JonBenet Ramsey Case

[robhouse]

I am sorry, but I for one cannot possibly comprehend the possibility that Patsy killed Jonbenet. It does not make sense to me at all. Nor does the accident hypothesis. Didn't the autopsy show that Jonbenet was still alive when she was garroted? It seems inconceivable to me that a mother could have done this and then have had the composure to write such a long and convoluted ransom note. The whole thing just makes no sense to me. And from what I have read, the Stephen Thomas book is full of errors and falsehoods. It seems a shame to me that there is no more recent book that takes into consideration all the later developments in the case.

Tom,

So if all the evidence points to Patsy, what is your take on the DNA evidence? How do you explain that the same DNA was found in 3 locations - 2 touch (scrape) DNA samples from the long underwear, and one from a bloodspot in her underwear? This cannot be explained away by the asian factory worker hypothesis. And the same DNA was at least a partial match with the DNA under the fingernails. I still have not heard anyone argue convincingly against this.

RH

[Abby Normal]

Hi Tracy,
From what little I have read, it seems like an intruder to me. Yes, of course there are still questions and unknowns... But if the DNA evidence I have read is accurate, then it must suggest an unknown male killer. And therefore, Patsy must be innocent. All the so-called anomalies or suspicious things like no footprints in possibly non-existant snow or spiderwebs maybe across grates etc do not matter if the DNA evidence is accurate and conclusive.

RH

RH

Hi Rob
I guess if you think it was an intruder, I would need to ask you what was there motivation? Ransom money or sexual assault?

If ransom (and kidnapping)-what kidnapper would arrive at the scene with the ransom note NOT already filled out? And then sexually assault and murder and leave the victim there? So that pretty much rules out ransom/kidnapping.

If Sexual assault/abduction -why do it in the house (when your already halfway out with your intended victim) then murder and THEN take the time to write a ransome note? That does not make any sense either.

On top of that the intruder has to know John Ramsey well enough to know of his specific bonus amount.



And in terms of DNA on JB? I guess if it were semen DNA then that would change things but it may have gotten there from any boy or kid or man she had contact with at the time or played with at the party or even perhaps a store worker who had handled them. Without it being semen DNA, I dont put that much on it-it could have come from anywhere.

[robhouse]

Hi Abby,

I certainly wouldn't presume to have the answer to these questions. But I just do not see any logical basis to the theory that she was killed by the family members. And I don't see how she could have picked up a blood spot DNA sample in her underwear from a Christmas party.

RH

[tji]

Hi Rob

I believe the blood was hers, however there was unknown DNA found co-mingled in the blood. It was proven not to be seminal or blood so it has been classed as 'most probably' saliva.

However there was apparently no way to separate these samples (not sure how correct that assumption is) to get 2 single DNA's.

Tracy

[mariab]

Patsy was by no means ugly. I think my comment that I didn't personally find her attractive is what set Maria off, but that's not to say I thought she was unattractive, if that makes sense. And Patsy was not 'unsuccessful'. If I remember correctly, she excelled in school and in business prior to marrying John.

Tom, it was not any of your comments that inspired me, though it makes sense to me that you too find her unattractive. I've truly never understood how a woman with Patsy Ramsey's looks could have taken part in pageants.
And I have a point for mentioning this, as in my opinion Patsy Ramsey is a casebook example of what we call a “stage mother“. A frustrated woman, out of her best years (since she didn't have anything going for herself apart from her interest in a very shallow idea of “success“), living vicariously through her daughter, controlling her little daughter to the point of poisoning her life. There are numerous witnessed reports of Jonbenèt being stressed, complaining, showing inability to sleep in the months prior to her death. Don't you think that the bedwetting was also stress-related? We're talking pooping in her pants here, not just wetting the bed. Hers was not a healthy situation for a child environment. A truly intense stage-mother is not too far from Mynchausen's by proxy in her pathology of control. Just recall the commentaries of Jonbenèt's dance teachers and coaches on how Patsy used to jump on the stage and re-do her old routines to an astonished and embarrassed audience. To me Patsy and her pageant-obssessed mother remind me of some sick characters from Tennesse Williams' plays!

Also, “excelling in school“ and then marrying a rich guy and centering one's life on spending said man's money for silly endeavours such as decorating and pageants is a very questionable view of “personal success“.

