The Public Behavior of the Ramseys & Other Info About Them

[docg]

from their "Burden of Proof" interview of April 28, 2000, with Roger Cossack and Greta van Susteren:

COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?
J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.
P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...
J. RAMSEY: Being a lawyer, also recognize that any lawyer would tell their clients: Do not, under any circumstances, take a police polygraph test. They are subjective. We've gotten a number of letters from former polygraphers, we got one the other day from a retired FBI polygrapher, who said I could make the pope look deceptive, if I chose to do so. We got a letter from a state attorney general who said: You are absolutely correct, it must be fair and independent if you are going to do this. Don't give up on the point.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by docg
from their "Burden of Proof" interview of April 28, 2000, with Roger Cossack and Greta van Susteren:

COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?
J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.
P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...
J. RAMSEY: Being a lawyer, also recognize that any lawyer would tell their clients: Do not, under any circumstances, take a police polygraph test. They are subjective. We've gotten a number of letters from former polygraphers, we got one the other day from a retired FBI polygrapher, who said I could make the pope look deceptive, if I chose to do so. We got a letter from a state attorney general who said: You are absolutely correct, it must be fair and independent if you are going to do this. Don't give up on the point.

They had two sets of polygraphs. The first was inconclusive. Meaning they didn't pass or fail it. They pass the second set with flying colors.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon052500a.htm

[docg]

from the same interview:

"VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask the question -- and don't mean to invade the attorney-client privilege, but this whole -- I mean, frankly, I'm with Roger and I don't care how innocent my clients are, I never want them to take polygraph tests because people can fail them who are innocent. So it's always a problem. But given that, have you -- you know, have you actually done -- have you been polygraphed on this particular issue -- either one of you at this point?
J. RAMSEY: We can't answer that, Greta. That's, I believe, is an attorney-client privilege. What we have said is we will take a fair and independent polygraph test.
P. RAMSEY: There is no question that we are afraid to ask. The truth does not change. If you ask me any question, I will, as truthfully as I possibly, humanly can, answer the question. And there's nothing I'm afraid to answer.
COSSACK: John, why do you think it's attorney-client privilege just for the notion of whether or not you took the test? I'm not asking you what the results were, but just merely whether or not you have taken the test independently.
P. RAMSEY: We're looking forward to taking the test. Hopefully -- I mean, I see no reason why this test, this leading person that has -- whose name has been given to the police chief, Beckner, hopefully that -- you know, I can't imagine why he would not accept this person's name. He's preeminent. So we look forward to that."

This interview PRECEDED the tests we've all heard about.

[Louisadelmar]

So where is your evidence they took and failed a test?

[MyrDawn]

docg, are you implying they took THREE sets of polygraphs, passed one set, another was inconclusive, and they failed the third? If so, what's the basis for this?

Every thing I've ever heard or read states they took 2 sets, not 3.

I was under the impression that whatever number of polygraph tests the Rs took, they were all admistered by examiners of their own choosing.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I was under the impression that whatever number of polygraph tests the Rs took, they were all admistered by examiners of their own choosing.

That's right. They refused to let FBI test them, they refused to take a test that required a drug test as well, and they only passed tests that were administered by people hired by the Ramseys - after not passing the first time.

Hardly impartial proof.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I was under the impression that whatever number of polygraph tests the Rs took, they were all admistered by examiners of their own choosing.

And didn't Jennifer Wilbank's fiance, John Mason do the same thing?

[docg]

Do I really have to spell it out for you? Isn't there anyone here capable of drawing a logical inference?

[Athena]

I had to go searching because I do remember that the Ramseys took a polygraph before the ones that Ed Gelb gave. But the polygraph test administered by Trocellio was inconclusive -- not that they failed. Unfortunately not much out there on this first test other than what can be found in forums and again because the forums tend to be pro- or anti-Ramsey I do not subscribe to them being credible:
But why the first polygraph both John and Patsy Ramsey took, on April 17, turned out to be "inconclusive" remains a mystery.

"If you knew why it was inconclusive, then it would not be inconclusive," was the only answer Wood provided.

Gerard Toriello, the New Jersey polygrapher who performed the first tests on the Ramseys in Atlanta on April 17, did not return calls to the Daily Camera on Thursday.


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/...0/26apoly.html



GERALDO: But is it not a fact that you administered a series of tests, the results of which were inconclusive?

GELB: No, that's not correct.

GERALDO: Then where does that report come from? To the best of your knowledge, have the Ramseys ever taken a lie detector test the results of which were inconclusive?

GELB: Yes they did, with Gerry Toriello in New Jersey.

GERALDO: And when, timewise, were those tests.

GELB: Well prior to the examinations that I conducted.

GERALDO: So, prior to the examinations that you conducted, they took and did not pass a lie detector test?

GELB: They did not fail; they ran inconclusive or what the government calls, "no opinion." And based on that result, their attorney offered that they take a polygraph test with me without even notifying me that that offer had been made.

