John Ramsey slip up???

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Little, Feb 5, 2006.

  1. Little

    Little Member

    Cleej gets all the credit for this find - Thank you Cleej - sorry you were up so late reading, but I'm sure glad you are on the ball!!

    Her point here is very good. In John's depo he is asked about reading the ransom note etc. Read carefully - his reply reflects the "practice note" opening, not the ransom note opening:

    Of course the links are at ACandyRose
    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/12122001Depo-JohnRamsey.htm
    John's 12/12/01 deposition:

    0039

    1 ransom note, did you at any point in the morning

    2 read it again?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. Did you read it more than once?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. Do you remember how many times you

    7 may have read it?

    8 A. No.

    9 Q. Would you say a dozen times?

    10 A. I don't remember. I mean, I was

    11 trying to figure out, to the best of my ability,

    12 who in the world had my daughter.

    13 Q. And were you looking at the ransom

    14 note for that purpose?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. When you were looking at the ransom

    17 note, was there anything in the language of the

    18 ransom note that struck you as peculiar?

    19 A. The whole thing was peculiar. We

    20 were addressed as "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey," and then

    21 they switched to "John" personally.

    Then this:

    http://www.acandyrose.com/ransompad26.jpg

    the practice note begins with:

    "Mr. and Mrs...."

    Then this:

    http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif

    The ransom note begins Mr. Ramsey - not Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2006
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oh my goodness, that is a good find. Haven't heard from Cleej in over a year, Little (?) The first link doesn't work for me at all (?).
     
  3. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    What a fantastic find, Cleej and Little! Thank you so much for this! How would John know about the Mr. and Mrs. I(Ramsey) from the practice note unless he was there when it was written?

    -Tea
     
  4. Little

    Little Member

    The link should work now Elle

    All the credit goes to Cleej. She did all the work - I just posted it :)

    Little
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    This is a perfect illustration of why Thomas was LIVID with all the case evidence HANDED WILLY NILLY to the Rams' lawyers from day one.

    LE keeps their evidence close to the vest, because then when a suspect makes a statement like this, IT'S EVIDENCE HE KNEW WHAT THE RANSOM NOTE WRITER WROTE ON THE PAD WHEN HE SHOULDN'T HAVE.

    This is the kind of thing that is used to nail a perp in court. If the Rams had ever been properly interrogated, at length, early in the investigation, before their lawyers had all this information, this would have been very damning for John.

    As it is...and I'm sure you'll see it being argued by the RST post haste...John can simply say he had heard about/seen the "practice note" before this deposition and therefore only knew about it from seeing it with his lawyers/private investigators--not when it was written by him and Patsy.

    But it's a good find, not minimizing yet another of about a thousand examples of how the Rams screwed up this case by NOT going through whatever intense interrogations and polygraphs were needed by LE IMMEDIATELY, to eliminate themselves as suspects. These examples of confusing testimony are the reason NO INTRUDER WILL EVER BE TRIED, even if there were one, and if the RST believes differently, THEY DO NOT KNOW THE LAW.

    You see a defense attorney would use an example like this to create reasonable doubt for any "intruder." Certainly, a DA might argue that John had seen the info under the circumstances I mentioned above, and therefore that's the only reason he "knew" about that practice note. And the defense attorney would say...OH? Either that...or he wrote it with Patsy.... REASONABLE DOUBT.

    Not PROOF...but REASONABLE DOUBT.

    And I realize the irony that I've taken the example given as evidence that John "knew too much" and turned it on its head to defend an "intruder," but you see, that's how trials and lawyers work. What's good for the goose....

    So the RST can whine all it wants about the poor, wronged Ramseys, but the Ramseys sunk this case for EVER prosecuting any intruder as they worked so hard to make sure they were never indicted. Nobody but the Ramseys did that. LE did only what LE does in EVERY CASE: they tried to get the Ramseys to cooperate with them up front, do whatever they needed...and the Rams stalled and refused ALL BUT WHAT THE LAW REQUIRED IN EVIDENCE SAMPLES for 4 months...and then only offered 4 hours between BOTH Patsy and John for questioning, WITH CONDITIONS SET, no matter how many BS lies Haddon wrote in a letter to Hunter about how it was all LE'S FAULT! Boo hoo.

    All the Rams ever had to do was walk into the police department with their lawyers and say here we are, what do you need?

    They didn't. EVER. NOT TO THIS DAY.
     
  6. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Were the Ramseys given Patsy's notepad, which contained the aborted practice note and from which the three pages of the "ransom note" were removed, as a prerequisite(?) for being interrogated? I don't recall.

    The only thing on the practice note is "Mr. and Mrs. I(Ramsey)". In the deposition he said he read the note more than once, mentioned the "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" greeting and how they then switched to John, and then he went into the denomination amounts. I don't understand how he could get that from the practice note.

    -Tea
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thanks Little! This just proves what we've all been saying all along. John has put his foot in it so many times, it's not funny! Why can't D.A. Mary L. Keenan not pay more attention to the amount of times the Ramseys contradict themselves.