If you look at Patsy's life, how happy her kids were, how well-liked she was in her community, it makes absolutely zero sense that she was involved in Jon Benet's death. However, the evidence all but rules out anyone else. I personally would love for her to be innocent, but that doesn't seem to be the case, which is why I still cling to the possibility (however unlikely) that Jon Benet's death was an accident and the staging and letter were a cover up to protect herself or Burke.

Like I said from the very beginning, I believe that most plausibly this was an accidental death and a cover up in panic.
But Tom, Patsy Ramsey was not a good mother: Her son was neglected and her daughter smothered and controlled for her mother's needs. Neither was Patsy Ramsey ever well-liked in her community. Read the Xmas letter she wrote to her “friends“ that opens Perfect murder, perfect town, and you'll recall what kind of an idiotic egotist this woman really was.

I am sorry, but I for one cannot possibly comprehend the possibility that Patsy killed Jonbenet. It does not make sense to me at all. Nor does the accident hypothesis. Didn't the autopsy show that Jonbenet was still alive when she was garroted? It seems inconceivable to me that a mother could have done this and then have had the composure to write such a long and convoluted ransom note. The whole thing just makes no sense to me. And from what I have read, the Stephen Thomas book is full of errors and falsehoods.

I too find it completely inconceivable that anyone, much less her own mother, could have done this to such an innocent, pretty little girl. And yet these things happen. Haven't you heard of the Casey Antony case? Though in my opinion Patsy Ramsey's pathology is very close to Mynchausen's by proxy.

By the by, what further links Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note, apart from the handwriting and the pen and paper, is the extreme length, the wordyness and lack of getting to the point in what was characterized as "the War and Peace of ransom notes" which fits with Patsy's way of writing, the fact that she was fond of using obscure, long acronyms like in the ransom note, the turning of the phrase "bla bla bla. And hence“, and the expression “a proper burial“ which was used by both Ramseys dozens of times in interviews.

As for Stephen Thomas, have you read his book? It's not full of errors and falsehoods. Thomas is a very serious person, and he was devastated by trying to do his job against the DA's politics in this case.
I'm also wondering from where you've got the info that the DNA from the underwear and her fingernail matches, as this would turn the DNA into important evidence.

[The Good Michael]

Maria,

I do see the Munchhausen's by proxy concept here with an addition that it was after the accidental or intentional death of the daughter that it took root.

The most damning thing I see is that there was a ransom note and no obvious attempt to kidnap nor collect on the ransom, and the letter itself seems to be in a woman's hand, intellectually speaking.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I certainly wouldn't presume to have the answer to these questions. But I just do not see any logical basis to the theory that she was killed by the family members. And I don't see how she could have picked up a blood spot DNA sample in her underwear from a Christmas party.

RH

Hi Rob
If you rule out an intruder, then the only solution is that it was someone in the house, no matter how implausible it sounds. I dont totally rule out an intruder, but if it was then it must have been sexually motivated and the only way i see this happening is if the intruder was crazy and/or on something to have assaulted and murdered JB in her house and to have taken the time to write out a ransom note. And this person must have been close enough to John Ramsey to have known the specific amount of his bonus. I find this highly unlikely though.

The DNA found on JB was not from an unknown males semen or blood. The blood spot mentioned was hers. The amount was also very minimal it could have come skin cells, mucous, etc and could have gotten there in any possible number of ways-sitting on someones lap, from a car seat, a toilet seat.

IMHO the most likely scenario then, is that it was perpetrated by someone in the house. Whoever sexually assaulted her was also her killer and i doubt seriously that she was sexually assaulted by her mother. That leaves John or Burke and if pressed i would say that it seems it was Burke and that Patsy (and possibly John) then found out and she wrote the ransom note to help protect her son.

[Tom_Wescott]

I am sorry, but I for one cannot possibly comprehend the possibility that Patsy killed Jonbenet. It does not make sense to me at all. Nor does the accident hypothesis. Didn't the autopsy show that Jonbenet was still alive when she was garroted? It seems inconceivable to me that a mother could have done this and then have had the composure to write such a long and convoluted ransom note. The whole thing just makes no sense to me. And from what I have read, the Stephen Thomas book is full of errors and falsehoods. It seems a shame to me that there is no more recent book that takes into consideration all the later developments in the case.