GERALDO: So, you admit as you sit there, Dr. Gelb, that another polygraph examiner - and his reputation is what? Will you fill us in? Is he a reputable polygrapher?

GELB: Yes he is.

GERALDO: And you admit that his results were different, significantly, than yours?

GELB: Of course. They were inconclusive, no opinion.

GERALDO: So, what happened between their taking that test and their taking your test?

GELB: Well, there's an adage in the business, Geraldo, and it says that, "The clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier." People can take polygraph tests and run inconclusive. They can subsequently be re-tested by another examiner and prove to be conclusively truthful, and those are the results I stand by: A well-conducted examination by a recognized expert. That's me.

GERALDO: But you said that the other fellow was a well-recognized expert. Can we not presume that his tests were as well administered?

GELB: Oh yes, and I've run inconclusive examinations too in my life.

GERALDO: Is this a classic reason why polygraphs are deemed, legally speaking, unreliable?

GELB: Well, they're not deemed unreliable. The accuracy runs around 94-95%. What is the fact is that we don't have trial by polygraph in this country. We have trials by judges and juries. Those are the people who decide guilt and innocence, not polygraph examiners.

GERALDO: But Ed, are you not troubled by the fact that this other fellow, of equal renown, came to a different conclusion?

GELB: Absolutely not. He came to no conclusion, or as the United States Government calls it, "no opinion."

GERALDO: And that doesn't affect your confidence in your own results?

GELB: Absolutely not. I'm very confident in my results, to a certainty of 94-95%.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/0530200...iongeraldo.htm

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena
I had to go searching because I do remember that the Ramseys took a polygraph before the ones that Ed Gelb gave. But the polygraph test administered by Trocellio was inconclusive -- not that they failed. Unfortunately not much out there on this first test other than what can be found in forums and again because the forums tend to be pro- or anti-Ramsey I do not subscribe to them being credible:
But why the first polygraph both John and Patsy Ramsey took, on April 17, turned out to be "inconclusive" remains a mystery.
<snip>

Thanks, Athena, that's very helpful.

It seems clear from the "Burden of Proof" interview that the Ramseys must, indeed, have taken a privately administered polygraph. Otherwise they'd have denied it. It seems clear as well that they didn't pass, otherwise they'd have said so. Their comments about "attorney-client" privilege are transparent dodges. That protection applies to the attorney, NOT the client. The attorney isn't free to respond, but the client certainly is. What they meant was not that they weren't free to respond but that they didn't WANT to respond. The information Athena provides above may be telling us why. It's possible also that they took yet another polygraph even earlier, that's never been mentioned publicly.

As an aside, I can't resist a comment or two regarding the competence of Lin Wood as a defense attorney. NO competent lawyer would have allowed John and Patsy to be interviewed on such a show, period. That was exactly the type of question Wood should have realized someone might ask. The Ramseys had no meaningful answer and were required to improvise and, in fact, dissemble. Wood's strong suit is publicity and media manipulation -- at that he's a genius. But if John is ever prosecuted for this crime, he'd better find an attorney who knows what he's doing in a criminal case.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by docg

Thanks, Athena, that's very helpful.

It seems clear from the "Burden of Proof" interview that the Ramseys must, indeed, have taken a privately administered polygraph. Otherwise they'd have denied it. It seems clear as well that they didn't pass, otherwise they'd have said so. Their comments about "attorney-client" privilege are transparent dodges. That protection applies to the attorney, NOT the client. The attorney isn't free to respond, but the client certainly is. What they meant was not that they weren't free to respond but that they didn't WANT to respond. The information Athena provides above may be telling us why. It's possible also that they took yet another polygraph even earlier, that's never been mentioned publicly.

[...]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9706.html
[…]
Only the client has the power to waive the attorney-client privilege. It is important to bear in mind that a waiver may occur even though the client does not intend to waive the privilege. For example, if the client carelessly allows the information to be disclosed to others, confidentiality will be lost, and a waiver will occur. The waiver may also result from failure to object to the demand for disclosure in litigation. Once the privilege has been waived, it is treated as a waiver for all purposes.
[…]

[docg]

If the Ramseys took and failed an earlier polygraph, it would be interesting to speculate on who failed what questions. The account provided regarding the earlier, pre-Gelb polygraph suggests a problem with Patsy's hand movements. The polygrapher who performed that test was "unavailable for comment." Translation: he was constrained by attorney-client privilege from relating what really happened, what his results were and also what sort of conversation he had with the Ramseys and their lawyers about how to treat his results. The fact is that anything at all could have occured during those sessions, including a huge fight over what the results were and what they might mean. This is the problem with such a test, controlled by the suspects lawyer and constrained by atty-client privilege. For all we know one of them could have broken down and confessed. The polygrapher would NOT legally be in a position to report any of that.

