Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother, dies

[TroyF]

One last thing and I'll drop this. This is the an amazing listen. Here are some amazing facts.

You have to get through the first five minutes or so and then an interview starts that starts talking about the case. Listen to this and tell me what you think.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/182...0710PETE5A.mp3

[GrantDawg]

I don't know why I am doing this but....

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) The ransom note. Already went over. How in the hell does the "killer" know the exact amount of his bonus. Furthermore, why do you take the time to write a three page ransom note and then take the girl to the basement and kill her. How does that make sense in any meaningful way? The killer would have had to have had JonBonet under perfect control through this whole process. She was changed in an upstairs bathroom. The killer and her would have had to go to the basement without disturbing the sleeping parents. Why waste the time to write the ransom note, then go into a room in the basement and kill the child? Why even "play" with the child at that time if you were interested in cash?

The family was out of the home an extended amount of time that night. The belief is that the person was in the house and wrote the note while waiting for the family to return

2) The Ramseys actions. They were unbelievably calm during the early investigation. (when everyone thought it was a kidnapping) Patsy had her hair done up and her makeup on when the investigators arrived. They didn't seem to be bothered when the time for the supposed phone call came and went with nothing. They HAD NOT DID A COMPLETE SEARCH OF THE HOUSE until they were instructed by police to do so. And then when instructed, the father went right to the body. Think about that for a second. Forget all of the other psychology of how people should act in a case like this. Just tell me how if you as a parent woke up and couldn't find your kid, wouldn't turn the house upside down looking for the kid before you even bothered with the police. Ransom note or not, my house would be torn to the ground searching for my girl. The Ramsey's simply sat on the sofa and waited for the police.

There are a number of very contradictory acounts of the reactions of the family that night. Several describe Ptasy as quite erradict and far from calm. They describe John as robotic, in a state of shock. The person describing their mntal condition varies from who the person is and, quite honestly, from whether that person believed they did it or not.

3) The Ramseys spent a lot of time hiding behind a legal team. Patsy had a lawyer. John has a lawyer. Burke, JonBonet's brother, who was NINE YEARS old at the time had HIS OWN LAWYER. I understand giving yourself some protection, but a lawyer for each family member in the house within a couple of days of the murder? And not cooperating with the police to the point the governor of Colorado had to ask them to stop hiding behind their attorneys? Why do all of that if you have nothing to hide? Please don't give me the "they were worried about going to jail bit" because their first concern should have been finding out who in the hell killed their little girl.
One of the first people on the scene that night was John's best friend who hapened to be a civil lawyer. It was under his advice that the family get lawyers immediately. It is what any lawyer would advice and what any sane person would do. As a parent, you are always going to be the first and primary suspects in any investigation. The police that morning switch almost immediately after the body was found on the family. Their friend sensed this immediately and adviced them to allow the statements they had given ealry in the investigation to stand until the police collected more evidence. He didn't expect the police to overlook and totally ignore most of the crime scene in there eagerness to convict the Ramsey's.

The Boulder PD botched the investigation from the beginning. This they definitely did, and all agree The Ramseys fought the PD and waited months to give police a full interview. (and the police, who someone said above was after the Ramseys from the start simply allowed that to happen without getting warrents to make them talk. That was not the police but the DA's office. From the very begining the police looked at this as an open and shut case. They believed Patsy did it and spent their time working on that theory. The DA's office repeatedly try to turn more of the investigation beyond just the family. That was the little infighting that hampered this investigation even further.) By the time they gave the interview, crucial information could have been lost or forgotten. For that alone they deserve blame. The family actually gave a good bit of information to the police early on. It wasn't until the police seemed to focus on them that they stopped talking on the advice of their attorneys. The police plain and simple where only interested in that point to build a case against them, and they were wisely guarding against that.

There has been DNA there from the start of the case. It's gets checked weekly against all the sex offender DNA on file. And with a database over 1.5 million, it still hasn't gotten a hit and likely never will. Actually the early DNA sample was of very poor quality, especially with earlier DNA technology. They have since been able to get a more definitive samples that could match against the DNA database.

