JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Ginger]

Placing her on the blanket suggests one of two things to me, easier to move her around sliding across the floor or, an initial intention of carrying her out of the house.

Wrapping her tightly in the blanket looks as much as anything like making her easy to carry, dead or unconscious. You don't have arms and legs flopping about, plus, if you take her outside, no-one really pays a lot of attention to someone sneaking an awkward bundle in or out of a house on Christmas.

[Wickerman]

You're an expert on laundry now? We don't know if they were washed or dry cleaned. I don't think the files tell us. But evidence would have been removed in the laundering.

No, that's not what I meant.
Remember the red fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the duct tape?
Well, removing their day clothes to prevent any fibers from her body being equated with those clothes.
Thats what I meant.

How would it look to the Police, and the rest of the world, if they admitted the Ramseys had destroyed the clothes they had been wearing that night? It would have been a pretty damning thing to do.

They already were the principal suspects.
If they really were guilty, destroy the clothes but say you gave them to charity.

I'm really pointing out that keeping the clothes for a year only helps to vindicate their story, it doesn't help to incriminate them.
I wouldn't question them laundering the clothes, who wears clothes for a year without laundering them at least once?

That's funny because I thought John carried JB up to bed that night? I may be wrong about that, I'll look it up.

Yes John said he carried her up and put her on the bed, removing her shoes. Then Patsy would come up and get her ready for bed.

I know Patsy didn't tuck JB in because she says specifically that she never tucked the covers in because JB used to get very hot during the night.

The photo shows a quilt on her bed- no sheets, so there's nothing to tuck in.

[louisa]

Who is "we"? Just curious.
-----------------------

Readers of the book.

----------------------------------

How would it look to the Police, and the rest of the world, if they admitted the Ramseys had destroyed the clothes they had been wearing that night? It would have been a pretty damning thing to do.
---------------------------------------------

They already were the principal suspects.
If they really were guilty, destroy the clothes but say you gave them to charity.

I'm really pointing out that keeping the clothes for a year only helps to vindicate their story, it doesn't help to incriminate them.

I wouldn't question them laundering the clothes, who wears clothes for a year without laundering them at least once?

It certainly does help to incriminate them.

Are you suggesting the Ramseys had no idea that the police wanted the clothes they were wearing on the night of the murder? They had been requesting the Ramseys lawyers for them for almost a YEAR!

If they said they had given the clothes to charity the police would follow up on it and discover it was another lie.


We have to ask ourselves an important question....

Why were the Ramseys being so obstructive? (Even their best friends were asking them the same question). Naturally and obviously they would be the first suspects. The police have to start from somewhere and it's always best, in an investigation, to begin in the centre of the circle and work outwards, not the other way around.

Put yourself in the mind of innocent parents. I would be giving the police ALL the help I could to find the perpetrator of this atrocious crime. I would know they would be asking for both mine and my husband's clothing. I would offer them even before I was asked! Not hang onto them for a year and then only when I had been subpoena'd and the clothes had been laundered.

You state "Who wears clothes for a year without laundering them at least once?"

Surely you don't think the Ramseys would have worn these clothes EVER again? With all the associated memories? They had plenty of money to buy more clothes and Patsy already had wardrobes full.

Surely innocent people who wished to be eliminated from the list of suspects would have given the clothes without much prompting? For the simple reason that they would wish to be eliminated from the list of suspects as soon as possible so the police could get on with the job of finding the real murderer of this child.

It's the lies that have always been the things that got to me. People with nothing to hide do not tell lies.

And also, the demeanour of the couple. At every opportunity they were on TV talking animatedly about their daughter's murder. No emotion visible from either of them. They appeared to love their new high profile.

You would think the memory of that night would be so terribly painful to them that they wouldn't even want to think about it, let alone keep talking about it.

And don't tell me it was because they thought it might help to catch their daughter's killer. How could it?

And tbh I don't think they did themselves any favours, because the public can always spot a phoney. You would have thought their lawyers would have tried to prevent them.

But they had already smelled the greasepaint, so to speak, and there was no stopping them. And then there was that book of fairy stories that they needed to sell.
.
.
.

[louisa]

Wrapping her tightly in the blanket looks as much as anything like making her easy to carry, dead or unconscious. You don't have arms and legs flopping about, plus, if you take her outside, no-one really pays a lot of attention to someone sneaking an awkward bundle in or out of a house on Christmas.

That could have been the original plan.