As a great believer in the power of logical inference I will toss out an inference of my own that could explain one of the oddest aspects of the official polygraph finally given by Gelb, the ONLY one trumpeted to the public as evidence they were being completely truthful. If John wasn't asked about the ransom note, that tells us, it would seem to me, that he must have failed a question on that topic in one of the earlier tests. The official reason was that there was no reason to ask him such a question because the handwriting experts had eliminated him. That strikes me as VERY lame. Even if he didn't write it he might well know who did. No, I think the question wasn't asked because he was asked a similar question earlier, with embarrassing -- and possibly very damaging -- results. We may never know for sure thanks to the convenient lawyer-client privilege law which would prevent anyone involved from reporting the truth.

[sweetcharlotte]

No.

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg
If the Ramseys took and failed an earlier polygraph, it would be interesting to speculate on who failed what questions. The account provided regarding the earlier, pre-Gelb polygraph suggests a problem with Patsy's hand movements. The polygrapher who performed that test was "unavailable for comment." Translation: he was constrained by attorney-client privilege from relating what really happened, what his results were and also what sort of conversation he had with the Ramseys and their lawyers about how to treat his results. The fact is that anything at all could have occured during those sessions, including a huge fight over what the results were and what they might mean. This is the problem with such a test, controlled by the suspects lawyer and constrained by atty-client privilege. For all we know one of them could have broken down and confessed. The polygrapher would NOT legally be in a position to report any of that.

As a great believer in the power of logical inference I will toss out an inference of my own that could explain one of the oddest aspects of the official polygraph finally given by Gelb, the ONLY one trumpeted to the public as evidence they were being completely truthful. If John wasn't asked about the ransom note, that tells us, it would seem to me, that he must have failed a question on that topic in one of the earlier tests. The official reason was that there was no reason to ask him such a question because the handwriting experts had eliminated him. That strikes me as VERY lame. Even if he didn't write it he might well know who did. No, I think the question wasn't asked because he was asked a similar question earlier, with embarrassing -- and possibly very damaging -- results. We may never know for sure thanks to the convenient lawyer-client privilege law which would prevent anyone involved from reporting the truth.

The only issue I have with your interpretation of the results of this first test is that they DID NOT fail. The tests were inconclusive. Inconclusive means that the examiner received inconsistent results and therefore could not discern what the truth was or where the lies occurred, if any. I think you are reading too much into this test. jmo

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena


The only issue I have with your interpretation of the results of this first test is that they DID NOT fail. The tests were inconclusive. Inconclusive means that the examiner received inconsistent results and therefore could not discern what the truth was or where the lies occurred, if any. I think you are reading too much into this test. jmo

First of all, the earlier polygraph the Ramseys avoided discussing might have preceded the one you're referring to. If the results had been inconclusive, couldn't they have admitted that? Why dissemble?

Second of all, your interpretation doesn't explain why John wasn't asked about the note. The fact that he was eliminated as the writer of the note is NOT an adequate reason to deliberately avoid asking him about it. Since this was a Ramsey controlled test, protected by lawyer-client privilege, it was especially important to make sure there could be nothing questionable about it. Yet Patsy was asked that question and John wasn't. That's a HUGE gap in the process. There's got to be more of a reason for it then the lame excuse they presented.

[Ames]

Originally posted by victims feel
When at first you do not succeed...try and try again.....


doc: thanks for all your info on this very disturbing part of this case....

Hi there, I would like your opinion on the fact that John and Patsy were with friends in separate rooms, before JB was "found". They were not comforting each other, as you would think the mother and father of a "missing" child would have been. They did not even speak to each other, and were in separate rooms of the house, with friends. What do you think about that? I thought it was odd.

[docg]

Originally posted by Ames


Hi there, I would like your opinion on the fact that John and Patsy were with friends in separate rooms, before JB was "found". They were not comforting each other, as you would think the mother and father of a "missing" child would have been. They did not even speak to each other, and were in separate rooms of the house, with friends. What do you think about that? I thought it was odd.

I think the fact that they were in different rooms reflects their very different roles. Patsy called in friends because she needed support. She spent the time with her friends who were apparently providing her with the support she needed.

John apparently didn't need support. He roamed the house, "looking for clues," so he said. But when he found one, a huge one, an open window, broken, with debris from the well on the floor and a suitcase flush to the wall beneath it, he closed the window and failed to report anything unusual. He also managed to get out from under police radar for an extended period of time when he could have gone anywhere at all, and dumped evidence, such as tape, cord, glass, you name it.

Because people made up their minds so early on that Patsy and John had to be in on it together, everyone interpreted their behavior in such terms -- as though they must have had some sort of fight that led to JonBenet's death and were upset with one another. Sorry, that's not consistent with their living together for the next ten years in apparent harmony.

As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.

[Ames]

Originally posted by victims feel


<snipped>
you can fool some of the people some of the time....BUT.....


we aint' fooled Ames!