I don't know exactly how it happened. . . but I do not believe for even a half second that a killer walked into the house, was so clinical that he wrote a 3 page ransom note, was calm enough to snatch a child and change her clothes in an upstairs bathroom while her parents were sleeping two doors away (while not leaving fingerprints or a loose hair anywhere either) and then was irrational enough to decide to take the girl into the wine cellar and kill her before leaving out the window again. The sad thing is, we'll never know much of what evidence the killer left behind. The police (who were very inexperienced n dealing with murder investigations) did a horrible job collecting evidence. There might have been much that could have been found at the begining with a more experienced group. It wasn't until months after the murder that the DA's office hired an outside investigator with lots of homocide experience that the numerous mistakes made early on came to light. Totally ignored were things like footprints leading to the broken window in the room next to where the body was found. The suitcase set under the window allowing easy access out of the room. etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't add up. Never has for me and never will. Nor I, the other way. You posted two profilers who said they believe Patsy did this, but John Douglas from the very begining did not buy that and gave good reason:
“This didn’t have the look of it,” he said, explaining that he had seldom, if ever, seen such post-mortem violation of a victim, as occurred in the Ramsey case, if the killer was a relative."

[TroyF]

You continue to assert the PD stopped investigating and went right to the Ramseys when nothing could be further from the truth. The PD did EVERYTHING they could to point the finger away from the family, only turning back to them for answers after intense media pressure forced them to do so. This is a family that had a dinner with the DA at his house. You also know very little about the overall case.

How about the ransom note for one? It had NO fingerprints. Not even Jon or Patsy. Explain how they read the note. Explain how at 5:30 AM Patsy was in the clothes she wore the previous night with fully done up makeup. Explain how the Ramseys were all set to go on a trip they were supposed to leave on early that morning (which is why they got up so early) and didn't havea single bag packed. Explain why when the ransom note says:

1) the house is being watched.
2) if they call the cops Jonbonet will be BEHEADED
3) The amount in the ransom note is peanuts to John

With all those factors,the first thing the family does is call the police without telling them that little bit of information in the letter. Explain to me why they needed THREE lawyers. Look, most of us can get by with one for the family. We don't need to get a lawyer for the 8 year old. (an 8 year old, who by the way never had any police protection and went outside to play with friends away from the house that very day. Strikes me as a family terrified a killer was out there, don't you think?)

As for Douglas, he's been heavily criticized in this. By his collegues and by anyone with knowledge of the case. Why? Because of something you fail to point out and have everytime you've made a write up of this. He was paid by the family to clear their name. He was hired by them to do a job and do the job he did.

Listen to the link from Boyles above. He's studied the case more than anyone and he has always layed out a damned good case.

I have trouble listening to anything you have to say on the subject because of your continued insistence the Ramseys' were targeted early on. They weren't. Of all the mistakes the Boulder PD made, that was the worst. They coddled the family. They were so scared of pissing them off, they went out of their way to clear their names from the start. Only with media pressure and with the governor threatening to call in his own team of investigators did they even start to interview the Ramseys'. They had multiple dinners at the DA's home. Yet you continue to insist the PD targeted them.

Pardon my french here, but Bullshit. Get that fact straight and I might listen to some of the others.

[st.cronin]

I would buy the brother before the parents. The gigantic hole in any theory implicating the parents is "WHAT IS THE MOTIVE?" Parents, to my knowledge, almost never kill their children absent some serious mental illness - and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Ramseys are crazy.

[molson]

I wasn't very convinced by that podcast or anything in this thread that the parents had anything to do with that (though I agree with St. Cronin that the brother is a possibility).

Here's all I'm hearing - a list of "strange facts", and then a vague assertion that "this doesn't add up". That's not a criminal case.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would buy the brother before the parents. The gigantic hole in any theory implicating the parents is "WHAT IS THE MOTIVE?" Parents, to my knowledge, almost never kill their children absent some serious mental illness - and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Ramseys are crazy.

Patsy took medication for depression.

Never said there was a criminal case. (in truth, any hope of a real criminal case was destroyed on the first day by the Boulder PD) A ton of circumstansial evidence puts the family in the crosshairs.


In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us believe. FWIW, as long as a case is open, you should never publicly announce anyone is "in the clear" Especially with DNA evidence that isn't proven. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[gstelmack]

I'm with Troy on this. The early actions just stink to high heaven of a prominent family being protected by the police and DA despite lots of suspicious activity, to the point that all evidence was destroyed / contaminated and no one will ever know the real answers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm with Troy on this. The early actions just stink to high heaven of a prominent family being protected by the police and DA despite lots of suspicious activity, to the point that all evidence was destroyed / contaminated and no one will ever know the real answers.

