Has John Implicated Himself???

[watson]

I know I'm going to get lots of arrows, slings, and stones on this one, but the question has to be asked. Has John Ramsey implicated himself in this crime through a potentionally provable lie?
We all know as FACT, that Patsy made the 911 call, very early the morning of the 26th. I always thought (and still do) this clears Patsy of the crime (the writer of the kidnapping note, used half it's long length to try and assure there'd be no police there the morning of the 26th. Obviously, who ever put all the stuff in the note NOT to have the police there on the 26th, wouldn't call police there themselves as early as possible.)
This stuff about John telling her to call, ordering her to call, my research has shown is NOT in the 'original' evidence from the 26th, and 27th. There is no proof of it. (True?) In fact, it's not even part of the case, until John himself, inserts it in there, in a converstaion the 31st, and announces it Jan. 1st, in the CNN interview (6 days after the crime). (Still true?) Patsy backed John up on this in the CNN interview, and 4 months later when the Ramsey's gave their 'offical' interviews to police, but like I said, there has never been any proof that John wanted to call police the 26th, or told Patsy to do so, except John's claim made days and months after the crime (verbally backed up later by Patsy). In the years since, as far as I know, John has always strongly maintained that HE decided to call police, HE wanted to do it, amost that he MADE Patsy do it. (Still true?)
There I thought the matter rested, until it came up recently here in the thread 'What Really Happened That Night', p.3, poster Louisadelmar (post108) posted the first seconds (that I'd never heard before) of the 911 tape. In the first seconds, Patsy is recordered responding to something John just said before the recording started, something like...DON'T call the police.....or ....the note says NOT to call police....John actually telling Patsy NOT to call the police, or DON"T call! Patsy's response to John...IS... recorded as...... 'but..hun, we need them (the police)'. The hysterical Patsy then goes on with her call we've all heard, but still, she's recorded overuling John's (untaped) order NOT to call police.
Now, it wouldn't be unusual for John not to want to call police, as the note said his daughter would be killed if he did. If John had later fessed up, and said, 'yeah I didn't want to call, because the note said not to', I'd understand. But, despite the evidence of these seldom heard first second of tape, 6 days later, John goes on national tv, and says the OPPOSITE of what the begining of the tape indicates (that it was Patsy who wanted to call police, and John who didn't want to and tried to stop her). It's hard to think of anything else but LIE, BIG LIE, on John's part, and doesn't such a lie (if accurate) imply gulit?
Please critique, comment, and correct..................

[Sprocket]

IMHO, they both implicated themselves by going on CNN SIX DAYS after the murder. They said in that interview that they were not angry that their daughter had been murdered and they wanted to move on with their lives. (ST book; paperback pg 98)

WTF?

That's pretty unbelieveable that they were able to let go of all their anger in such a short amount of time, and talked about "moving on."

I think they both implicated themselves by hiring legal counsel before they were ever charged with a crime, before they were ever interviewed, before their daughter had even been given an autopsy (and imho) probably before they had even left that house).

I think they both implicated themselves by going on national television and speaking publicly, but placed many conditions on being interviewed by police.

John was ruled out as being the author of the note. Patsy has never been ruled out.

[Tober]

Patsy's response to John...IS... recorded as...... 'but..hun, we need them (the police)'.

It should be noted that Patsy didn't say "the police" in your statement above, you added that in assuming she was referring to the police. While that's possible, she could have been referring to any number of things. How do you know she wasn't referring to one or more of the guests they called over? Both John and Patsy have been caught in lies and have changed their stories (contradicting their initial statements) numerous times. While, obviously, only one could have caused JonBenet's head injury, the fiber evidence suggests that they were both involved in the staging (which is a crime). While initially only one may have been involved in the crime, the evidence suggests that at some point the other became involved as well.

[KingCoyote]

Watson:

I, too, have had my doubts about John's veracity in relation to the transcript of the 911 call which indicates he does not wish to call the police while Patsy clearly does and to his several documented comments. IMHO, I think this is just another in the long line of inconsistent statements that run rampant in this case. Heck, I think there are enough inconsistent statements in this case by ALL parties for all of us to take a couple of those statements home and plant them in the back yard. (grin of chagrin)...And there is clearly a way to imply some type of guilt upon John by simply saying if he lies and doesn't want the police, he, therefore must be guilty. You can continue your rationale by saying John needed more time to complete whatever he needed to complete; that's why he didn't want the police. The only thing I can say is that being a liar doesn't mean you are a murderer. John will also say 'there was so much confusion that morning, I don't really remember what I said or what Patsy said, I am still trying to sort all of that out in my mind, and, you know, its been so long since all of that happened that I have really tried to put some parts of it out of my mind.' Both arguments may have logic but I really don't think any case against John, or any case that would have been tried with Patsy as a defendant, has much of a chance if it relies too heavily on inconsistent statements.