NO WE AIN'T!!!

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


I think the fact that they were in different rooms reflects their very different roles. Patsy called in friends because she needed support. She spent the time with her friends who were apparently providing her with the support she needed.

John apparently didn't need support. He roamed the house, "looking for clues," so he said. But when he found one, a huge one, an open window, broken, with debris from the well on the floor and a suitcase flush to the wall beneath it, he closed the window and failed to report anything unusual. He also managed to get out from under police radar for an extended period of time when he could have gone anywhere at all, and dumped evidence, such as tape, cord, glass, you name it.

Because people made up their minds so early on that Patsy and John had to be in on it together, everyone interpreted their behavior in such terms -- as though they must have had some sort of fight that led to JonBenet's death and were upset with one another. Sorry, that's not consistent with their living together for the next ten years in apparent harmony.

As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.

Good point, I have always felt that one or both were involved, but didn't know which one. I flip flop between the two, BUT from what I have read, I am now leaning more toward John, also. Have you ever noticed that smug grin of his, during all of his televised interviews? Almost like he is trying to hold back a laugh, or something. I have always thought that was strange for a person, that just had "found" their daughter murdered. What do YOU think???

Originally posted by Ames


Good point, I have always felt that one or both were involved, but didn't know which one. I flip flop between the two, BUT from what I have read, I am now leaning more toward John, also. Have you ever noticed that smug grin of his, during all of his televised interviews? Almost like he is trying to hold back a laugh, or something. I have always thought that was strange for a person, that just had "found" their daughter murdered. What do YOU think???

Thats one of thing I noticed about his odd behavior. He also acted recluse since 26th which makes me suspicion. While Patsy was talking, I noticed John had interrupted several times after he act sort of antsy on what Patsy was trying to say. While John was talking, I noticed his eyes were looking at left, which the creativity area on his brain was trying to simulate to what he said meaning he was lying or being creativity. If he eyes were looking at right, it would mean he was trying to remember or recall his memories. JMO

Also he tend to say, "I don't remember", if he want the killer found and caught, and this case to be solved, then he would want to remember to the details and be very cooperate with the police without getting his lawyers the first thing in the morning. He is a no where that desperate of a normal father who is innocent wanting to find the killer so bad, who brutally killed his own 6 yrs old daughter, to bring the killer to justice by doing everything he can. IMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by docg


snip..........

As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.

Not everyone becomes paralyzed with anxiety in a crisis.

I have a neighbor like that. Her little boy cut his leg very badly while playing outside and she became hysterical. First she screamed, then she just stood there shaking and imobilized, like she was frozen with fear. I had to put a tourniquet on his leg and call 911.

When my own daughter was about 2, she playing with her grandpa and he gave her a sucker and was playing with her chasing her down the hallway. I heard her squealing and him laughing but had no idea she had anything in her mouth. She tripped, part of the sucker got lodged somewhere in her airway, and he stood there screaming while she turned blue. I came running to see what was wrong and the minute I saw her blue face I knew she wasn't getting air for some reason so I picked her up by the ankles and whacked her on the back, and the piece of sucker disloged and flew across the room, and she let out a yelp and started breathing again.

IMO, John did have things he felt he needed to do...the police were doing squat, so he went looking for clues that might lead to the recovery of his daughter, whom at that point he thought was kidnapped and might still be alive.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn



IMO, John did have things he felt he needed to do...the police were doing squat, so he went looking for clues that might lead to the recovery of his daughter, whom at that point he thought was kidnapped and might still be alive.

I'm glad to hear your daughter was okay. Scary.


If John Ramsey thought his daughter was kidnapped and might still be alive, then why did he jeopardize that by going against the instructions of the RN and allowing Patsy to call over so many people? He knew the RN said JonBenet's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, who was watching the house, knew they called anyone - anyone at all. I can see calling police (although I would have made sure to tell them that my child's life had been threatened, so for the love of god don't let them know I've called you), but I can't see going ahead and calling that many friends over when the RN explicitly says we're watching you and will DECAPITATE your baby if we see you so much as talking to a stray dog.

If John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, why did he allow his son Burke to leave the house to go somewhere else - without a police escort? How could he be sure that the kidnappers weren't very near by and watching and take the chance to kidnap or kill Burke as well?

And lastly, if John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, WHY, when he went to the basement alone and found an open window like he claimed, did he not yell for the detective who was right upstairs? Why did he close that window, obliterating any possible prints? And most of all - WHY did he go back upstairs and say nothing to anyone at all - not the detective who was there in a law enforcement capacity, not his best friend who was there for support, and not his wife who seemingly distraught and anxious and ready to have a breakdown? Why did he not say anything about it for four months?

Officers French and Veitch had been down there earlier that morning, searching for a point of entry, and neither of them saw that window open - and that's precisely what they were searching for - a window that someone could have come through. Fleet White had been down there that morning, and same thing - looked for a way the killer may have come in and didn't find it.