But after discussions the couple realised they would not be able to do this because John might have been seen leaving the house, or they may have thought forensics would be able to tell that the car had been driven after the time they said they first got home from the party. Or somebody may have spotted him in his car early in the morning when there probably were not many other cars around. They could not take that risk.

Then there was the problem of where to leave her.

In the end they decided just to leave her where she was.
.
.

[Wickerman]

Put yourself in the mind of innocent parents. I would be giving the police ALL the help I could to find the perpetrator of this atrocious crime. I would know they would be asking for both mine and my husband's clothing. I would offer them even before I was asked! Not hang onto them for a year and then only when I had been subpoena'd and the clothes had been laundered.

Your position as always is to portray the Boulder Police as 'the good guys'. I have to wonder how you would act if your local police were intent on lynching you for something you didn't do.

How helpful would you be?

In order to understand the Ramsey's actions you need to look at their situation from their point of view.

That police force already leaked lies to the press to incriminate them in the eyes of the public, that is inexcusable.
Now, they expect the Ramsey's to assist them in any way they can?

I don't know if the Ramsey's are guilty, but I do know that what exists by way of evidence is not sufficient to charge them in this murder.
So, their version of the story just may have some validity.
The question as to whether they went about defending themselves in the correct way is a different question altogether.

[Wickerman]

Who is "we"? Just curious.
-----------------------




----------------------------------

Patsy Ramsey was wearing a red sweater on Christmas night and on the day JonBenet was reported missing. Red fibers, believed to be from Patsy's sweater were found on the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth......
John Ramsey removed the duct tape from JonBenet when John found her in the storage room....
John threw the duct tape on the blanket covering JonBenet....(Fleet White) picked the tape up, and threw it down a second time on the same blanket....
Patsy had worn the same red sweater into JonBenet's bedroom where the blanket was usually located.

Simply stated, there is a good chance the red fibers found on the duct tape were merely transferred from the blanket to the duct tape after it was thrown on the blanket twice.

Furthermore, no fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater were found in JonBenet's underwear.
Injustice, Whitson, 2012, p.28.

Are you suggesting the Ramseys had no idea that the police wanted the clothes they were wearing on the night of the murder? They had been requesting the Ramseys lawyers for them for almost a YEAR!

Really, almost a year?

Lin Wood asked Steve Thomas about this fiber evidence during his deposition.

Wood: Well, the Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996, until almost a year later, true?

Thomas: For a long time, that was a mistake, yes.

Wood: You had already concluded that Patsy Ramsey had committed the crime before you even asked the Ramsey's for the clothes they had worn that night, true?

Thomas: It was my belief that evidence that I'm talking about led to Patsy Ramsey. So yes, she was the best suspect before we wound up collecting their clothes. That's my belief that she was involved.

Wood: And the timing is correct, right?

Thomas: Prior to the retrieval of the clothing, yes.
Injustice, Whitson, 2012, pp.28/9.

The Ramsey's believed they were being railroaded by the Boulder Police.
They were treated as guilty before they were even charged with anything.

[louisa]

Your position as always is to portray the Boulder Police as 'the good guys'. I have to wonder how you would act if your local police were intent on lynching you for something you didn't do.

How helpful would you be?

A child was found horribly murdered in locked house that only contained the family. A dodgy 'ransom note' was found that matched pad and pen from the kitchen. Writing very similar to the mother's.

What were they supposed to think?

You wouldn't be much of a cop if you couldn't see the way the evidence pointed. And you wouldn't be much of a cop, or an investigator, if you did not get a feel for the situation. If something doesn't feel right then it's usually because something is very wrong about what you are being told.

Were they supposed to simply believe what the Ramseys told them and go off looking for this person who probably never existed in the first place?

To give the police their due they certainly DID investigate all leads but found nothing to give any indication that anyone else had been in the house that night.

I honestly do not understand why you think the police were so wrong in putting the Ramseys at the top of the list of suspects. Their behaviour was certainly suspicious! And they lied and continued to lie, which in itself is highly suspect. Why would they do this if they had nothing to hide?

I also do not understand why in the world you would think that a police force would wish to prosecute parents if they were totally innocent? Why victimize grieving parents?

Wicksy - I think that maybe because the very first book you read on the case was that load of self-serving fiction the Ramseys churned out, their version is the one that you believe.

The Ramseys spend most of their time slating the police and how hard done by they were, instead of being pro-active in the investigation. If they had just co-operated with the police and the investigators at the outset then they would have been cleared - if indeed they were innocent.