Just a few thoughts and opinions,

KingCoyote :shrug:

[Louisadelmar]

[...]'but..hun, we need them (the police)'. [...]

Actually what she is said to have said is "God...hon we need 'em. Police"

Added: So she could have been disagreeing with him as you suggest.

OR

She could have been affirming it as in:

John: Call the police!
Patsy: You're right! Oh God, Hon we need 'em!

[watson]

All good points so far in posts 2-5 above. It's true as I indicated in the post I added in the words 'the police' for Patsy's 'them', so the sentance would be more clear. I think it really unlikely she was talking about the other people she called later that morning when she said 'them', since she had just dialed 911, hadn't even spoken to the operator yet, and that was the very begining of her first call of the day, all the other calls coming after the 911 call.
And I suppose it's remotely 'possible' that Patsy's 'God!' in her sentance....'God!....Hon...we need em...', may have been in the form of....God!....John your right we need them....To John insisting she call police like he says (but then wouldn't she have agreed with with in this exclaimed manner BEFORE already calling them? And anything is 'possible'.
Still I'd still go with the most plain, clear, and obvious meaning of Patsy's sentance 2 seconds after she had dialed 911....the 'Hon'...refers to John (the only other person in the room with her)....her exclaimation.....God!...is as in 'God honey you dolt we need the police why would you think otherwise! After he tried to stop her calling'....and the word .....'them (em')'......at the end refers obviously to the police that she has just dialed.
Which means the mostly likely indication is John actually tried to stop Patsy calling the police that morning and has gone out of his way to lie about it ever since. And a suspect lying on a major element of a crime doesn't 'prove' him guilty of the crime, but it sure raise bona fide suspicion as to his character and honesty and that IMO 'implies' further guilt (as in the crime).
P.S. I don't see how John an intelligent, educated man, could have just 'forgot' or 'confused' his position on such a major aspect and personal decision as calling the police, and then remember it (wrongly as the evidence implies) so clearly in every interview way later etc.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]P.S. I don't see how John an intelligent, educated man, could have just 'forgot' or 'confused' his position on such a major aspect and personal decision as calling the police, and then remember it (wrongly as the evidence implies) so clearly in every interview way later etc.

Now I'm confused.

Are you saying John changed his statement about calling the police? If so, where?

Or are saying it's just your belief based on the "God, hon..." quote that he didn't advocate calling the police?

[KingCoyote]

Good Post Watson;

Actually I thought of another thing John could say: "I was just reminding Patsy that the RN had threats if we called the police."....Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote

[watson]

Now I'm confused.

Are you saying John changed his statement about calling the police? If so, where?

Or are saying it's just your belief based on the "God, hon..." quote that he didn't advocate calling the police?
************************************************** **
What I'm saying is 2 things.......
1.) There's never been any proof in the original evidence (to my knowledge) that John wanted to call the police or helped call the police the 26th, except his own word when he injected it into the case in the CNN tv interview 1-1-97 a whole 5 days after the crime. This has always bothered me, because it should have been in the earlier, in initial statements from the 26th, or his statement of the 27th, or even on the tape itself.
2.) I was not before aware of the proof of the seldom heard (at least by me) 1st sentance on the 911 tape after Patsy has already dialed the police, where in the most common meaning of Patsy's sentance John does not want her to call police or is trying to stop her from doing it, the opposite of what he inserted into the case 5 days later and has always maintained since.
I wonder WHY this major contradiction.
I don't think John has ever changed his statement, and in fact over the years seems to have really increased and expanded it was his idea to call.
My point, why the contradictions, why doesn't the fact he wanted to call show up in the original 4 days of evidence as it should, why did he announce it himself 5 days later on tv, why does the 1st sentance seem to prove him wrong. And the big one....why would an innocent man lie?

[Louisadelmar]

I don't think I've read his statements from the 26th and 27th. Do youhave them? If so, was he asked about who said to call the police?

This is what he said on CNN:
CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?

RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit.
RAMSEY, P: We went to check our son.