Now we're supposed to believe John Ramsey when he says he did find it open - even though he's saying it four months after the fact, and when he found it he went back upstairs and sat down and said nothing anyone at all.

And at the same time he's telling police of this open window that only he saw but never bothered to mention, he's sitting there contradicting the version of events he had told police on the 26th in several other aspects as well - now JB was asleep, and he hadn't read to her, and the doors weren't locked after all....

IMO, John Ramsey is a liar. He knew that ransom note wasn't real, and he never saw any open window.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm glad to hear your daughter was okay. Scary.


If John Ramsey thought his daughter was kidnapped and might still be alive, then why did he jeopardize that by going against the instructions of the RN and allowing Patsy to call over so many people? He knew the RN said JonBenet's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, who was watching the house, knew they called anyone - anyone at all. I can see calling police (although I would have made sure to tell them that my child's life had been threatened, so for the love of god don't let them know I've called you), but I can't see going ahead and calling that many friends over when the RN explicitly says we're watching you and will DECAPITATE your baby if we see you so much as talking to a stray dog.

If John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, why did he allow his son Burke to leave the house to go somewhere else - without a police escort? How could he be sure that the kidnappers weren't very near by and watching and take the chance to kidnap or kill Burke as well?

And lastly, if John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, WHY, when he went to the basement alone and found an open window like he claimed, did he not yell for the detective who was right upstairs? Why did he close that window, obliterating any possible prints? And most of all - WHY did he go back upstairs and say nothing to anyone at all - not the detective who was there in a law enforcement capacity, not his best friend who was there for support, and not his wife who seemingly distraught and anxious and ready to have a breakdown? Why did he not say anything about it for four months?

Officers French and Veitch had been down there earlier that morning, searching for a point of entry, and neither of them saw that window open - and that's precisely what they were searching for - a window that someone could have come through. Fleet White had been down there that morning, and same thing - looked for a way the killer may have come in and didn't find it.

Now we're supposed to believe John Ramsey when he says he did find it open - even though he's saying it four months after the fact, and when he found it he went back upstairs and sat down and said nothing anyone at all.

And at the same time he's telling police of this open window that only he saw but never bothered to mention, he's sitting there contradicting the version of events he had told police on the 26th in several other aspects as well - now JB was asleep, and he hadn't read to her, and the doors weren't locked after all....

IMO, John Ramsey is a liar. He knew that ransom note wasn't real, and he never saw any open window.

Did John know Patsy was making those phone calls?

About Burke, maybe he wanted to protect Burke from the trauma the police and activity at the house could cause. It must have been chaos. And, with all the police and people around, he probably didn't think the kidnapper would try anything more.

About the window, John said he's the one that broke it. If that's true, he probably didn't think it had anything to do with JonBenet being kidnapped. But, Fleet White had gone down to the basement before John did. VERY shortly after he arrived at the house, in fact. He saw the broken window. Why did he pick up the piece of glass from the floor and put it on the suitcase? Why did he move the suitcase? Why didn't he say anything about that broken window, the broken glass he moved, or the suitcase?

[docg]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I'm glad to hear your daughter was okay. Scary.


If John Ramsey thought his daughter was kidnapped and might still be alive, then why did he jeopardize that by going against the instructions of the RN and allowing Patsy to call over so many people? He knew the RN said JonBenet's head would be cut off if the kidnapper, who was watching the house, knew they called anyone - anyone at all. I can see calling police (although I would have made sure to tell them that my child's life had been threatened, so for the love of god don't let them know I've called you), but I can't see going ahead and calling that many friends over when the RN explicitly says we're watching you and will DECAPITATE your baby if we see you so much as talking to a stray dog.

If John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, why did he allow his son Burke to leave the house to go somewhere else - without a police escort? How could he be sure that the kidnappers weren't very near by and watching and take the chance to kidnap or kill Burke as well?

And lastly, if John Ramsey thought his daughter had been kidnapped, WHY, when he went to the basement alone and found an open window like he claimed, did he not yell for the detective who was right upstairs? Why did he close that window, obliterating any possible prints? And most of all - WHY did he go back upstairs and say nothing to anyone at all - not the detective who was there in a law enforcement capacity, not his best friend who was there for support, and not his wife who seemingly distraught and anxious and ready to have a breakdown? Why did he not say anything about it for four months?

Officers French and Veitch had been down there earlier that morning, searching for a point of entry, and neither of them saw that window open - and that's precisely what they were searching for - a window that someone could have come through. Fleet White had been down there that morning, and same thing - looked for a way the killer may have come in and didn't find it.

Now we're supposed to believe John Ramsey when he says he did find it open - even though he's saying it four months after the fact, and when he found it he went back upstairs and sat down and said nothing anyone at all.