Instead they went into hiding - only emerging to be interviewed gently on TV. I say 'gently' because the Ramseys lawyers had given the TV station a list of questions they were allowed to ask the couple.

In order to understand the Ramsey's actions you need to look at their situation from their point of view.

That police force already leaked lies to the press to incriminate them in the eyes of the public, that is inexcusable.
Now, they expect the Ramsey's to assist them in any way they can?

Hold on now, what lies did the police 'leak to the press'? You have to realise that the book written by the Ramseys was full of claptrap and lies. I listed them in a previous post.

I don't know if the Ramsey's are guilty, but I do know that what exists by way of evidence is not sufficient to charge them in this murder.

Well, as the DA withheld vital information regarding the fact that the Grand Jury DID in fact vote to indict the Ramseys we will never know.

Because of that blatant lie the Ramseys never got to stand trial.

There's one rule for the rich and one for the poor.
.
.
.

[louisa]

Patsy Ramsey was wearing a red sweater on Christmas night and on the day JonBenet was reported missing. Red fibers, believed to be from Patsy's sweater were found on the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth......

Incorrect. Red and black fibres from the jacket Patsy had been wearing the night before were found on the sticky side of the duct tape.

John Ramsey removed the duct tape from JonBenet when John found her in the storage room....
John threw the duct tape on the blanket covering JonBenet....(Fleet White) picked the tape up, and threw it down a second time on the same blanket....
Patsy had worn the same red sweater into JonBenet's bedroom where the blanket was usually located.

Simply stated, there is a good chance the red fibers found on the duct tape were merely transferred from the blanket to the duct tape after it was thrown on the blanket twice.

Furthermore, no fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater were found in JonBenet's underwear.[/I]
Injustice, Whitson, 2012, p.28.

Please stop quoting excepts from that bungling cop.

Whitson didn't even know the house was a crime scene before allowing the public to tramp all over it! He was in awe of the Ramsey's wealth. No wonder John was happy for him to write a book about the case.

Patsy's red sweater is not relevant to the tape - it was fibres from her JACKET that were found on the tape. And neither is the fact that fibres from this garment were not present on JB's underwear, which itself is a bit strange if Patsy had undressed her child for the night.

If you remember - Patsy threw herself on top of JB's body in the living room, thus contaminating the crime scene (probably intentionally). A body is classed as a crime scene.

THE DUCT TAPE

Wicksy, I am sorry but you are going to have to show me a quote from an official document that states the tape was thrown onto the blanket.

Here is what John stated:

Lou Smit: "What did you do with the tape?"

JR: "I think I just took it off with my right hand and just dropped it."

The Ramsey's believed they were being railroaded by the Boulder Police.
They were treated as guilty before they were even charged with anything.

Well in that case they should have simply co-operated with whatever the police requested of them. if they were innocent they would have had no problem with that.

They were not 'railroaded' but simply requested to be co-operative in this investigation. If the couple were innocent then it would have been for their own good.

If the Ramseys had spent a bit more time and effort in helping the authorities to find out what really happened, instead of whinging endlessly about the cops, and paying good money instructing their lawyers and media consultants (yes folks - 'media consultants') then they would have had a much easier time of things. IF they were innocent, that is.
.
.
.

[louisa]

Correction to my above post. The duct tape was put onto the blanket but placed there sticky side up.

[louisa]

Here is an interesting interview (From the Denver Post) with Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner: He worked in law enforcement for 36 years and headed the investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey murder.


Question: In 1999, Alex Hunter prohibited by court order the testimony of Lou Smit. Smit had the order overturned. Since they both promoted the intruder theory, why would Hunter not want Smit to testify?

Beckner: I'm guessing is that it is because Lou Smit had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence

Question: It has been reported the dialogue at the end of the 911 tape was: Male: "We're not speaking to you!" Female: "Help me Jesus. Help me Jesus." Young Male: "Well, what did you find?" Do you believe this is valid, that those words were actually spoken?

Beckner: The words are difficult to hear and some claim they cannot hear them. After listening to the tape many times, I can tell you that I can hear what sounds like voices saying those words.

Question: When Patsy wrote out the sample ransom note for handwriting comparison, it is interesting that she wrote "$118,000" out fully in words (as if trying to be different from the note).

Who writes out long numbers in words? Does this seem contrived to you?

Beckner: The handwriting experts noted several strange observations.

Question: What are your thoughts on whether Burke may know more than he has told?