You think evidence was destroyed just because the family was rich? What do they have to gain by that? And what evidence was destroyed, or are you just speculating?

Any DA's eyes would light up at a case like this as a chance to make a career.

All anyone's done is point to facts outside of the ordinary as some kind of implication of guilt. A little girl being murdered is out of the ordinary.

When someone starts talking about "if they're not guilty, why do they need a lawyer?", and "this doesn't add up", its a big red flag that someone's already decided what to think about something and the evidence doesn't really matter. I mean of course it doesn't add up, if it did, somebody would have been charged.

[molson]

I'll never believe that the mother wrote the note and used the exact bonus. Why would she do that? It's much, much, more likely (to me), that this is someone else who came across that number. The fact that it's the exact number pretty much rules out the family to me. All I'm hearing is "it's the exact number - how would anyone know that!", which nobody ever being able to explain exactly how that implicates the parents, or why they would use that number.

There's also plenty of explanations for the note + murder. An intruder could have wrote the note, but then had some trouble with JonBonet resisting, or making noise, so he just killed her and ran out. The ransom note could have been written earlier, while the family was away.

The police were obviously determined to pin a case on the Ramseys. Damn straight they were right to hire lawyers and not talk to anyone. As for the police, you've criticized them for not "getting warrents to make them talk" - no such warrant exists, the Ramseys have every right not to talk to anybody, and it was a pretty smart right to exercise when the police have already decided that you're guilty.

There's just about ZERO admissable evidence against parents. It's not that it's just "circumstantial", circumstantial evidence is often admissable, can be quite devastating, and can win cases all on its own. But there's nothing here that would even get close to the level of probable cause.

[st.cronin]

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if you want to accuse anybody in this crime (parents, brother, friends of family, random weirdo, OJ Simpson, etc.), you have to, at the very least, construct a plausible story that covers all known evidence and includes a motive. I don't think this can be done with the parents - I think it can be done with almost anybody OTHER than the parents that has been touted as a possible suspect. If somebody thinks it can be done with the parents, I challenge them to show me.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that if you want to accuse anybody in this crime (parents, brother, friends of family, random weirdo, OJ Simpson, etc.), you have to, at the very least, construct a plausible story that covers all known evidence and includes a motive. I don't think this can be done with the parents - I think it can be done with almost anybody OTHER than the parents that has been touted as a possible suspect. If somebody thinks it can be done with the parents, I challenge them to show me.

No, actually if it's the family, you don't have to. A stressed out parent kills their kid in a fit of rage is all you need. All of their actions afterward aren't motive related, they are done to avoid punishment.

Does a parent who shakes their kid to death have a motive?

Besides, WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE MOTIVE FOR ANYONE TO DO THIS?

Was it about money as the ransom note suggests? (if so, why kill the little girl and leave her in the basement?)

Was it about a sexual predator taking the little girl? (OK, than why leave a ransom note with more evidence to lead a trail back to you? Why not abduct the girl, get out and use her for your needs where nobody can catch you while you play out sick fantasies?)

So no St. Cronin, no motive can really be put to this without a killer because none of it makes any sense at all. All I have to go on are a ton of inconsistencies in the way the Ramsey family behaved. (and in the way they were treated by the Boulder PD)

People have been convicted with far less circumstansial evidence than the Ramsey family had against them. Their money and their connections kept them out of ever having to go to court.

I

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by TroyF

No, actually if it's the family, you don't have to. A stressed out parent kills their kid in a fit of rage is all you need. All of their actions afterward aren't motive related, they are done to avoid punishment.

Does a parent who shakes their kid to death have a motive?

She wasn't shaken to death, she was garroted, and sexually assaulted. A rage killing or accidental killing seems implausible based on my reading of the evidence.

Originally Posted by TroyF

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE MOTIVE FOR ANYONE TO DO THIS?

Deranged sexuality, hatred of the Ramseys for whatever reason, jealousy, etc.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Was it about money as the ransom note suggests? (if so, why kill the little girl and leave her in the basement?)

