In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey

Did anyone else happen to see an item in last week's news about John Ramsey running for some State office and the article stated that his chances of succeeding were almost "nil"? I'm bringing this up because I found it very coincidental that I read this announcement last week and -- now, just a few days later, a Mr. Karr pops up as a possible suspect. Maybe I am being cynical here, but the timing seems interesting. (I am not suggesting Mr. Ramsey is guility or innocent concerning the murder of his daughter, I am just saying that it is very coincidental that he's running for State office with not much support, and now, out of the blue, comes a media blitz about some nut, so it would seem, would could be the killer. A pedophile pornographer he might be, but a killer of children?) Any thoughts out there?

[watson]

I'd have to agree with rosy... the election was 2004, and John Ramsey lost, BUT the really INTERESTING thing to me was WHY he would run at all? In 2004 there was no confessed suspect, Patsy's cancer had not yet returned, the whole country (rightly or wrongly) suspected that Ramsey might have had something to do with his daughters murder. The Ramsey's (again rightly or wrongly) were not the most popular people, and had moved to the far North seclusion of the MI wilds. So why would a unpopular man, under a cloud of suspicion, having opted for seclusion, then run for the most public of offices, where everything about him would be put under a microscope, and actually EXPECT to win? It would be like OJ Simpson coming out and running for govenor of Calf., or Claus Von Bulow running for govenor of CN! I always wondered if his bid for Congress didn't show a grandiose out of touch with reality fantasy life on Ramsey's part.

Remember that John found JonBenet's body and loosened the ligatures and took the duct tape off her mouth. If the crime scene was staged to look like an intruder then why would John UNstage the scene before anyone else saw it.

John would let someone else find the body if he was the guilty party. He would want someone else to view the "staged" crime scene.

Patsy denies giving JonBenet the pineapple. If she were guilty then why wouldn't she just say, "Yeah, I gave her pineapple." She had no reason to lie about that.

JonBenet didn't have an abusive history. I can't imagine that parents who don't beat their children would suddenly bash a child's skull in, wrap a rope with a garrote around the child's neck, and duct tape her face. Even so-called loving parents that suddenly snap and kill a child drown or poison the child so it's a "clean" kill and then wrap the child up lovingly in a blanket or make the child "comfortable". Patsy seemed like she doted on JonBenet and had she killed her in a fit of rage then I would think she would have wrapped her up in a more "comfortable" position.

JMO for what it's worth.

[LI_Mom]

If I killed my child & wanted to cover up, I would want to leave as many 'clues' of an intruder as I could... so the police would look AWAY from my family.

Denying the pineapple, the flashlight, the Hi-tec boots, the baseball bat and the Santa Bear is very smart if I'm guilty.

But if Patsy gave her pineapple then there's no harm in saying so. She has no reaosn to lie about that.

Jonbenet had pineapple. That cannot be disputed. Patsy could not say she fed it to her (and hold to their story) because then the police would have known that Jonbenet was not really asleep when they got home from the party.

IMO

People are thinking too logically. IMO, the story of what occurred after the party was rehearsed AFTER her murder, which at that point would not be two logical, rational human beings discussing their evening.

The simplest response, and the easiest to remember, would be that 'Jonbenet fell asleep on the ride home. We put her to bed.' End of story.

There were obvious problems with the Ramsey story. But, a botched investigation from the very first second LE walked into the Ramsey home made a rather cut and dry case one that will never be 'solved' in a court of law.

IMOOC

Originally posted by Arizona




If the Ramseys was covering their tracks then they also would have been trying to be as logical as they could be and I think that would have included some excuse for the pineapple.

That could NOT happen. They said they put her to bed asleep. If they later admitted to the pineapple, their story would have been debunked. They knew they could ever admit to the pineapple. JMHO

Originally posted by Angelina


That could NOT happen. They said they put her to bed asleep. If they later admitted to the pineapple, their story would have been debunked. They knew they could ever admit to the pineapple. JMHO

Exactly. It is hard to keep lies straight, so the simplest thing to do is make it short and sweet. She fell asleep on the ride home, and we put her to bed. She fell asleep on the ride home, and we put her to bed. She fell asleep on the ride home, and we put her to bed....

IMO

Originally posted by Arizona




If you scroll back on this thread you will see where I posted was all the Ramseys had to say was JonBenet might have got up sometime during the night and got some pineapples for herself.

Exactly, but they never said that, right? Why? maybe because they knew Jonbenet's fingerprints wouldnt be on that bowl of pineapple.

Originally posted by Arizona




The Ramseys said Burk remained downstairs while JonBenet was being tucked into bed when they got home. Wouldnt the Ramseys be worried that Burk would let out their little secret that JonBenet had not been asleep when they got home?

Now that is a possibility.

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Or maybe because they had no idea how she got pineapple in her stomach because they were asleep the whole night.

That is a possibility also.

Originally posted by Arizona




Why wouldnt her fingerprints be on the bowl? It was found in her stomach. Do you think someone fed her?

Report showed that only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl.

The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

I am still trying to figure that out. I am still a fence sitter.

