JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Harry - I agree - and that is the part that I think most people cannot understand or accept. I had trouble with it as well until I started to analyse Patsy's strange personality in an attempt to understand what happened that night.

Abby - An intruder would have no reason to use the garrote - JB was already unconscious (and dying) from the blow to the head. The garrote was part of the 'staging' - an intruder would have no reason to stage anything.

This is what I have come up with.......it's my theory and opinion about what happened:

The garrote was tightened from behind so JB would have been lying on her front. This makes me think that the killer (who I believe to be Patsy) wanted to strangle the child (whom she thought was already deceased) but could not bring herself to look directly into her face as she did it.

The garrote served no purpose other than to make the scene look as though JB had been killed by strangulation. Patsy (who would have been in a highly agitated frame of mind at this time) may have thought the pathologist would take things at face value and just see a strangulation (coupled with sexual interference). Patsy may not have known that JB's skull had actually been caved in from the blow to the head because no blood was visible.

It's bizarre right enough. And it's the part of the entire sordid killing that disgusts me more than any other part. How could a mother do this to her child, even if she believed her to be dead? It's incomprehensible. I can't help wondering how Patsy must have felt when she heard that it was actually her garotte that finished her daughter, not the blow to the head.

But it happened and I believe it happened that way.

I haven't decided yet whether John was a party to this part of the cover up or whether he saw what Patsy had done to JB when he discovered the body. The police officer in the house stated that John's behaviour changed quite dramatically, from calm to agitated, after he had been missing for quite a while and came back upstairs. I am wondering if he found JB's body in that time.

At the suggestion of the police officer to "search the house from top to bottom" he went straight downwards - without hesitation - to the little room at the end of a maze of corridors. Fleet White stated that John actually cried out before he even switched the light on in that room.

I believe that Patsy was a very complex woman - a very neurotic one and quite insecure, for a variety of reasons. I have compiled a profile of her, gleaned from what I have read and from the internet.

[Abby Normal]

Harry - I agree - and that is the part that I think most people cannot understand or accept. I had trouble with it as well until I started to analyse Patsy's strange personality in an attempt to understand what happened that night.

Abby - An intruder would have no reason to use the garrote - JB was already unconscious (and dying) from the blow to the head. The garrote was part of the 'staging' - an intruder would have no reason to stage anything.

This is what I have come up with.......it's my theory and opinion about what happened:

The garrote was tightened from behind so JB would have been lying on her front. This makes me think that the killer (who I believe to be Patsy) wanted to strangle the child (whom she thought was already deceased) but could not bring herself to look directly into her face as she did it.

The garrote served no purpose other than to make the scene look as though JB had been killed by strangulation. Patsy (who would have been in a highly agitated frame of mind at this time) may have thought the pathologist would take things at face value and just see a strangulation (coupled with sexual interference). Patsy may not have known that JB's skull had actually been caved in from the blow to the head because no blood was visible.

It's bizarre right enough. And it's the part of the entire sordid killing that disgusts me more than any other part. How could a mother do this to her child, even if she believed her to be dead? It's incomprehensible. I can't help wondering how Patsy must have felt when she heard that it was actually her garotte that finished her daughter, not the blow to the head.

But it happened and I believe it happened that way.

I haven't decided yet whether John was a party to this part of the cover up or whether he saw what Patsy had done to JB when he discovered the body. The police officer in the house stated that John's behaviour changed quite dramatically, from calm to agitated, after he had been missing for quite a while and came back upstairs. I am wondering if he found JB's body in that time.

At the suggestion of the police officer to "search the house from top to bottom" he went straight downwards - without hesitation - to the little room at the end of a maze of corridors. Fleet White stated that John actually cried out before he even switched the light on in that room.

I believe that Patsy was a very complex woman - a very neurotic one and quite insecure, for a variety of reasons. I have compiled a profile of her, gleaned from what I have read and from the internet.

Thanks Louisa
IMHO the whole family was screwed up, most of all patsy.
No scenario involving anyone in that house and what they did would surprise me.
Including any scenario you've laid out.

[Wickerman]

If the Ramsey's are to blame.

Problem #1 - making a Ransom note to suggest a kidnapping when the body is still in the house is ludicrous.

Problem # 2 - making the body look like she was murdered when no-one is supposed to find her, because she was kidnapped is also ludicrous.

First, you remove the body from the house, they had plenty of time to do this.
Then you write the ransom note.