Beckner: I'm not going to speculate on what Burke may or may not know. He was only 9 years old at the time. However, after a short initial interview that day (before we had many facts) Burke was only interviewed one more time and that was by a social services worker. We of course had many other questions we wanted to ask him as the investigation wore on, but were never given an opportunity to interview him again.

Question: Is it true John Ramsey went down into the basement on his own a short time before he was asked to go down with his friend and search it by a police officer?

Beckner: That is according to what he told police.

Question: Do you think he was up to something?

Beckner: That's all part of the mystery and intrigue of this case.

Question: I know it became a bit of a debate recently when one of the Ferguson grand jurors (grand jury members?) wanted their records made public. It's something I'd never thought much about, but I can see both sides of the argument.

Beckner: Given the public nature of this case, and the fact that the Ramseys made themselves pubic figures by going public very early in the case, writing books, hiring PR professionals, etc., I'd like to see all the information on this case made public. Let's have full disclosure. But, not my decision to make.

Question: Were any similar incidents in the country discovered by the police during the course of the investigation? By similar I mean child discovered in the family home & the presence of a ransom note

Beckner: None. We specifically looked into this and had the FBI check their records for any similar case and ours was and to my knowledge still is the only case in history where a body was found in the same house as a ransom note demanding money. This is the only time this MO (modis operandi) has ever been used.

Question: Have there been prior kidnapping cases where the note has not been prepared in advance?

Beckner: No note has ever been written at the scene, and then left at the scene with the dead victim at the scene, other than this case.

Question: The Ramsey's being so distant towards each other just after their daughter has been kidnapped is very strange. Did you ask the FBI or any other law department is this normal?
Did they say it only happens when one parent blames the other one or suspects them of involvement?

Beckner: They rarely interacted and this did not seem normal given the circumstances. Lots of speculation as to why.

Question: Do you think that the killer killed again? Or even prior to JonBenet? To me it seemed very "amateur", which is why I have always had my suspicions about the brother or another young person. I have always felt like this was a one-off thing for the killer and that he/she probably didn't even intend to kill JonBenet in the first place. What is your view from a professional standpoint?

Beckner: If they have, we are not aware of it nor have found any other case that connects to this one.
.
.

[Wickerman]

A child was found horribly murdered in locked house that only contained the family. A dodgy 'ransom note' was found that matched pad and pen from the kitchen. Writing very similar to the mother's.

What were they supposed to think?

You wouldn't be much of a cop if you couldn't see the way the evidence pointed. And you wouldn't be much of a cop, or an investigator, if you did not get a feel for the situation. If something doesn't feel right then it's usually because something is very wrong about what you are being told.

Were they supposed to simply believe what the Ramseys told them and go off looking for this person who probably never existed in the first place?

To give the police their due they certainly DID investigate all leads but found nothing to give any indication that anyone else had been in the house that night.

I honestly do not understand why you think the police were so wrong in putting the Ramseys at the top of the list of suspects. Their behaviour was certainly suspicious! And they lied and continued to lie, which in itself is highly suspect. Why would they do this if they had nothing to hide?

I also do not understand why in the world you would think that a police force would wish to prosecute parents if they were totally innocent? Why victimize grieving parents?

I think you would better understand where I am coming from if you read the contention between Commander Eller of the Boulder Police Detective Dept. and Pete Hofstrom, Chief of the Felony Div. at the Boulder D.A.'s office.

Eller didn't have a clue how to process a murder scene, he had never handled a homicide before, he had only been in the job for 11 months.
Hofstrom had 23 years experience, and coincidentally, had overseen 23 murder cases.

The search warrant had only been obtained at 08:00 pm on the 26th. Under the direction of John Eller, the police spent about 90 minutes obtaining evidence from the house when they announced they were done about 09:30 pm.
Hofstrom blew his nut. The Boulder police had only worked on the wine Cellar and JB's bedroom, they thought that was enough.
Deputy D.A.,Trip DeMuth, working for Hofstrom, told Eller they haven't even scratched the surface, so he called his boss Hofstrom.

Hofstrom told Eller he wanted the entire house fingerprinted, shoeprint impressions taken, hair and fibers collected, drainpipes ripped out, floorboards removed. He wanted every drawer, every closet, every nook and cranny searched. Hofstrom was getting nowhere with Eller so he went over his head and called the Chief of Police Tom Kirby.
Kirby agreed with Hofstrom and phoned Eller to do what Hofstrom said, and get it done.

