JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Harry D]

Everything about that daft 'ransom letter' screams Patsy Ramsey. Kidnappers don't prattle on for two and a half pages when leaving a note. If they were terrorists, abductors or whatever, you would expect them to leave clear, succinct instructions. This letter was obviously written by a woman. FBI handwriting analysis, while not an exact science, ruled out John Ramsey as the author, but Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated.

Then we have the ransom fee. $118,000 is a very specific amount, apparently the same figure her husband received for last year's bonus, and also quite low as far as ransom demands go. What was the thinking behind this? Were they trying to implicate someone from John Ramsey's workplace? That said, I don't believe Patsy was responsible for the actual murder. She was covering for someone else. At a push, I'd have to go for Burke. I could totally see a situation where Burke was abusing his little sister and a fight or a "game" got out of hand and Burke silenced his sister, he was at the kind of age where boys become sexually curious. However, my problem with Burke as a suspect is that he didn't crack under police questioning, and the Ramseys allowed him to testify to the grand jury. It would take a special kind of nine year old not to spill the beans under that kind of pressure.

As for the unknown male DNA that was found on JonBenet, I'm given to understand this is "touch DNA" and therefore there could be any number of innocent explanations, e.g. it was transferred by a wardrobe assistant during one of her beauty pageants?

[Ginger]

Everything about that daft 'ransom letter' screams Patsy Ramsey.

I've never seriously considered the idea that it could have been written by anyone else. She may not have killed the child, but she certainly wrote the note.

[sdreid]

I don't think Burke, if he was involved, could be prosecuted because of his age at the time but anyway he should be granted immunity and given a polygraph to see what comes out. He could not incriminate himself due to the immunity so that would not be grounds for him refusing. The polygraph might show that he knows nothing which would pretty much eliminate him although not necessarily his parents since they could have kept him in the dark. If nothing else is done and no other killer, either on the current radar or not, is found, he will have a cloud over him for his entire life. I would think he would want to rid himself of that if he is innocent and believes his parents are.

[Errata]

Everything about that daft 'ransom letter' screams Patsy Ramsey. Kidnappers don't prattle on for two and a half pages when leaving a note. If they were terrorists, abductors or whatever, you would expect them to leave clear, succinct instructions. This letter was obviously written by a woman. FBI handwriting analysis, while not an exact science, ruled out John Ramsey as the author, but Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated.

Then we have the ransom fee. $118,000 is a very specific amount, apparently the same figure her husband received for last year's bonus, and also quite low as far as ransom demands go. What was the thinking behind this? Were they trying to implicate someone from John Ramsey's workplace? That said, I don't believe Patsy was responsible for the actual murder. She was covering for someone else. At a push, I'd have to go for Burke. I could totally see a situation where Burke was abusing his little sister and a fight or a "game" got out of hand and Burke silenced his sister, he was at the kind of age where boys become sexually curious. However, my problem with Burke as a suspect is that he didn't crack under police questioning, and the Ramseys allowed him to testify to the grand jury. It would take a special kind of nine year old not to spill the beans under that kind of pressure.

As for the unknown male DNA that was found on JonBenet, I'm given to understand this is "touch DNA" and therefore there could be any number of innocent explanations, e.g. it was transferred by a wardrobe assistant during one of her beauty pageants?

"touch DNA" doesn't survive a washing, so even if there was a male wardrobe assistant helping little girls into their panties and touching the insides of their panties (which doesn't happen, having spent some time in that world), that DNA would have been obliterated in the wash. And panties get washed. Glitter is a real problem. It is pervasive at pageants, and it gets everywhere. Glitter is hard plastic or glass particles and when that gets in your underwear and tears at delicate flesh... this is the kind of thing that can result in infections terrible enough to require hospitalization. Patsy would know that. Hell as a pageant mom she had probably had a case of glitter clap herself at some point just from applying it. She would have stayed on top of the laundry if for no other reason than self defense. The DNA application had to be relatively contemporary to the murder.

Psychosexually speaking, no member of her family did this to her. Any one of them could have killed her, sure. But not this way. Adults sadists behave in certain ways. Juvenile sadists behave in certain ways (don't google that by the way, no one needs that in their head). Sadists with constant access to victims behave in certain ways. And sadists act differently from sexual sadists who act differently from psychological sadists.

Because what is not possible is that the sadistic trussing was mere stage dressing. She died in agony. That was a payoff for somebody. Someone wanted to hurt her, and watch her hurt. Watch her die. For the purpose of sexual gratification. And you gotta be a certain kind of person to want that, and being that kind of person imposes rules.

[Ginger]

Because what is not possible is that the sadistic trussing was mere stage dressing. She died in agony. That was a payoff for somebody. Someone wanted to hurt her, and watch her hurt.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd thought that the concensus opinion was that she'd received her head injury, whether deliberately or accidentally, early in the crime, and hadn't regained consciousness afterward.

[Pcdunn]

Boulder is not Denver

JonBenet Ramsey was a Pagent beauty Queen that was killed in her own home, i am suspicious that the killer decided to kill her in her own home, because the Denver police would automatically blame the parents anyway, as part of the killer deflection from himself.