And at the same time he's telling police of this open window that only he saw but never bothered to mention, he's sitting there contradicting the version of events he had told police on the 26th in several other aspects as well - now JB was asleep, and he hadn't read to her, and the doors weren't locked after all....

IMO, John Ramsey is a liar. He knew that ransom note wasn't real, and he never saw any open window.

Very well said, nuisance. I agree.

But I think he DID find that window open. Because the evidence tells us he himself must have opened it the previous night, as part of his staging. I think he came clean on that months later only because DA Hunter had made the HUGE mistake of handing him the police reports. My guess is that the police were down there before him, saw that window open and later noticed it had been shut, and were probably suspicious of John at that point.

Also, we don't know when John closed that window. No reason to accept his version of that. I feel sure he did close it, though, because that's consistent with the plan A - plan B scenario that reveals itself in the evidence. Plan A: stage a kidnapping by writing a note, breaking a window and leaving it open. Plan B: when the police are called despite the warnings in your note, the greatest danger is the now obvious window staging -- so close the window and claim you broke it months earlier.

[nuisanceposter]

Yes, John knew Patsy was making those phone calls. He was supposedly on the floor reading the note while she called 911, and the phone's right there in earshot. She made those calls one right after the other, and he had to have gotten to the part about JonBenet being decapitated by the time she was done talking to 911.

No one with any sense or concern for their children is going to send their other child out of the house and their protective watch when their baby has been kidnapped and her life threatened in that manner. At the very least he should have asked for a police escort. He had no way of knowing what this kidnapper might do, and I can't believe JR would have risked Burke's life as well unless he knew it would be safe. They also sent Burke right back to school within weeks. They knew there were no kidnappers.

Fleet White isn't the one with a kidnapped/murdered child, so his actions are not in question here. What is in question is the fact that John Ramsey claims he found an open window, shut it, and went upstairs and said nothing for FOUR months. And on top of that, when he went to this interview after waiting for four months, he contradicted his previous story of what happened both Christmas night and the morning of the 26th.

[docg]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Did John know Patsy was making those phone calls?

About Burke, maybe he wanted to protect Burke from the trauma the police and activity at the house could cause. It must have been chaos. And, with all the police and people around, he probably didn't think the kidnapper would try anything more.

About the window, John said he's the one that broke it. If that's true, he probably didn't think it had anything to do with JonBenet being kidnapped. But, Fleet White had gone down to the basement before John did. VERY shortly after he arrived at the house, in fact. He saw the broken window. Why did he pick up the piece of glass from the floor and put it on the suitcase? Why did he move the suitcase? Why didn't he say anything about that broken window, the broken glass he moved, or the suitcase?

If JonBenet's attacker were someone "out to get" John, then there'd be every reason for alarm and every reason to protect not only Burke but Patsy and himself. But after an initial period under police protection they simply "went on with their lives" as though there were no particular cause for alarm.

Yes, John said he's the one that broke it earlier. But the story he's told about breaking it earlier is simply not credible. He can hardly remember a single detail, not even what month it happened, why he didn't have a key, why he didn't get one from his neighbor, how he crawled in -- forward or backward, how he broke the window, or even whether it was later repaired. And the housekeeper has denied knowing anything about any broken window.

We don't know WHEN John closed that window, or whether Fleet was really down there first. Why accept John's version of when he closed it, he's our chief suspect? And we don't know what Fleet reported to the police and certainly have no reason to believe he failed to mention anything he'd seen. Those reports have never been made public.

to obliterate prints. Perhaps he did it to ADD his prints, that should have already been there IF the story he had to tell about coming thru that window prior to this, was actually true.

First he closes the window, then draws attention to it and what he had done earlier, when he and Fleet white canvass the area together later on.

Suspicious? You bet!

[Ames]

Originally posted by harz


Thats one of thing I noticed about his odd behavior. He also acted recluse since 26th which makes me suspicion. While Patsy was talking, I noticed John had interrupted several times after he act sort of antsy on what Patsy was trying to say. While John was talking, I noticed his eyes were looking at left, which the creativity area on his brain was trying to simulate to what he said meaning he was lying or being creativity. If he eyes were looking at right, it would mean he was trying to remember or recall his memories. JMO

Also he tend to say, "I don't remember", if he want the killer found and caught, and this case to be solved, then he would want to remember to the details and be very cooperate with the police without getting his lawyers the first thing in the morning. He is a no where that desperate of a normal father who is innocent wanting to find the killer so bad, who brutally killed his own 6 yrs old daughter, to bring the killer to justice by doing everything he can. IMO

Antsy...YES..thats a good word for him, coupled with the fact that he had that stupid grin on his face. (Almost like he was thinking..."I know something that YOU don't know." (IMO) My daughter does that if she is lying about something...and the smirk ALWAYS gives it away. I tell you what, if it was MY daughter that was found murdered, I sure as heck would find a way to remember everything. I don't care what I had to do. But, John seemed/seems to me, to not be trying very hard to remember. "I don't remember" is an easy way out. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


Very well said, nuisance. I agree.