[Athena]

Honestly I cannot fathom a parent who has killed their child to write such a ransom note. There is no way a parent would not know they would be the first to be questioned and their handwriting the first to be analyzed - I don't care what the circumstances.

Even linguistics concur that it is extremely hard if not impossible to disguise one's handwriting in a note that length. Just does not make sense. Find the author and you find the killer and I do not believe it was any of the Ramseys. jmho

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

There is no definitive answer to this. It could be or it may not be.

Originally posted by Athena
Honestly I cannot fathom a parent who has killed their child to write such a ransom note. There is no way a parent would not know they would be the first to be questioned and their handwriting the first to be analyzed - I don't care what the circumstances.

Even linguistics concur that it is extremely hard if not impossible to disguise one's handwriting in a note that length. Just does not make sense. Find the author and you find the killer and I do not believe it was any of the Ramseys. jmho

Have you read the handwriting analysis regarding the Ramson note? It is hours of reading, I felt like you did about the Ramsey's until I read that report. It is very damaging to Patsy. They analyize not only the handwriting but also the form in which it is written. I assure you if you read it, it will floor you. I know it floored me. But, like I said be it is very very long.

Originally posted by Angelina


I am still trying to figure that out. I am still a fence sitter.

It's an odd weapon for anyone to use. And I think it points to someone who has great knowledge of it's use. Either by background, studies, hobbies, etc.

[caphill]

Foriegn male DNA on JonBenet's body, mixed in her blood and in her panties makes an arguement that Patsy or John violated her an absurd stretch of the imagination, IMO.

Originally posted by Arizona




I do not have a link to it but I read the bowl never was fingerprinted. The pineapple went basically unnoticed on the table til the autopsy showed pineapple in her stomach then someone recalled the pineapple on the table and it was also shown in pictures. But was never tested for fingerprints, by then it was to late.

I have read several reports that mentioned the fingerprints on the bowl. If you google it, I am sure you will get some hits on it.
I havent read any reports, that said the was the bowl wasnt fingerprinted.

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


She died from strangulation.

That is what the reports show, but still the experts disagree on which came first, the blow to the head or the strangulation. It is all still very puzzling.

Originally posted by Angelina


That is what the reports show, but still the experts disagree on which came first, the blow to the head or the strangulation. It is all still very puzzling.

You are correct and the blow to the head would have also been fatal.

There are so many puzzling aspects open to different interpretations.

>>INTERESTING thing to me was WHY he would run at all

Why NOT..??... you talk as if he should be ashamed of something... he actually had much support in the Charlevoix area, & did much positive work in the community.

>>moved to the far North seclusion of the MI wilds

again... I would advise you to KNOW what you talk about... Charlevoix is hardly the 'boondocks'...& the Ramsey family had a home there YEARS before the murder..!! JonBenet was "Little Miss Charlevoix" the year BEFORE her death.

But you must admit searching for your kidnapped child in your own home with your best friend but not the police who are the most important and reliable witnesses to crime scene evidence is more than a tad odd and bears explanation if you ask me.

Along with the 3-page Ransom Note, which no one, including Lou Smith, has ever had much success explaining.

Originally posted by Angelina


Have you read the handwriting analysis regarding the Ramson note? It is hours of reading, I felt like you did about the Ramsey's until I read that report. It is very damaging to Patsy. They analyize not only the handwriting but also the form in which it is written. I assure you if you read it, it will floor you. I know it floored me. But, like I said be it is very very long.

I found one of the links I read. See what you think.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=6404

[caphill]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Yes, it was fingerprinted. Patsy's & Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. Burke's fingerprints were on the tea glass. From PM/PT.

And your point is........


If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

Originally posted by caphill



And your point is........


If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

Yet, she said she didn't do it.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Angelina


Have you read the handwriting analysis regarding the Ramson note? It is hours of reading, I felt like you did about the Ramsey's until I read that report. It is very damaging to Patsy. They analyize not only the handwriting but also the form in which it is written. I assure you if you read it, it will floor you. I know it floored me. But, like I said be it is very very long.

I do respect your opinion. Can you provide a link? I honestly have searched and read almost all of the handwriting analysis articles and I have read there was no consensus that Patsy wrote the note both by the linguistics the police hired (approximately 6) and the two that the Ramseys hired so it is possible I haven't read the one you refer to. I did do some extensive reading.

Originally posted by caphill



And your point is........


If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

There is no point, the facts are just being presented. Patsy denied having anything to do with pineapple, though.

Originally posted by Athena


I do respect your opinion. Can you provide a link? I honestly have searched and read almost all of the handwriting analysis articles and I have read there was no consensus that Patsy wrote the note both by the linguistics the police hired (approximately 6) and the two that the Ramseys hired so it is possible I haven't read the one you refer to. I did do some extensive reading.

I just posted the one that caught my attention, just scroll back a bit, I thought you might want to see it. I respect you opinion, as well.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Former Juror


Yet, she said she didn't do it.

Who cut the pineapple, put it in a bowl and put it in the table?

The maid? When was the maid last at the house. Was she there Christmas day?

Ok, forget the pineapple for now. Why would John unstage a "staged" crime scene? It doesn't make sense.