Here's a piece for all of you to have a nosey at, the girl is dead but the case is still alive :

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

The Ramseys lived in Boulder, not Denver.

I'm in another city in the Denver metro area, and well remember all the coverage as this crime broke and the investigation dragged on interminably, on the evening news every night. It's one of the saddest cases I've ever heard about. Why the police who were present ever let Ramsey and a friend search for her-- and then move her body upstairs -- is beyond my understanding.

[Harry D]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd thought that the concensus opinion was that she'd received her head injury, whether deliberately or accidentally, early in the crime, and hadn't regained consciousness afterward.

Yes, that's what I thought. I also read that the strangulation from the ligature came forty-five minutes to two hours after the blow to the head. Are we supposed to believe that the intruder was hanging around the house all that time? That he stopped at Patsy's writing tablet, drafted some practice notes, before writing that 2½ page ransom letter? And there was no sign of a break in or a disturbance. No, I'm sorry but the intruder theory just doesn't make sense. Errata might well be right and the killer wasn't any of the Ramsey household, but I sure as hell know something doesn't add up and that phony ransom letter was covering for someone.

[Errata]

Yes, that's what I thought. I also read that the strangulation from the ligature came forty-five minutes to two hours after the blow to the head. Are we supposed to believe that the intruder was hanging around the house all that time? That he stopped at Patsy's writing tablet, drafted some practice notes, before writing that 2½ page ransom letter? And there was no sign of a break in or a disturbance. No, I'm sorry but the intruder theory just doesn't make sense. Errata might well be right and the killer wasn't any of the Ramsey household, but I sure as hell know something doesn't add up and that phony ransom letter was covering for someone.

I agree the letter is ridiculous. The question is whether it is ridiculous because the author was trying to hide something, or it was ridiculous because the author was an idiot. Both are possible. But it might genuinely be something an unsophisticated 17 year old might write. Or an adult with developmental issues. It is not something an adult might write in order to try and cast suspicion on another adult. Unless they were a moron. Patsy Ramsey was not a moron, and it seems unlikely that she crafted a note to protect her son that casts suspicion on her son. But stranger things have happened.

When you pull the plug on someone, you remove the breathing tube. And then you pump them full of what is often a fatal dose of morphine because air hunger is recognized to be pure hell. And even people with catastrophic brain damage who have no hope of recovery can still feel it. Patients who have been a vegetable for decades show discomfort, even whimper and flinch when oxygen is deprived. My grandfather had a DNR after a catastrophic stroke and had to be extubated. The morphine wore off. My tough as nails grandfather who had almost no EEG was wailing like a child. I did a lot of research on air hunger after that.

Her head injury blunted her reactions, and maybe it was to make the killer feel better by not having to hear her beg, scream, wail, for air. But she felt every second of it. She likely did whimper. She did fight in tiny ways. Her head injury meant that her suffering was not as obvious as it would be for someone being waterboarded. But it was the same suffering. And her reaction was not gone. Just blunted. Morphine slows breathing, gets you high as hell, and makes you not care that you are suffering. Which is why in a medical capacity I'm still okay with having my plug pulled. She had no morphine. Her head injury only affected her visible reaction to being tortured. Not her experience of it. Whatever your theories, whatever conclusion you come to, remember that her entire body was screaming. If you doubt me hold your breath for as long as you can. And when you absolutely need to breath again, hold it for another 30 seconds. You can't do it. Air hunger is medically classified as torture. Second only in suffering to being set on fire. I'm sure no one thinks that getting hit on the head is going to spare them the agony of burning alive? Please let me dispel you of that notion now. All it will do is insure that you cannot scream of move.

I'm not as invested in this case as others are. I have a general idea as to what I think happened, but I can't prove it, there's no point in trying. But whoever killed her caused her agony until the second she died. And they saw it. Her head injury didn't knock out involuntary movement. Whoever trussed her up knew she was suffering. They either wanted exactly that, or they didn't care. And that has to factored in to any theory. The idea that the blow to the head somehow made it "okay" is a fairy tale concocted to make people feel better about how that little girl died. She felt exactly what someone being waterboarded to death feels. That she was unconscious just meant she couldn't scream. But she wanted to. Even brain dead she would have felt it. It's why people who are brain dead get morphine when their breathing tube is removed.

[Harry D]

I agree the letter is ridiculous. The question is whether it is ridiculous because the author was trying to hide something, or it was ridiculous because the author was an idiot. Both are possible. But it might genuinely be something an unsophisticated 17 year old might write. Or an adult with developmental issues. It is not something an adult might write in order to try and cast suspicion on another adult. Unless they were a moron. Patsy Ramsey was not a moron, and it seems unlikely that she crafted a note to protect her son that casts suspicion on her son. But stranger things have happened.

What do you make of the fact that the strangulation happened up to two hours after the head strike? There's little chance of an intruder hanging around all that time.

I'm not as invested in this case as others are. I have a general idea as to what I think happened, but I can't prove it, there's no point in trying.

Don't leave us hanging. I'd like to know your theory.