But I think he DID find that window open. Because the evidence tells us he himself must have opened it the previous night, as part of his staging. I think he came clean on that months later only because DA Hunter had made the HUGE mistake of handing him the police reports. My guess is that the police were down there before him, saw that window open and later noticed it had been shut, and were probably suspicious of John at that point.

Also, we don't know when John closed that window. No reason to accept his version of that. I feel sure he did close it, though, because that's consistent with the plan A - plan B scenario that reveals itself in the evidence. Plan A: stage a kidnapping by writing a note, breaking a window and leaving it open. Plan B: when the police are called despite the warnings in your note, the greatest danger is the now obvious window staging -- so close the window and claim you broke it months earlier.

I am sure that you have read Linda Arndt's deposition. She said that she knew the instant that she saw John carrying JB's body, that he was guilty of murdering her. She said that it was the WAY that he carried her...UPRIGHT...and with her head above his, that was strange to her. I had never heard or read that before, until I read her deposition. Why the heck would he hold her THAT way? That was weird!! She said it was like he was giving her a bear hug, but that her head was above his, and not even with his. To all of you guys that believe that John is guilty (and I am ONE of those), what do you think about this? I will post Linda Arndt's depostion if needed. Thanks guys!

[Ames]

Originally posted by bookratt
to obliterate prints. Perhaps he did it to ADD his prints, that should have already been there IF the story he had to tell about coming thru that window prior to this, was actually true.

First he closes the window, then draws attention to it and what he had done earlier, when he and Fleet white canvass the area together later on.

Suspicious? You bet!

My thoughts exactly...the same reason he closed the window, is the same reason that he picked JB up and carried her, to explain his fibers and his prints. IMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Not everyone becomes paralyzed with anxiety in a crisis.

<snip>

IMO, John did have things he felt he needed to do...the police were doing squat, so he went looking for clues that might lead to the recovery of his daughter, whom at that point he thought was kidnapped and might still be alive.

Exactly.

[docg]

Originally posted by Ames


I am sure that you have read Linda Arndt's deposition. She said that she knew the instant that she saw John carrying JB's body, that he was guilty of murdering her. She said that it was the WAY that he carried her...UPRIGHT...and with her head above his, that was strange to her. I had never heard or read that before, until I read her deposition. Why the heck would he hold her THAT way? That was weird!! She said it was like he was giving her a bear hug, but that her head was above his, and not even with his. To all of you guys that believe that John is guilty (and I am ONE of those), what do you think about this? I will post Linda Arndt's depostion if needed. Thanks guys!

Sorry, but I can't take such subjective reponses seriously. Arndt may be convinced John killed JonBenet but she offers no real evidence, unfortunately, just her own intuitive take on what John did and how it looked to her. If we went by such "evidence" we'd have reason to believe just about everyone ever named as a possible suspect did it.

Arndt's report about losing track of John, which was in fact a source of embarrassment for her, is far more significant.

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


<snipped>

Arndt's report about losing track of John, which was in fact a source of embarrassment for her, is far more significant.

TRUE! But, I thought it was pretty odd that he would carry her body the way that he did...straight up and down, and not in his arms, with her neck on one arm, and his other arm, behind her knees. Maybe there is nothing to that at all, I just thought it was strange. IMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


TRUE! But, I thought it was pretty odd that he would carry her body the way that he did...straight up and down, and not in his arms, with her neck on one arm, and his other arm, behind her knees. Maybe there is nothing to that at all, I just thought it was strange. IMO

Not to be gruesome, but her body was in full rigor mortis. Maybe he first tried to carry her that way, but her body wouldn't fit across the stairwell to the basement extended out like that.

[Ames]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Not to be gruesome, but her body was in full rigor mortis. Maybe he first tried to carry her that way, but her body wouldn't fit across the stairwell to the basement extended out like that.

Good point, never thought about that!

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


I think the fact that they were in different rooms reflects their very different roles. Patsy called in friends because she needed support. She spent the time with her friends who were apparently providing her with the support she needed.

John apparently didn't need support. He roamed the house, "looking for clues," so he said. But when he found one, a huge one, an open window, broken, with debris from the well on the floor and a suitcase flush to the wall beneath it, he closed the window and failed to report anything unusual. He also managed to get out from under police radar for an extended period of time when he could have gone anywhere at all, and dumped evidence, such as tape, cord, glass, you name it.

Because people made up their minds so early on that Patsy and John had to be in on it together, everyone interpreted their behavior in such terms -- as though they must have had some sort of fight that led to JonBenet's death and were upset with one another. Sorry, that's not consistent with their living together for the next ten years in apparent harmony.

As I see it, Patsy's behavior was normal, what you'd expect from a mother who was paralyzed with anxiety and needed her friends around her. John's behavior was, to say the least, suspicious. He didn't need friends. He needed to be alone. He had things to do.