RAMSEY, J: Checked our son's room. Sometimes she sleeps in there. And we just were --
RAMSEY, P: We were just frantic.

[watson]

I don't think I've read his statements from the 26th and 27th. Do youhave them? If so, was he asked about who said to call the police?
[/I]
************************************************** ***
Lou ad...
A quick clarification...no...I have no actual word for word police reports from the 26th and 27th (does anyone else?). What I have follows.........
PO French, PO Vietch, and junior Det. Arndt were first on the scene the morning of the 26th, other PO's etc followed. John and Patsy of course talked verbally to these officers of what had happened and what had happened the prior night, these PO's then wrote (as normal procedure) reports on their recollections of what was reported to them and what was found upon examination of the scene. Case facts in the media, internet, and every author's book I've ever read, that relayed what these reports said (the familiar facts of the case) and no where in the case facts or authors books or anywhere on the 26th or 27th (I welcome anyone to correct me if I'm Wrong) is there John saying he decided to call the police. Instead all the reports (that I have only 2nd or 3rd hand) in summary say Patsy found note, checked for JB, screamed for John, John rushed down, was reading note and Patsy called 911. There is nothing about John teling her to do it or agreeing to do it. Then we have the 'hard' evidence of the actual 911 tape.
On the 27th Det. Arndt and more senior det. Mason arrive at the Whites at 9:30 pm for the first interview with John and Patsy since the verbal conversations and events the day before. Sedated Patsy is unable to attend, John sits with his usual lawyer, Fleet White and his brother. Police report his answers as vague and given the others present and lack of Patsy decide to postpone the interview (admittedly this comes from PMPT p45, but also other 2nd hand sources). I've heard interviews on tv with John where he says he talked to police about 1/2 hour on this occasion. BUT, no one (as far as I know, corection anyone?) has ever shown that so far on the 26th or 27th was there any indication other than Patsy was the only 1 who called police or wanted to.
After the 27th there was no more communication betwen Ramseys and police till after the funeral services the 29th and 31st, and the next comment on who wanted to call police and who decided to do it came 1-1-97 in the CNN interview.

[shill]

Maybe John thought he was taking a bullet for Patsy. A lynch mob had formed saying she killed her daughter. When she denies killing her daughter, they say you didn't care about her because you risked her being beheaded by calling the police. So John says he called and risked JB's life.

Not the greatest explanation, but it is one.

[docg]

Good sleuthing, my dear Watson. I listened again to one of the audio files I have of this and sure enough Patsy DOES mumble something just prior to her conversation with the dispatcher. I'd love it if we could prove she actually said "Hon, we need 'em," because that would fit beautifully with my conviction that John did NOT want that call made and must have argued strongly against it. I used a low pass filter and then slowed it down. It DOES sound something like "Hon we need 'em" for sure. But it's pretty garbled, it could be what she said, it could have been something else. And we'll never know, since Patsy can't be questioned about it.

Fortunately, we have a much better source, the first Tracey documentary where she very explicitly states that it was SHE who told JOHN she was going to call the police. That contradicts all the other versions of their story -- and where there is a contradiction there is almost certainly a lie!

[thewhitewitch1]

Everything I've ever read states that Patsy went down and found the note, screamed for John and John told her to call the police.
Just because she makes a contradiction one time in a tv interview doesn't mean that it actually happened that way. Maybe she was just trying to make herself look like the one in charge in that interview and took credit for the call. Maybe she "forgot" John told her to make the call. Who knows. The Ramseys contradicted themselves and changed their stories a lot.

[watson]