There is no logic to the claim of fabricating a murder scene unless they intend the body to be found, in which case the creation of a ransom note is in direct conflict with anyone finding the body in the house.

Fabricate a murder scene, or fabricate a kidnapping, one or the other, but not both.

[Wickerman]

I pretty much agree. The garrote and brutal strangulation point to an outsider.
but.. But..

Parents have been known to brutally kill there children-look what casey Anthony did to her daughter.

Parents who have killed their children have done so because the children were an inconvenience - like Casey Anthony.
They all wanted their kids out of the way, or in some cases they kill their kids to get back at the other parent - like a custody battle, If I can't have them, nobody can, sort of thing.

The problem here is, none of those filicide cases (killing a son/daughter), or Prolicide (killing children) compare with the Ramsey's.

[Wickerman]

If there's one thing working against the inside job, it's the garrote.

The garrote had been pulled so aggressively around JonBenet's throat that it was barely visible. If you want to argue that John/Patsy were sadistic enough to strangle their daughter like this, that's one thing. It's another to believe that they could've possibly done this as part of a cover-up. Whether the initial blow to the head came from the parents or Burke, I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where either John or Patsy reluctantly crouched over JonBenet and brutally strangled her to death. Even if they assumed she was already dead, it would be messed up. I would expect the neck wounds to be far more superficial than the deep-cutting ones we see on JonBenet. To me, this suggests that the perpetrator did it for psychosexual gratification, not to stage a murder scene.

Exactly.
Any parent finding their child on the floor with a head wound is going to call an ambulance, not think how they can cover this up.

[Abby Normal]

If the Ramsey's are to blame.

Problem #1 - making a Ransom note to suggest a kidnapping when the body is still in the house is ludicrous.

Problem # 2 - making the body look like she was murdered when no-one is supposed to find her, because she was kidnapped is also ludicrous.

First, you remove the body from the house, they had plenty of time to do this.
Then you write the ransom note.

There is no logic to the claim of fabricating a murder scene unless they intend the body to be found, in which case the creation of a ransom note is in direct conflict with anyone finding the body in the house.

Fabricate a murder scene, or fabricate a kidnapping, one or the other, but not both.

It's ludicrous for an intruder to do it also.
If the Ramsey's killed their daughter than staging a kidnapping gone wrong is one way to obviously obfuscate and point the finger away from themselves.

[Abby Normal]

Parents who have killed their children have done so because the children were an inconvenience - like Casey Anthony.
They all wanted their kids out of the way, or in some cases they kill their kids to get back at the other parent - like a custody battle, If I can't have them, nobody can, sort of thing.

The problem here is, none of those filicide cases (killing a son/daughter), or Prolicide (killing children) compare with the Ramsey's.

Parents kill their children for all sorts of reasons Jon-the reasons you mention and a myriad of others also, like to cover up another crime, like sexual abuse, pure accidents, accidental deaths due to abuse, anger, jealousy, for attention, etc. etc. etc.

To rule out the Ramsey's based on this idea is ludicrous. As a matter of fact the opposite is true-why else are family members de facto always the first to be suspects? Because most children are murdered by family members!

Add to that the number of children found murdered in their own home WHILE THE PARENTS ARE HOME by an intruder is so rare that alone is a huge red flag.

[louisa]

If the Ramsey's are to blame.

Problem #1 - making a Ransom note to suggest a kidnapping when the body is still in the house is ludicrous.

Problem # 2 - making the body look like she was murdered when no-one is supposed to find her, because she was kidnapped is also ludicrous.

First, you remove the body from the house, they had plenty of time to do this.
Then you write the ransom note.

There is no logic to the claim of fabricating a murder scene unless they intend the body to be found, in which case the creation of a ransom note is in direct conflict with anyone finding the body in the house.

Fabricate a murder scene, or fabricate a kidnapping, one or the other, but not both.

But Wicksy - I absolutely AGREE that there is no logic to leaving a ransom note AND a body. Why would anyone do this?

There is no logic in an intruder doing this either, is there?

(We've been through all this before btw)

If you can explain to me why you think intruder would do all the things you have stated then I would be interested.


I've just noticed Abby has asked the same question.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Louisa
Couple of items you've continue to mention about the facts in the case are in error.

JonBenet was found wearing the panties and long johns that she was put to bed with. There was no third large pants, or baggy pants or whatever. Panties and long Jon's that's it.

Patsy took her long pants off that she was wearing at the party and put long Jon's on her as she was being put to bed.