And Patsy writing the note. I can't imagine someone who is not a violent woman (by all accounts) bashing her daughter's skull in, staging a crime scene by twisting rope around her neck, tying her wrists, and duct taping her, and then spending time sitting and writing a ransom note. If Patsy was even capable of killing JonBenet so violently then she would be so rattled by it that I can't fathom her sitting and writing a note. What would be the purpose? She would realize that a ransom note would be even MORE for police to analyze. Why risk it?

Another point about the ransom amount. In John Douglas' book The Cases That Haunt Us he mentions that $118,000 was roughly 1 million pesos at that time. He theorized that the person could have been fleeing to Mexico or could have been Mexican. Of course, Karr is not from Mexico but that was just something else to ponder.

Originally posted by Arizona




I did find a link stating Patsy's fingerprints was on the bowl. I was looking for the link I had read, but that was some time ago.

I still feel if they wasnt telling the truth about JonBenet being asleep when they got home Burke would have made a slip to LE.

That it is possible, but Burke could have been carried to bed asleep. He wouldnt have much memory of anything if that is the case. It could have just as easily been the other way around, that Burke was carried up asleep and Jonbenet was awake. I am still a fence sitter, mainly because of the DNA under the fingernails. While the details of the pineapple are interesting, the DNA evidence it what I keep wanting answers for.

Originally posted by caphill



Who cut the pineapple, put it in a bowl and put it in the table?

The maid? When was the maid last at the house. Was she there Christmas day?

The pineapple was in the bowl. Burke and Patsy's prints were on the bowl; the maid's were not. Jonbenet's prints were not on the bowl, yet the pineapple was in Jonbenet's system. Someone fed it to her.

Originally posted by SundayMoon
Ok, forget the pineapple for now. Why would John unstage a "staged" crime scene? It doesn't make sense.

And Patsy writing the note. I can't imagine someone who is not a violent woman (by all accounts) bashing her daughter's skull in, staging a crime scene by twisting rope around her neck, tying her wrists, and duct taping her, and then spending time sitting and writing a ransom note. If Patsy was even capable of killing JonBenet so violently then she would be so rattled by it that I can't fathom her sitting and writing a note. What would be the purpose? She would realize that a ransom note would be even MORE for police to analyze. Why risk it?

Another point about the ransom amount. In John Douglas' book The Cases That Haunt Us he mentions that $118,000 was roughly 1 million pesos at that time. He theorized that the person could have been fleeing to Mexico or could have been Mexican. Of course, Karr is not from Mexico but that was just something else to ponder.

I have thought about this myself. Remember I am speculating, I am a fence sitter. Patsy and John by all accounts were great parents, who would do anything for their children. Now, knowing that, if Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet, what lengths do you think they would go to in order to protect him. If they knew Jonbenet was dead, their precious baby, gone, wouldnt they do everything in their power to keep what was left of the family together? I think it is possible.

Originally posted by caphill



Who cut the pineapple, put it in a bowl and put it in the table?

The maid? When was the maid last at the house. Was she there Christmas day?

Dont know that, all we know is Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were the only fingerprints on the bowl. It appears someone would have to feed Jonbenet, since her prints were not on the bowl. But, if the bowl was merely placed before her on the table, she could have ate from it, without leaving a print, unlikely, but possible. Who knows

Originally posted by Angelina


I have thought about this myself. Remember I am speculating, I am a fence sitter. Patsy and John by all accounts were great parents, who would do anything for their children. Now, knowing that, if Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet, what lengths do you think they would go to in order to protect him. If they knew Jonbenet was dead, their precious baby, gone, wouldnt they do everything in their power to keep what was left of the family together? I think it is possible.

But there's no way that was an accidental murder. I've seen autopsy pictures and the gash in her skull is so violent. Even if it WAS possible that Burke did it do you really thing that the parents would cover it up by garroting JonBenet, tying her up, putting duct tape on her mouth, and writing a ridiculous ransom note? I just can't fathom it.

Originally posted by SundayMoon


But there's no way that was an accidental murder. I've seen autopsy pictures and the gash in her skull is so violent. Even if it WAS possible that Burke did it do you really thing that the parents would cover it up by garroting JonBenet, tying her up, putting duct tape on her mouth, and writing a ridiculous ransom note? I just can't fathom it.

It is hard to believe most aspects of this case, that is why I try to keep an open mind. It doesnt sound like something the Ramsey's would do, but, going through many things in my life, I have learned quickly just becasue something doesnt sound right or thinking someone couldnt possibly have done something, and then finding out they did, makes me question everything. I have had monsters in my presence, and never knew it until it was too late. Why? because I believed they would or could have never done that, because it didnt make sense. But, when all was said and done, I was wrong, horribly wrong. JMHO

[Cornblossom]

Originally posted by Athena


I do respect your opinion. Can you provide a link? I honestly have searched and read almost all of the handwriting analysis articles and I have read there was no consensus that Patsy wrote the note both by the linguistics the police hired (approximately 6) and the two that the Ramseys hired so it is possible I haven't read the one you refer to. I did do some extensive reading.

handwriting analysis