    I cannot get over her not replying to Delmar's valuable information. She totally ignored it. Idiot stick!

    Cleej, if you're reading this, where have you been? You dropped out of sight. Are you still posting on CN2? This was a great find, Cleej. More please! :)
     
  8. Little

    Little Member

    How can you read the note a dozen times and not have every word burned into your brain?

    Well, maybe he fudged a bit about having read it at all??? Maybe he remembers how he "thought" it should have been written, you know, to the both of them? Why would he even be thinking about a practice note when being asked a direct and very specific question about the RN. The practice note wasn't the question put before him - he was being asked specifically about the RN, asked several different ways in fact.

    Thank you Cleej for being vigilant, and a huge thank you to ACandyRose for making whatever you have available to everyone. You are one of the most unselfish people I know!

    Little
     
  9. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Guys, I think Cleej has made an amazing find.

    Look at this.

    16 Q. When you were looking at the ransom

    17 note, was there anything in the language of the

    18 ransom note that struck you as peculiar?


    19 A. The whole thing was peculiar. We

    20 were addressed as "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey," and then

    21 they switched to "John" personally.
    Then this:

    http://www.acandyrose.com/ransompad26.jpg

    ````````````````````````````````````

    "When you were looking at the ransom note....." Remember the ransom note was torn from the pad. The pad was left on the counter with the Mr. and Mrs.written on it. That is the only place Mr. and Mrs. was written.

    How did he know Mr. and Mrs. anything was anywhere unless he had read the practice note.

    This is a great catch Cleej.
     
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Look, I'm not saying the Rams haven't "slipped up" a hundred times. This sure looks bad for John.

    But I was just telling you what they'd argue: John got confused. He'd seen the "practice note" or he'd been told about it by his lawyers/PIs/Smit. I'll look in the NE book and see if I can find there Smit mentioned it.

    This depo was taken in 2001, right? That's the date on the top.

    And by 1998, the Rams' lawyers had wheedled so much evidence out of the DA's Office that the BPD had once stopped telling the BDA anything they developed during their investigation.

    I have no doubt the Rams' lawyers had gotten about everything they wanted before they let John and Patsy set ONE FOOT into that '98 interrogation. JMO, of course, but it's been documented many times that Haddon and Co. always bargained for info before allowing the Rams to answer questions. That's what took so long until they gave the BPD 4 HOURS, 4 MONTHS AFTER THE MURDER.

    You want slip-ups? Patsy TOLD HANEY SHE'D SEEN THE HEART ON JB'S HAND THAT MORNING. Oooops. Both she and John had already said they didn't see the heart on JB's hand--AND SHE DESCRIBED THE HEART AS WELL DRAWN. OOOOPS. THAT MORNING...JB WAS DEAD. What did Patsy do? She came back the next day, no doubt advised by her lawyer, and said, oh, I was mistaken, I must have SEEN A PICTURE OF IT. WHAT? Patsy and John made it clear they didn't want to know too much about the case. NOW Patsy was saying SHE'D SEEN THE AUTOPSY PICTURES? And she got confused about SEEING THE HEART ON JB'S HAND VS SEEING A PICTURE OF IT?

    Yeah, right.

    So I agree, it's a great find, John mentioning the practice note like he knew exactly what it said and then how the note changed to focusing on him. But in court, it would be spun by John's attorney. And with all the evidence the BDA gave up to the Rams...it's a reasonable explanation.

    THAT'S why Thomas was so mad about the Rams getting evidence from the case. THIS is why NOBODY, certainly NOT THE PRIME SUSPECTS, should have seen this evidence before an indictment and a trial.

    Too late.

    So as much as the Rams try to say they wish LE had done this and that, the truth is their defense teams did EVERYTHING THEY COULD to corrupt this case, rendering it impossible for ANYONE to ever be tried for this murder.

    Because, like I said, an "intruder's" attornies would simply pull this out as EVIDENCE that John Ramsey KNEW what the practice note said. Could the prosecutor make the same excuse as I did? Sure. And would.

    BUT IT'S REASONABLE DOUBT, isn't it, if ONE JUROR thinks, oh...well...maybe John Ramsey DID know what the practice note said because HE WAS THERE WHEN PATSY WROTE IT?

    Not that ANY defense team would have to go further than the ransom note and Patsy for reasonable doubt for ANY INTRUDER....
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You know, I don't mean to be the party pooper on this. Sure, it's very astute of the person who found this to bring it to the forums. And thanks. It is just one more puzzle piece to work into a larger picture, isn't it?
     
  12. Little

    Little Member

    Q. When you were looking at the ransom

    17 note, was there anything in the language of the

    18 ransom note that struck you as peculiar


    IMHO, there is not doubt that the question put to John was all about the ransom note - the note he said he may have read a dozen times, the note that the killer wrote. That note in its entirety should have been burned into his brain because he was given access to it, had admitted that he read it on the floor in his tightie whities. He should have been able to recite it in his sleep word for terrible word...yet, his answer reflects what would appear to be his first recollection of when the killer was trying to decide how to write the note. That's not a little slip up and just not believable that his recall of the practice note is just a fluke during an important interview like this.