What about the fact that Linda Ardnt said that when Fleet ran up the stairs screaming for someone to call an ambulance, Patsy, just sat there on the couch, and did not move, when everyone else in the house ran to see what he had found, and what he was screaming about. What is your opinion on that? I would have thought that she would have jumped up, and ran to see what was happening. Sure, she could have been in shock, BUT...remember, at that time, it was ONLY a kidnapping, and Fleet yelled for an ambulance....he didn't scream out that she was dead, call the coroner. Wouldn't she have thought that JB had been found injured (but not dead). Thats what my thought would have been. At any rate, I would have jumped up, and ran over to Fleet as quickly as possible. IMO

[docg]

Originally posted by Ames


What about the fact that Linda Ardnt said that when Fleet ran up the stairs screaming for someone to call an ambulance, Patsy, just sat there on the couch, and did not move, when everyone else in the house ran to see what he had found, and what he was screaming about. What is your opinion on that? I would have thought that she would have jumped up, and ran to see what was happening. Sure, she could have been in shock, BUT...remember, at that time, it was ONLY a kidnapping, and Fleet yelled for an ambulance....he didn't scream out that she was dead, call the coroner. Wouldn't she have thought that JB had been found injured (but not dead). Thats what my thought would have been. At any rate, I would have jumped up, and ran over to Fleet as quickly as possible. IMO

This is the problem, Ames. Once you make up your mind Patsy is involved, then anything she does or doesn't do will look suspicious. If she'd reacted instantly, then "obviously" she would have been "putting on an act."

My guess is that she was trying to compose herself before confronting the possibility of her daughter's death. Or maybe she didn't want to deal with it, so hesitated as long as possible. Since none of us was there, we really can't say what the situation was, whether it was clear JonBenet was dead or not, nor can we know just how long she hesitated or whether she in fact hesitated at all.

The fact remains that there was no motive for her to kill JonBenet, no evidence she ever attacked her anytime at all in her life, no reason for her to write a pointless and possibly incriminating ransom note in her own hand, using items directly associated with her and no reason for her to call 911 if she knew the body of her victim was still in the house. Her fibers obviously got all over JonBenet when she put her to bed and were transferred to the crime scene via the victim. There is no other evidence against her. And putting the same outfit on the next day is evidence of her innocence, NOT her guilt.

People don't want to let go of the Patsy thing, it's truly a remarkable phenomenon. It's like the monkey that sticks its hand in the jar to grab the banana and then refuses to unclench its fist and let the banana go so it can remove the hand. Before the case can be solved it's necessary to let go of Patsy, everyone has been screaming Patsy Patsy for years and it's led nowhere, it's a dead end, she didn't do it.

[docg]

Originally posted by victims feel
I do not recall anyone thinking there was a motive for Patsey other than to cover up anything that happened that night that would incriminate either herself or her hubby. This is a strong motive in my books.


I have no doubt she was involved but played the lesser of the two...roles.


conversely doc as you think she is as innocent as innocent gets you will see all in that prejudicial light as well....

as a few of us have written including myself many a hostile moment has no history .... you seem to not want to listen any other version but your own despite evidence and information to the contrary of child abuse and accidental deaths and frames and staging scenes and parents being quite capable, in unison of cover-ups.


You do not let go of the Patsy is a victim thing......I think that is really remarkable given the evidence against her,albeit CE and COG for now ...

people have screamed JOHN JOHN and it got us nowhere..are you now conceding that an intruder did this?

I have no particular "thing" for Patsy, believe me. I look at the evidence and at a certain point Patsy dunnit just hits a dead end, stops cold. Same with the intruder. But when I consider John there's no dead end, just a dead child.

And, no, people have NOT been screaming John John, not since he was "ruled out" so soon after the murder. If that was a mistake, and I feel sure it was, it was a HUGE blunder that focused all attention on her and relatively little on him.

The so-called evidence against Patsy reminds me too much of the intruder evidence, it's based on wishful thinking and emotion, not logic, not the facts.

Originally posted by Ames


Antsy...YES..thats a good word for him, coupled with the fact that he had that stupid grin on his face. (Almost like he was thinking..."I know something that YOU don't know." (IMO) My daughter does that if she is lying about something...and the smirk ALWAYS gives it away. I tell you what, if it was MY daughter that was found murdered, I sure as heck would find a way to remember everything. I don't care what I had to do. But, John seemed/seems to me, to not be trying very hard to remember. "I don't remember" is an easy way out. IMO

Lol, check this out;
http://www.acandyrose.com/ramseycase-quotes1.htm

Ramseys should make a song, "I don't remember". Poor detectives, how can these detectives who questioned Ramseys can stand too many "I don't remember" as answers? Obviously, Ramseys doesn't want to help in solving this case because they are the gulity ones. IMO