[Errata]

What do you make of the fact that the strangulation happened up to two hours after the head strike? There's little chance of an intruder hanging around all that time.

Up to two hours. And we also don't know when the strangulation started. Just when it got fatal.

My sense of realism says there was less of a time gap. Possibly much less, since strangulation affects the rate of swelling and bruising in other injuries. Which they know, which is why they said "up to two hours".

And intruders have hung out that long. It's not strategically sound, but it's also not unheard of. And if someone knew the family and generally knew their schedule and movements, he may have chosen that time and that part of the house on purpose. Or he may have been so obsessed that he didn't care about the others in the house. Or I suppose there could have been collusion with a member of the family.

But I think the blow to the head was specifically to shut her up. Everything else was for sport.

Don't leave us hanging. I'd like to know your theory.

I don't really have one, just a general sense. I have no idea who did it, though I'm pretty sure it was not her parents. I think it was done by an adolescent, or a functional adolescent (like someone with a slight developmental delay, though that is rare). Sex crimes without rape ending in death is a crime of the young and inexperienced. Someone who knew the family, someone with access to the house. If there had been a male babysitter I'm sure he would have been questioned thoroughly, but the boyfriend a babysitter snuck in all the time is an option. A cousin or neighbor maybe?

I can also see an argument where her parents found her and staged the scene because they thought it was their son. Perhaps something of his was on or near her body. So the ransom note and the "discovery" was staged, but in an effort to protect someone who didn't need to be protected. This was the work of a sadist, and the internet was not as... educational back then as it is now. There were very few ways Burke could have been exposed to these things, and even less of a chance that they would appeal to him. But remember that the bindings on her wrist were not for control. She was unconscious. It was to cause pain. And if he was a sadist, he would still be a sadist, and given his fame, there isn't a chance in hell an ex girlfriend doesn't sell him out for a ridiculous sum.

But I don't think this was the sadists first time. Maybe second or third, but not first. Probably his first murder. And maybe his only one. The assumption is usually that someone like this loves the kill and wants to do it again. But with fetishes that's not always true. The murder could have been an accident, and the killer learned from that and dialed back because he isn't interested in murder. And maybe he thinks he knows a way to get what he wants without getting caught. And maybe he's right. Maybe he found the local S&M community and learned rules and found a partner who is into strangulation and breath play.

Like I said, a lot of speculation, a lot of ideas, but in the end, nothing.

[Harry D]

Thanks, Errata. I don't really have anything else to add at this time. Although, I'm glad you at least agree it's likely the ransom note was composed by the parents.

[Pcdunn]

I have just now finished reading this entire thread, probably because this case was a bit more immediate to me than the Whitechapel Murders, since I live in Colorado.

We got a lot of information, from all sources, and there do seem to be two camps-- it was a stranger murder, or the Ramseys were involved.
An alternate family explanation is that Patsy was discipling her daughter for bed wetting, perhaps, or for eating the pineapple she was forbidden to have, and perhaps the blow to the head happened during this (not intended to happen, but an accident of some sort). Then the family decides, instead of calling the police, to stage a failed abduction--?
You see the problems... Not very logical.

I considered that John was abusing the daughter, maybe Burke witnessed this, and tried it himself, with tragic consequences. That would fit with the parents trying to stage a kidnapping, the "ransom letter", the "we're not talking to you" comment in the background, etc.

The only thing I recall, personally, is watching one of the earliest TV press conferences with the parents, and seeing Patsy start to speak, but stop herself as John squeezed her hand very tightly. I thought it was like a warning, delivered by a controlling person. He also did most of the talking, too.

[Ausgirl]

Hi Errata, I've been away from here for a bit, and have missed reading (and mostly agreeing with) your posts. Glad there's some other folks in the world who aren't 100% sold on the parents' guilt.

Harry, re the duration between head trauma and garrote - how accurate is that estimate?

Just, there's these nail-shaped abrasions around her throat, above and below her ligature.. the kind which are not uncommonly seen on hanged persons or ligature strangulation victims, involuntary clawing at the throat per the 'air hunger' Errata described. So I've wondered whether the poor child was clawing at the garrote - ie, was conscious at that time, or partly so.

If a parent wanted to 'finish her off' after a head injury, I'd expect to see smothering, rather than a nasty ligature. I honestly cannot see either of the Ramsey's being psychotic enough to do that to their child, especially if the child is still breathing. And not display any other psychotic behaviour at all -- either prior to, or after the death.

Not counting the whole pageant thing.

[Pcdunn]

CBS airs 3-part special on JonBenet's case starts next week

Bumping this back up to let you know that with the 20th anniversary of her murder approaching in December, American television channels are giving us about five different documentary or news-journal programs about the investigation.

The most interesting may be CBS's, which is in three parts, beginning Sunday, Sept. 18th.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey/

[sdreid]

Is that an over air broadcast Pat? I get an error message when I click the link. Thanks.

I wonder if they'll explain why they wasted the money and time convening a Grand Jury then chose not to follow their finding. Maybe they thought they could bamboozle the jurors for cover and it didn't work.