Also you mentioned JonBenet was wearing a red turtleneck to bed. This is wrong. Jon benet was found wearing the same white long slaved shirt witha silver star on it that she wore to the party and that she went to bed with. Patsy left this on her and only changed her pants to long Jon's as she put her to bed.

I Beleive you are getting this confused with the red turtleneck sweater patsy wore to the party and was wearing the next morning.

[louisa]

Any parent finding their child on the floor with a head wound is going to call an ambulance, not think how they can cover this up.

I see Abby has already replied to this post too, but I am going to add my pennysworth anyway.

While it would seem normal for most parents to call 911 you have got to remember that these parents were NOT normal.

Wicksy - You have carefully given the Ramseys excuses for other abnormal behaviour on the day their child was murdered, but now you are saying they should have reacted as most parents would.

Surely it would be normal behaviour for most parents to sit together, giving eachother comfort, whilst waiting for that dreaded phonecall from the kidnapper. And would most certainly be comforting eachother once the child's body had been found, murdered in such a horrific way.

According to one of the officers the Ramseys sat in separate room and actually gave the impression they hated eachother.

What parent, upon seeing a ransom note, would not search their house from top to bottom before calling the police? The house had been locked down for the night, John told police he had done this himself.

The note was written in Patsy's childish hand but could have been written by Burke just as a bit of fun for all they knew. It would have been worth their looking all over the house. I think most 'normal' parents would do so.

John answered the front door to Det Linda Arndt "in a cordial manner".

I could go on and on but we all know the strange ways of the Ramseys.

[Harry D]

I pretty much agree. The garrote and brutal strangulation point to an outsider.
but.. But..

Parents have been known to brutally kill there children-look what casey Anthony did to her daughter.

and extremely odd to me-neither parent when JonBenet was found, tried to take the garrote off. Even Jon Ramsey said when he first found her he thought she might still be alive. I would have ripped that god dammed thing off her neck the second I found her. even if they knew she was dead, you would do it for pure psychological reasons. yet neither ever tried to take it off.
extremely odd.

Of course they have, Abby, but I don't think the Ramseys fit the profile. In JonBenet's case there are no obvious signs of systematic child abuse (notwithstanding the ethics about child pageantry, but that's a separate issue). I certainly wouldn't compare Patsy Ramsey to Casey Anthony, who was a young mother who felt burdened by an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. She never displayed any genuine signs of fear or grief at losing her little girl. Whereas, JonBenet was Patsy Ramsey's life, she lived vicariously through the little girl. She had no identifiable reason for murdering her or abetting in her death. Patsy would've cracked if she was behind any of this, from what I've seen.

For your last point, wasn't it reported that the garrote was buried so deeply into JonBenet's throat that John Ramsey didn't even notice it at first?

But Wicksy - I absolutely AGREE that there is no logic to leaving a ransom note AND a body. Why would anyone do this?

There is no logic in an intruder doing this either, is there?

There is if the original plan was to abduct JonBenet. During the escape, the abductor has a change of plan, or JonBenet wakes up, or he cannot control his psychosexual urges. Something happens to trigger the murder. It could've been that the abductor was always planning to kill JonBenet. Most child abductions result in a murder within a few hours. It has also been posited that the intruder was planning to abduct JonBenet in the suitcase but for whatever reason this was aborted.

[louisa]

Hi Louisa
Couple of items you've continue to mention about the facts in the case are in error.

JonBenet was found wearing the panties and long johns that she was put to bed with. There was no third large pants, or baggy pants or whatever. Panties and long Jon's that's it.

Patsy took her long pants off that she was wearing at the party and put long Jon's on her as she was being put to bed.

Also you mentioned JonBenet was wearing a red turtleneck to bed. This is wrong. Jon benet was found wearing the same white long slaved shirt witha silver star on it that she wore to the party and that she went to bed with. Patsy left this on her and only changed her pants to long Jon's as she put her to bed.

I Beleive you are getting this confused with the red turtleneck sweater patsy wore to the party and was wearing the next morning.

I don't think I stated that JB's pants were different to those she went to bed in. I never thought they were. I knew there was just one pair of pants (with Wedesday written on the waistband) but I did for a while think they were oversized because of something I had read.

JB wore black pants to the party, as I recall reading. I agree the longjohns were put on JB as part of her bedtime clothing.

I thought I'd read that Patsy stated she put JB to bed in a red turtleneck sweater (I'll have to go and re-read that section). I know I read that detectives found a damp red sweater balled up on the side of JB's washbasin.