This was the start of the contention between the D.A.'s office and the police department.

The Boulder police didn't have a clue, not Beckner, not Thomas, not Whitson, not French, Arndt, none of them. None of the detectives had homicide experience.

Beckner couldn't possibly have had a case to suspect Patsy Ramsey so early in the investigation when they had not gathered all the evidence.
Beckner was clueless.

Wicksy - I think that maybe because the very first book you read on the case was that load of self-serving fiction the Ramseys churned out, their version is the one that you believe.

I can't imagine what I've wrote to leave you with that impression.
I haven't read any books by Ramsey.

Hold on now, what lies did the police 'leak to the press'? You have to realise that the book written by the Ramseys was full of claptrap and lies. I listed them in a previous post.

We've been through this before, remember those posts about the police leaking to the press that there were no footprints in the snow, and all the other lies and exaggerations published in the first week of the investigation?
Paula Woodward investigated all the claims, every one of them was untrue.
Do a search on 'footprints in the snow' in this thread, it may refresh your memory.

Well, as the DA withheld vital information regarding the fact that the Grand Jury DID in fact vote to indict the Ramseys we will never know.

Because of that blatant lie the Ramseys never got to stand trial.

Vital to who?
The conclusion arrived at by a Grand jury is confidential.
All the D.A. is permitted to do is announce whether his office is going to proceed with a prosecution, or not. He cannot tell the public what the G.J. decided.
He decided not to proceed.

There was no lie.

Your accusations are based on a false understanding.

[louisa]

Hi Wicksy!

Your first point (made in that rather rambling paragraph) was to basically say how incompetent the police were in the handling of the initial investigation.

The worst of the bungling cops was the person you tend to quote the most - Bob Whitson. Strange.

There's no doubt that things were handled very badly. If they hadn't been then the perpetrators would not have been free to take shelter behind their lawyers. So in truth, the Ramseys had everything to be thankful for, regarding the mis-handling of the case by the Police.

My point was that search warrants had to be obtained. The Ramsays did not want to give permission for their house to be searched, or have items removed, so search warrants had to be obtained.

Beckner couldn't possibly have had a case to suspect Patsy Ramsey so early in the investigation when they had not gathered all the evidence.

Beckner was clueless.

Beckner didn't do anything early in the case because he wasn't even there!

Tom Koby was the Boulder Chief of Police at the time of the initial investigation.

Tom Koby 'resigned' (read into that what you will) and left the police at the end of 1997. Mark Beckner took over in June 1998 and was highly respected by all who worked for him throughout his long career.

Naturally he familiarized himself with all the facts of the case (something you should try, Wicksy!)

I haven't read any books by Ramsey.

I didn't say 'Ramsey' I said 'the Ramseys'. Well you seem to make a lot of quotes from John Ramsey. "John said...." "John stated..." And I really don't think you would be fighting the Ramseys corner unless you had read that fictitious nonsense.

We've been through this before, remember those posts about the police leaking to the press that there were no footprints in the snow, and all the other lies and exaggerations published in the first week of the investigation?
Paula Woodward investigated all the claims, every one of them was untrue.
Do a search on 'footprints in the snow' in this thread, it may refresh your memory.

I only read FACTS about this case, not fiction.

Your above post is a sweeping statement that you cannot corroborate. "All the other lies and exaggerations" doesn't cut it for me, sorry. You would need to be more enlightening.

As for Paula Woodward - she was trying to sell a book, which, incidentally, was pulled due to factual inconsistencies.

"But Boulder City Police Chief Mark Beckner slammed the exposé, saying, “I know the case intricately, inside and out. And nothing could appear in a book written by a third party uninvolved with the investigation that I wouldn’t already be aware of. And, if it’s something I’m not aware of, it’s probably not factual.”

The ground around the Ramseys home that Christmas night was described as having "patchy snow and ice" - I can find the official link if you wish.

Vital to who?
The conclusion arrived at by a Grand jury is confidential.
All the D.A. is permitted to do is announce whether his office is going to proceed with a prosecution, or not. He cannot tell the public what the G.J. decided.
He decided not to proceed.

There was no lie.

Your accusations are based on a false understanding.

Wicksy - You need to read my post more carefully. I am not the one with the "false understanding".

Everything I stated was true. The Grand Jury was convened and made it's decision. DA Alex Hunter did not like the verdict and refused to sign the Indictment.