Was it about a sexual predator taking the little girl? (OK, than why leave a ransom note with more evidence to lead a trail back to you? Why not abduct the girl, get out and use her for your needs where nobody can catch you while you play out sick fantasies?)

So no St. Cronin, no motive can really be put to this without a killer because none of it makes any sense at all. All I have to go on are a ton of inconsistencies in the way the Ramsey family behaved. (and in the way they were treated by the Boulder PD)

People have been convicted with far less circumstansial evidence than the Ramsey family had against them. Their money and their connections kept them out of ever having to go to court.

I

You can ask the same kinds of questions the other way, against the theory that she was beaten to death in a rage by her mother.

-Why write a ransom note at all that could be traced back to you? Why use as the ransom amount the exact number of the bonus?
-Why leave the daughter in the house?? Why not get rid of the body so nobody finds it?
-Who belongs to the 3rd party DNA that was found on the victim and murder weapon? Why is someone else involved if this is just a "fit of rage gone bad".
-If this is some big conspiracy by the PD to clear the family, why did they immediately (and unprofessionally) play up the parents as suspects the media? Why did the police tell the media there were "no signs of forced entry" (and not tell anyone for over a year that there was a broken basement window and unlocked doors).\

[st.cronin]

Dola, I'm also pretty sure that there is zero evidence of any parental or spousal abuse prior to the murder, which you would certainly expect to find in the case that the parents were guilty.

[TredWel]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Parents, to my knowledge, almost never kill their children absent some serious mental illness - and nobody, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the Ramseys are crazy.

Originally Posted by TroyF

Patsy took medication for depression.

I highly doubt that depression, or even medication for depression, would cause one to garotte one's own child out of the blue.

Besides, most people suffering from depression are liable to harm themselves rather than others.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You continue to assert the PD stopped investigating and went right to the Ramseys when nothing could be further from the truth. The PD did EVERYTHING they could to point the finger away from the family, only turning back to them for answers after intense media pressure forced them to do so. This is a family that had a dinner with the DA at his house. You also know very little about the overall case.

How about the ransom note for one? It had NO fingerprints. Not even Jon or Patsy. Explain how they read the note. Explain how at 5:30 AM Patsy was in the clothes she wore the previous night with fully done up makeup. Explain how the Ramseys were all set to go on a trip they were supposed to leave on early that morning (which is why they got up so early) and didn't havea single bag packed. Explain why when the ransom note says:

1) the house is being watched.
2) if they call the cops Jonbonet will be BEHEADED
3) The amount in the ransom note is peanuts to John

With all those factors,the first thing the family does is call the police without telling them that little bit of information in the letter. Explain to me why they needed THREE lawyers. Look, most of us can get by with one for the family. We don't need to get a lawyer for the 8 year old. (an 8 year old, who by the way never had any police protection and went outside to play with friends away from the house that very day. Strikes me as a family terrified a killer was out there, don't you think?)

As for Douglas, he's been heavily criticized in this. By his collegues and by anyone with knowledge of the case. Why? Because of something you fail to point out and have everytime you've made a write up of this. He was paid by the family to clear their name. He was hired by them to do a job and do the job he did.

Listen to the link from Boyles above. He's studied the case more than anyone and he has always layed out a damned good case.

I have trouble listening to anything you have to say on the subject because of your continued insistence the Ramseys' were targeted early on. They weren't. Of all the mistakes the Boulder PD made, that was the worst. They coddled the family. They were so scared of pissing them off, they went out of their way to clear their names from the start. Only with media pressure and with the governor threatening to call in his own team of investigators did they even start to interview the Ramseys'. They had multiple dinners at the DA's home. Yet you continue to insist the PD targeted them.

Pardon my french here, but Bullshit. Get that fact straight and I might listen to some of the others.

I'll just stop and here and say read a few books on the case because there are about a thousand mistakes within it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by TroyF

No, actually if it's the family, you don't have to. A stressed out parent kills their kid in a fit of rage is all you need. All of their actions afterward aren't motive related, they are done to avoid punishment.

Does a parent who shakes their kid to death have a motive?

Besides, WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE MOTIVE FOR ANYONE TO DO THIS?

Was it about money as the ransom note suggests? (if so, why kill the little girl and leave her in the basement?)

Was it about a sexual predator taking the little girl? (OK, than why leave a ransom note with more evidence to lead a trail back to you? Why not abduct the girl, get out and use her for your needs where nobody can catch you while you play out sick fantasies?)

