killed her and left the body in situ, and escaped without leaving anything of himself behind.

We're talking about motive, not execution.

[louisa]

It has plenty of bearing on the JonBenet case because critics have tried to use the conflicting motives of the perpetrator to discredit the intruder theory and pin it on the Ramseys. Someone like Israel Keyes dispels this myth.

Pin it on the Ramseys?! But they were guilty.

My point was that there has never been any other crime like this one. It was unique in many ways.

You have described the victim as having been 'sexually molested' - I don't know what that entailed in that particular case, that is why I asked if she had been raped. Or are you saying he was not a rapist, which is a bit difficult to believe if he had his victim for so long.

JonBenet was not raped.

Did you miss the part where I said he stitched her eyes open and posed the body? Keyes made it look as if she was still alive and held hostage, when in fact she was long dead. You can find the photo online, but I would warn you that the image stayed with me for some time when I first saw it.

We're talking about motive, not execution.

It's what I was saying all along......if somebody was going to sexually molest, kidnap somebody, and then murder them, they would surely take the victim (alive or dead) with them as collaterol for the ransom? The note had already been written and left, after all.

.

[Wickerman]

But that makes no sense does it?

If this person intended to kidnap JonBenet he would have taken her away after she was unconscious after he hit her with that heavy object. She wasn't going to wake up.

Then he could have taken her back to a place of his choosing and done whatever evil he had in mind, and taken his time about it.

If the intent had been to kidnap her, then presumably the plan was she would walk out with him. She must have walked out of her bedroom, and walked downstairs, so whomever she was with was someone she trusted.
Carrying out a dead body was likely not part of the plan. If we consider someone like McReynolds, then due to his heart op. he was in no way capable of carrying her. But that's just one suspect.

Patsy said she had asked her housekeeper to get her husband to fix it but he never got around to it.

Yes, if there was collusion then naturally John would have told Patsy to say they had the window fixed. The present broken glass then is due to the intruder.

And these neighbours dusted and wiped the basement area as well?

The police only complained about the guests following the forensic team around the kitchen.

Which leads me to this question (which I've touched on before) - John Ramsey is supposed to be a very clever man isn't he? Started up his own business that went on to make millions?)

He has just received a ransom note from a kidnapper so will know that the entire house is a crime scene which could contain valuable DNA that could lead to the perpetrator getting apprehended - yet he just sat there in his kitchen calmly reading his mail while all these people milled around the kitchen and living rooms, tramping through the house and cleaning up with clothes?

I heard John say that he was checking the mail to see if any other messages had been dropped in the box, by the kidnapper.



Assuming for a moment the Patsy/Burke culpability theory.
I had to wonder why John seems to have told Melinda's boyfriend (Stewart Long) that he had found JonBenet at 11:00 am.
Long was apparently adamant about that.

If John was involved in the death then it seems an odd thing to say, assuming it is true.
More than once I have had to wonder if John truly believed in the existence of an intruder. That just maybe Patsy or Burke were the only ones who knew the truth.
I recall John did say he took a melatonin tablet to help him get off to sleep quick that night after they arrived home.
If that is true perhaps he slept through the whole thing.

I still have not let go of the possibility Burke was involved somehow.

[Wickerman]

Also, I've seen it argued that the intruder couldn't have been both a sexual predator and a ransom kidnapper, because their underlying motivations are completely different. One is driven by lust, the other is driven by greed. My response to that? The serial killer Israel Keyes. Keyes kidnapped 18 year-old Samantha Koenig from her job at a coffee shop. That same night he sexually assaulted her and strangled her to death. After returning from a cruise two weeks later, he stitched her eyes open and posed her dead body for a hostage photo and demanded $30,000 in ransom, which was how the police were ultimately able to catch him as he was caught withdrawing the money at an ATM. So there you go, the two are not mutually exclusive.

John Douglas, the FBI Profiler thought the mention of the $118,000 was not for the money, he could have asked for millions, it was to make this personal.
Taking his beloved daughter, and taking the bonus that was his, the intruder was not after being rich, he was after poking John in the eye by taking what was his.
It's just another aspect to consider.

[Wickerman]

In the end they got so muddled and confused that they left evidence of all three.

I've read you suggest Patsy was something like clever and calculating, but also muddled and confused - which is it?

[Wickerman]

With one child dead, they'd want to save Burke, their first-born. He was too young to be tried for murder under Colorado law, but would probably be sent to an institution of some sort, if the truth ever came out.

Apparently Patsy was heard to say, "if I lost Burke I wouldn't have anything left to live for".
The thing was at the time no-one was suspecting Burke.

The thing which gives me pause about the parents covering this up is the garrote. I suppose John could have made it, having military training, but I just can't imagine any parent using it on their own child, especially if she was still alive. Maybe it depends on how driven he or they were, I guess...

Yes, that garrote is made for a purpose.
If they are staging a scene, and can't even be bothered to tie her hands together tight, then how come they put so much effort into constructing an implement like that garrote?
If they had the loose cord, all they needed to do was wrap it around her neck tight, that was what I believe the majority of laypersons would do.

This garrote was designed for a purpose, with an adjustable noose at one end, and a handle at the other end to apply force.
The making of this garrote is a sound indication that her killer truly intended to torture her, which also means she was alive when it was being applied.

Can we seriously consider Patsy going to this extreme, she was an ex-beauty queen, a materialistic girl, not into sadism & murder?