Tom,

So if all the evidence points to Patsy, what is your take on the DNA evidence? How do you explain that the same DNA was found in 3 locations - 2 touch (scrape) DNA samples from the long underwear, and one from a bloodspot in her underwear? This cannot be explained away by the asian factory worker hypothesis. And the same DNA was at least a partial match with the DNA under the fingernails. I still have not heard anyone argue convincingly against this.

Hi Rob. I don't think Patsy had you in mind when she killed Jon Benet, or else she'd have left even more clues that would have met your satisfaction. The DNA evidence is fraught with problems and is probably falsified, exaggerated, or the result of her clothes having been stored with evidence from other crimes. In any event, it's not compelling enough in nature to exonerate anyone or implicate anyone. Contrary to what popular TV tells us, DNA is not the magic answer all the time. In this case, there's a plethora of evidence that points in only one direction. Also contrary to popular fiction, motive is incidental. I've been asked a number of times 'What was Le Grand's motive? (if he were the Ripper). Honestly, what does it matter? When it comes to Patsy, all we have are our preconceptions. We didn't actually know her. It's based on emotions. But no emotion in the world can change evidence. It is what it is. Patsy most likely wrote the ransom note, and it makes perfect sense that she would do so. That you can't comprehend how or why might suggest you're not empathetic.

It's one thing for you to say that Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet, but then you're either going to have to blame John or Burke, and you'd be in a tough spot there. An even tougher spot would be to argue for an intruder.

You mention Stephen Thomas' book. Whether or not there were mistakes is irrelevant. He was the chief detective on the case and his conclusions are sound and firm. Patsy did it. This is not an 'unsolved mystery' any more than are the Borden murders or Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Garrotting

Incidentally, the doctors could not determine if the garrotting or hit to the head killed her. My guess is the hit to the head did, or at least made her appear dead, and the garrotting came second.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Tom,

What specifically do you think indicates that Patsy is guilty? What is the "plethora of evidence"? From what I have read, she was exonerated by DNA, she passed a lie detector test, successfully sued Thomas for defamation, etc. And her handwriting was not a match from what I have read, instead simply that she could not be eliminated. I think it only ranked a 4 on a 1-5 scale (with 1 being a definite match.) And the theory that she covered up an accident by garroting her daughter seems just highly unlikely to me.

And what do you mean "motive is incidental"? Motive just means the reason she did it. Presumably, in this case, you are suggesting that there was some sort of accident and Patsy decided to embark on the sadistic murder and torture of her daughter, with elaborate staging, because she panicked... and to cover up the accident. Is that right?

Rob

[ChainzCooper]

Jordan



While I would never tell anyone what they can or cannot decide, there is quite a bit of Maria's post that is incorrect as pointed out in the following posts.

Tracy

I enjoyed reading that post so I complimented her on it. Whats the problem with that?
Jordan

[tji]

I enjoyed reading that post so I complimented her on it. Whats the problem with that?

I didn't say there was a problem with you enjoying her post - it was the 'informative' description I was alluding to.


Tracy

[ChainzCooper]

I didn't say there was a problem with you enjoying her post - it was the 'informative' description I was alluding to.


Tracy

Okay, but I enjoy hearing Maria's perspective on the case sorry if you don't
Jordan

[Jimi]

Anyone Know?

Hi All
I have had a cursory interest in the JonBenet case for years. Very Cursory.
My Greatest take on the case(and it is only my opinion) is that there was such a mismanagement of the crime scene and such a "cover up" by ALL parties afterwards that we may never know the truth.
There is I believe a glaring omission in the evidence that i have never seen. Dooesn't mean it's not there,just I haven't seen it.
Was there ever any investigation into sexual assault on minors in the area?
On members of JonBenet classes? School, etc.
Convictions after JonBenets murder?
All these, before and after, could point to probable suspects.
I'm sure somebody must have done it, Just I, for one, have never heard of it.
Thanks for your time,Keep Well
Jimi

[tji]

Okay, but I enjoy hearing Maria's perspective on the case sorry if you don't

Oh no need to apologise Jordan, I am sure she is responsible for giving quite a few people a good laugh.

Hi Jimi


Checking up, there was Gary Oliva (Thomas Aquina) was once a suspect, who tried to strangle his mother and was put on a sex register for molesting a child. He was known to have been in the area and collected his mail from a church one block away from Jonbenet's house. The show 48 hours apparently did an episode on him and he looked a good match but was never actually arrested even after DNA was taken, so he must have been ruled out.

Tracy