So no St. Cronin, no motive can really be put to this without a killer because none of it makes any sense at all. All I have to go on are a ton of inconsistencies in the way the Ramsey family behaved. (and in the way they were treated by the Boulder PD)

People have been convicted with far less circumstansial evidence than the Ramsey family had against them. Their money and their connections kept them out of ever having to go to court.

I

All of these points are from the Judge's ruling in federal court, not from any other source. Her findings in looking over all of the evidence found that the evidence more consistantly fits an intruder and that the police mishandled the case in their myopic attempt to convict the Ramsey's. Her findings:

Carnes also criticized Boulder police, saying that "a series of events compromised the crime scene" and that its officers, including Thomas, had little or no experience in homicide investigation.

In addition, police adopted a suggestion by the FBI "to publicly name [the Ramseys'] as suspects and apply intense media pressure to them so that they would confess to the crime." The police department's attempt to "smoke out" the Ramseys as their daughter's killers utilized the media as a tool, according to Carnes' order. "In addition to this intentional use of the press, a number of leaks of confidential information, at various stages of the murder investigation, served to hamper the ability of the Boulder Police Department to conduct an effective investigation into the crime."

Carnes' order also lists a series of largely uncontested facts that suggest an intruder entered the Ramsey home and murdered JonBenét. Among them:

• At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenét disappeared. The alarm was off and windows were accessible from the ground level, including three that opened into the basement.

• Evidence suggested that an intruder climbed through a basement window and walked through the room where JonBenét was found.

• JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.

• Black duct tape found on JonBenét's mouth was never found in the Ramsey home, although evidence suggested "it came from a roll of tape that had been used before."

• Nothing in the Ramsey home matched dark animal hairs found on the duct tape and JonBenét's hands.

• Newly made, unidentified shoeprints, including one with a HI-TEC brand mark, were found on the basement floor. None of the Ramseys' shoes matched those prints.

• A palm print on the wine-cellar door where JonBenét's body was found does not match the Ramseys' palm prints and has never been identified.

• A baseball bat found outside the house with fibers consistent with fibers found on the carpet in the basement where JonBenét's body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

• Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenét's body, the paintbrush used as a garrote, the duct tape and the ligature around her neck did not match anything in the Ramsey home.

• Male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her underwear does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been identified yet.

• A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey.

• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist. The Ramseys swore they had never owned or operated a stun gun and none was found in their home. Carnes cited testimony by A. Louis "Lou" Smit, a homicide detective originally hired by the Boulder Police Department to investigate JonBenét's death but who later began working for the Ramseys. Smit has said he believes JonBenét was subdued by a stun gun.

Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.

I was covinced very early as well that it was the parents, but the main reason I as well as most did, was because of a wealth of information about the case leaked to the press by the police department in an attempt to try the family in the media. Much of that information was debunked later. Every outside source that has looked at how this case was handled universally said the police did a horrible job with the investegation and overlooked important evidence because they were running on one theory alone.

If the family did it, where is the stun gun that was used, and why would a parent use a stun gun on a child? Whose pubic hair was on the blanket? How did another male touch the inside of her panties? Where did the animal hair come from on the inside of the tape?

I've looked at some of theories that people have to try to explain this stuff away, but they far from work. Some people have just determined that the family was guilt and refuse to look at any other explaination. When I started looking at this stuff (because of interest in an open murder case with some much publicity), I decided early to open my mind. It was hard because everything I heard from the media pointed to the family. But after reading several books from both sides of the case and several neutral parties, I have a hard time believing this was not done by an intruder. It was someone who either knew the family or was obessed with Jonbenet in some way.

I still think there is a chance the murder will be solved, but at this point is going to take that indiviual (or even at a slim chance, indiviuals) to do something stupid or just confess. My opinion this person is in prison on other charges in another state, or dead already.

[GrantDawg]

Just as a dola, and as an example of how silly some of these explainations are: I read one explaination of how the male DNA got in to her panties that was actually given by a DNA expert that looked at the evidence early on. He said "it might have come from the plant the underwear was made in." Of course that would have meant Jonbenet went to the plant directly to purchase them, and scratch the guy that made them as thanks, and then he put her longjohns on her before she left.