A Grand Jury was convened beginning September 15, 1998, based on the probable cause standard to indict the Ramseys for culpability in the death of their daughter. In 1999, the Grand Jury returned a True Bill to charge the Ramseys, but Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter chose not to proceed with the prosecution..

Alex Hunter withheld the Grand Jury's verdict (to prosecute the Ramseys) from the public. This fact was discovered in 2013.

On the strength of this, the Ramseys were able to walk free.

Proving that money talks. If you're rich you can get away with murder - and make tons more money writing books about it and publicizing those books in endless television interviews.

.
.

[Harry D]

Like I said before, in cases of accidental deaths/cover-ups in children it usually involves a child that has been systematically abused. The abuse escalates to the point that the child's battered body can no longer withstand the torment and gives up. There's no evidence that JonBenet matches this victim profile, in fact she was Patsy's pride and joy. If Burke had struck JonBenet on the head, I don't think her first instinct would be to construct a torture device, strangle JonBenet's still-warm corpse and invent a phony kidnapping. The Ramseys might have been creepy pageant parents but were they sociopaths? I'm not too sure. As most parents in that sort of situation, I expect Patsy would panic and try to come up with an innocent explanation for what happened (e.g. JonBenet fell down the stairs, banged her head in the bath). This is why most child-killing parents are found out, because they're not hardened criminals.

[louisa]

Like I said before, in cases of accidental deaths/cover-ups in children it usually involves a child that has been systematically abused. The abuse escalates to the point that the child's battered body can no longer withstand the torment and gives up. There's no evidence that JonBenet matches this victim profile, in fact she was Patsy's pride and joy. If Burke had struck JonBenet on the head, I don't think her first instinct would be to construct a torture device, strangle JonBenet's still-warm corpse and invent a phony kidnapping. The Ramseys might have been creepy pageant parents but were they sociopaths? I'm not too sure. As most parents in that sort of situation, I expect Patsy would panic and try to come up with an innocent explanation for what happened (e.g. JonBenet fell down the stairs, banged her head in the bath). This is why most child-killing parents are found out, because they're not hardened criminals.

Hi Harry,

Yes, I can see what you are saying. However the Ramseys were not 'normal' as we know the meaning of the word. They were extremely wealthy business people, which I think gave them a certain smugness regarding their belief in themselves over others. You just have to look at the Deposition interviews on YouTube. A lawyer was sitting beside them giving constant advice whenever a tough question was asked.

They were interviewed separately with John and Patsy answering with the same "Not that I recall" to a great many questions. They seemed to have a smug satisfaction about them. Take a look and see what you think.

These two didn't have to be hardened criminals. They know they were not going to be "found out" because they had placed too many obstacles between themselves and the police.

Patsy was not your average mother. Don't forget she dressed her child up like a porn queen and got her to sashay provocatively on stage. Her child had to outshine the others with her bespoke costumes, dyed hair and thick make-up. I know a lot of moms in the US subscribe to this but that doesn't make it right.

I don't think you can try and put yourself in her place on that night.

Maybe her sense of her standing in the community and the church made her decide to tell the world that an intruder did this to her child rather than have them think badly of her. No matter how you look at it, her child was found dead with a crushed skull in her own home and only her family were present.

If Patsy was found to be in any way to blame then she may have thought that she and John would be ostracized and maybe jailed and Burke would be taken away. (Not that it would have happened) She found herself in the middle of her worst nightmare.

They had to invent an intruder. It was the only way.

I think most ordinary people would have told the truth and take the consequences but the Ramseys chose not to - for reasons that we can only speculate about.

And for me, the more I ponder on the 'intruder' theory' the more preposterous it becomes. If you remove this bogus character from the equation then things start to make a bit more sense.

And Harry - you are still talking about Patsy 'torturing' her child. A notion that is frankly ridiculous.

I certainly never said such a thing because I believe the blow to the head was an accident. The garrotting - also - was not to torture but to 'cover up'. The child was already unconscious and comatose by then.

I think Burke was responsible anyway and the parents covered it up for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDD3JJttHU

[louisa]

Here is something that needs explaining.....

John stated to the police, and to the investigators, that he first visited the basement room "between 7am and 9am" on the morning of the 26th (in his very first search for his daughter). Which in itself is strange because the kidnapper was supposed to call between 8 and 10am.

However, John must have visited the basement before either Fleet White or Officer French since he found a chair in front of the train room door and there's no good reason to believe White or French would have re-blocked the door with the chair after they entered the train room (which both did according to their own accounts). If so, John's first trip would have been before 6:00 AM.
.
.