Yes Patsy herself was wearing a red turtleneck and black pants to the party.

Patsy was never known to have worn the same two outfits two days together but said that when she got up that morning she put those same clothes on again, (which incidentally detectives never got hold of until after they had been laundered).

It's not evidence as such, just another thing that seemed strange.

[louisa]

Harry - You haven't read foregoing posts. My belief is that Patsy did not intentionally murder Jon Benet - it was an accident. JonBenet was probably pushed and fell against a hard surface, possibly the corner of her washbasin, and that caused the skull fracture (not noticeable at the time). She was unconscious and wouldn't have had long to live, maybe a couple of hours (according to the pathologist). The garrotting came an hour after the skull fracture.

The garrote was 'staged' by Patsy to make people think an intruder/kidnapper,murderer/sexual predator (which is A LOT for one person to be!) had been in the house.

Why would an intruder apply a garrote to the neck of a child who appeared to be dead (and actually was dying) anyway? There would be NO point in an intruder/kidnapper murdering the child. She would be his collateral.

Patsy had a reason, the intruder did not.

Patsy garroted JB from behind, whilst the child was lying on the floor. She could not bring herself to manually strangle her child, hence the cord. People tend to do so from behind when it's somebody they know because they don't want to look at the victim's face.

As for John not noticing it at first, I haven't heard that, but he'd say whatever he thought would do him the most good.

There was no intruder. I gave a whole list of reasons in my post # 478.

Why go for an intricate, convoluted and frankly absurd theory when the very real answer is right there, in our faces?

Psychosexual urges? Well this kidnapper had some strange ways didn't he? How much of a thrill could a psychosexual deviant have got from that, after he had waited for hours, planning his evil? At last he had his victim in front of him - what does he do? He undresses her and inserts the THIN end of an artist's paintbrush into her vagina - then re-dresses her. No semen or evidence of sexual contact belonging to this 'intruder' was ever found. Funny that, isn't it?

[Abby Normal]

Of course they have, Abby, but I don't think the Ramseys fit the profile. In JonBenet's case there are no obvious signs of systematic child abuse (notwithstanding the ethics about child pageantry, but that's a separate issue). I certainly wouldn't compare Patsy Ramsey to Casey Anthony, who was a young mother who felt burdened by an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. She never displayed any genuine signs of fear or grief at losing her little girl. Whereas, JonBenet was Patsy Ramsey's life, she lived vicariously through the little girl. She had no identifiable reason for murdering her or abetting in her death. Patsy would've cracked if she was behind any of this, from what I've seen.

For your last point, wasn't it reported that the garrote was buried so deeply into JonBenet's throat that John Ramsey didn't even notice it at first?



There is if the original plan was to abduct JonBenet. During the escape, the abductor has a change of plan, or JonBenet wakes up, or he cannot control his psychosexual urges. Something happens to trigger the murder. It could've been that the abductor was always planning to kill JonBenet. Most child abductions result in a murder within a few hours. It has also been posited that the intruder was planning to abduct JonBenet in the suitcase but for whatever reason this was aborted.

Hi Harry
Please see my response to Wick about parents murdering their children. Bottom line it happens all the time for many reasons.

That family was seriously screwed up.

re the garrotte. I don't buy for a second he didn't notice it. the least being it was attached to the wooden paint brush handle. of course he saw it. cmon.

[louisa]

From “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town,” a damning paragraph about the killer:

The way the cord had been made into a noose—with the stick tied 17 inches from the knot—suggested staging rather than a bona fide attempt to strangle JonBenét. It suggested that the killer was a manipulative person, with the courage to believe that he or she could control the subsequent investigation. In short, everything about the crime indicated an attempt at self-preservation on the part of the killer. On the other hand, the killer cared about the victim and wanted her found. He or she didn’t want JonBenét outside in the dead of winter in the middle of the night. The child had been wrapped in a white blanket with a Barbie nightgown clinging to it, that had been left in the tumble dryer upstairs. Such caring and solicitude were not usually associated with a malevolent criminal.

The FBI concluded that ransom notes almost always have fingerprints or signs of “handling, creasing, or damage.” This one had nothing but evidence of Patsy. She also claimed she’d stepped over the three sheets of paper that were neatly spread across the bottom of a spiral staircase to get to the kitchen. Believing a child left it there, she returned to it later—which worked well for the timeline of her calling 911, etc. When detectives reenacted this scene, however, they found it was impossible. She could not pass without stepping on the papers. Either she forgot or lied.