Hello to Docg

Thanks for the info about the garbled nature of Patsy's sentence. I've never heard it on audio, but someone has posted a transcript above. I'm sure by now labs have enhanced this, and she said what the transcript indicates.
A lot bothers me about this point in the case which is why I posted it.
1.) In all the times I've heard the 911 tape in the tv media, and documentary, they've never played these first seconds (arguably the most important part of the tape since it seems to contradict what everyone has said or believes), how strange!
2.) My research (if accurate) of the original evidence confirms that originally there was nothing about John telling Patsy to call.
3.) The source of this information being injected into the case 6 days after the crime seems to be none other than John Ramsey, then a suspect in the case!
4.)As Whitewitch1 notes above I too remember what I've read about the case, and from the early sources 1997, 98, and these sources would be like John Douglas (who was actually hired by the Ramsey's) the story was....Patsy found the note, ran up spiral stairs to JB's room, screamed for John who was in his bathroom on floor 3, Patsy ran back to floor 1, John rushed down was reading the note and Patsy called 911. Nothing said John wanted to call or didn't. (A reading of PMPT even backs this up). Later on authors and programs started incorperating John's (and Patsy's) statements from their interviews 4 months after the crime (but not released till much later), and interviews over the years, that it was John's choice to call and relating it back into the begining case facts.
5.)There's a time line problem if we assume for a moment Patsy is telling the truth...she awoke shortly after 5:30am as scheduled, say 5:32. John was already in his bathroom, she dressed, put on some makeup, went down to floor 2, threw 1 piece of clothing in the washer, went down to kitchen and found note. How long would it take her to do this? I'd say 13-15 minutes, so she finds the note at 5:45-5:47, reads part of it, for what...1 minute, runs up to check on JB, another minute, screams for John at 5:47 or 5:49. The call was made by 5:52, so he's got to run down from floor 3, find out from his screaming wife what's going on, run back up to floor 2 and look in JB's room, then go check on Burke (he says), run back to floor 1, read the whole note and decide and tell Patsy to call police, all in less than 3 or 5 minutes. Is that even possible, and if possible how likely?
P.S. I've seen the time of the call reported as early as 5:47am, but most often 5:52am.

[Louisadelmar]

In Patsy's 1998 interview they do a step by step of what she did when. Patsy uses a green marker to trace her routes. I'd post it but it is very long.

[KingCoyote]

One quick reply as to JR's statements: See JR 1998 Interview P. 336. Paraphrased, the question was 'Was there any discsussion about not calling the police?' Answer: 'Pastys says it says not to call the police.'

KingCoyote

[Athena]

Good Post Watson;

Actually I thought of another thing John could say: "I was just reminding Patsy that the RN had threats if we called the police."....Just a few thoughts and opinions.

KingCoyote

Actually the statement from his 6/98 interview does support your opinion however I could not find the statement you refer to in your previous post above. IMO he was referring to the note that stated "don't call the police".

1 LOU SMIT: Was she asking you any questions?

2 JOHN RAMSEY: What should we do, what should

3 we do. And if we should call the police. And there

4 was a (INAUDIBLE) that says not to call the

5 police, so I called the police anyway. But she

6 did; she called 911. And then she also called the

7 Whites and the Fernies.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[KingCoyote]

Athena:

I am confused as to which of my quotes you are referring to and what your point is:

Post #17 is merely a reference to JR 1998 Interview Page 336 Lines 7-10 as to what he actually said in an interview which leads some people to believe JR was indicating that PR was reluctant to call the police.

Your insertion of my quote beginning "Good Post Watson" was merely a afterthought or guess of mine as to how JR would reconcile the new issue of PR allegedly saying "Hon...we need the police," which some believe indicate PR was convincing JR that the police were necessary and that JR did not want to call police. Some believe these two scenarios are an incongruity and I was just chiming in merely to be participatory with thoughts and citations to an interview.

Both of those posts are over two weeks or so old and I haven't got a clue what the flow of the conversations were at that time.

What page of the 1998 Interview are you quoting? Because if that statement came from the 1998 Interview as well he seems to be saying that PR is asking questions as to whether or not to call the police, which tends to be consistent with Page 336 lines 7-10 of his 1998 Interview.

All things said and done with this issue of who did or did not want to call the police there seems to be three ways to look at the variety of statements that may or may not have occurred immediately prior to the 911 call.

1. There was confusion galore at that time
2. The Rs simply can't remember
3. The Rs never sat down and got their stories straight on what they would tell the BPD about that morning.

Take your pick because I don't think analyzing the statements of what may or may not have occurred immediately prior to the 911 call as to who wants to call the police or doesn't isn't going to do diddly squat as to proving who did or did not kill JBR. At best it just brings out another one of those pesky problems of very, very collateral inconsistent statements.

I think there are lot more serious inconsistent statements to discuss, the first of which is PR's statements at Pages 197-207 in her 1998 Interview where she discusses seeing the red "heart" on JBR's palm in the "next morning", referring to the morning after Christmas and going on to describe it as a pretty good little heart and pretty well drawn. I posted that issue in a Post in either the Thread A Newbie with an Idea or Scarves, Scarves, Scarves some time ago and only Nuisance Poster responded with a comment that he has asked that same question with no response. I am still waiting for a good explanation of that one! PR's attempt to qualify that statement the next day left me serioiusly wanting. Any comments on that one?

KingCoyote