    I completely agree with you koldkase that if some poor innocent gets framed for the death of JonBenet that the Ramseys have provided any defense attorney with enough reasonable doubt to get them off, and by that same token the Ramseys have provided enough conflicting, documented information, that a competent prosecutor would have a good shot at a conviction.

    Little
     
  13. Cleej2

    Cleej2 Member

    To everyone who enjoyed reading about John's slip-up, your quite welcome.

    And yes, there are several slip-ups on both Pasty's and John's behalf. I totally agree with you koldkase. You are just telling it how it is. But in my mind, it really cinched the fact that John was there while the ransom note was being written. I mean the fact of the practice note starting out Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, was not discussed that thoroughly. What difference did it make at that time. And I believe the reason it was changed to Mr. Ramsey, is so that there was more suspicion pointed in the direction of someone at John's business. And therefore, they would not necessarily put: Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey!!!

    John mentions several times, "that's a clue"! And everytime he says that, I think, well, that's what he did it for or that's why he put that in there. He tells on himself. Ha!


    I have no doubt that if he could, he (John) would put that slip back in his mouth. I also have no doubt that in the future, we will hear some reason why he said that. Don't ya think? It always happens.

    This is not going to convict anyone! It sure left an impression on me though.

    It also leaves doubt about their innocence, doesn't it?

    Thanks to all for their wonderful posts I have read throughout the years. You all are great reading. Cleej
     
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Little,

    The Ramseys were given a copy of the ransom note, Little, but not a copy of the trial run with Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, on it, and they have had their copy in their possession for a long time now, and John's deposition was on 12/12/01, and yet John Ramsey comes away with what was written on a practice note in 1996, Five years had passed. It was now 2001 (?).

    I would say this calls for him to be questioned about this; however, I do understand what KK is also saying here. The RST will back John up to the hilt. So much time may have elapsed since he last looked at the ransom note, and they will come up with a good excuse for him. We expect them to react this way from previous encounters. Frustrating, but they are old hands at the game. Ever ready with a counterattack.

    When John handed Patsy's pad over to the cop, maybe Patsy had forgotten to tear page 26 out of the pad with the other missing sheets, which were used for maybe more practice ransom notes (?).

    We all use note pads in our own homes, and make lists of this-n-that, and we can destroy a few pages in the process, but I do feel both Ramseys had a list written of all the staging they had to cover during the night, so quite a few pages were used. Of that, I'm sure!

    It was still a great catch by Cleej, and I'm glad she spotted it. I feel everyone finding out about john Ramsey's error, will have second thoughts as to how John Ramsey knew what was on the practice note (?).
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    Cleej, Nice to see you back here. That was an excellent catch, but I do understand what KK is saying as I mentioned in my post to Little. It certainly proves to me that John Ramsey knew off by heart what was on that practice note, and yet when he handed Patsy's note pad over to the cops, he wasn't supposed to know what was on it at all, at that time.

    We keep tripping over the Ramsey contradictions and inconsistencies every other week,and we'll just keep on posting them. I hope you find many more like this one.

    Happy sleuthing! :)
     
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Cleej, I understand what you're saying. Some things just hit you in the gut and you know, all excuses notwithstanding, that this thing rings true for you.

    I had that same experience a couple of weeks ago with Patsy and her high school history. After it broke through my hard head, I noticed just about everyone around here had mentioned it many times as the reason Patsy could write the note so quickly...but it didn't grab me until I again read about Patsy's speech and drama club history in high school from Wecht's book. (A bit slooooow, ain't I?) But I suddenly realized THAT'S HOW SHE CAME UP WITH THIS SO FAST, under such duress! Years of training and experience in speech and dramatic interpretation, performed at winning levels in the state and national competitions while in high school, then on to the beauty pageant comps all the way to Miss America...where she wrote a new piece and won a scholarship for her performance. The dramatic ransom note and events of that night now make perfect sense, and that was the final comprehension I needed to understand the dynamics that worked at each stage of the murder and coverup.

    And you're right. It's so stunning when you run up on these little slip ups of the Rams. Even if a lawyer can "splain" them in court, one just gets this gut feeling that the truth slipped out...for everyone to see.

    Elle, interesting idea about the missing pages being lists of things to do. I'd always thought that they were literally used to write out the first draft of the long note. It would be VERY hard for me to write out something so long without some kind of first draft.

    Here's something I thought about once: if you notice the words of the ransom note at the bottom of page one, and then compare them to the words at the top of page two, you see the words marked out and the repetition of words at the top of page two might have been caused by copying the note from a first draft. I wonder if that was simply where the writer was working off a copy and got mixed up...like when you are copying and then repeat a line or words before you realize you lost your place?

    Well, it's a thought....
     
  17. Karen

    Karen Member

    I wonder if the Ramseys had a paper shredder in their home. I'm sure shredders were in use at Access Graphics but I wonder if maybe there was one at the home maybe in Johns office area? I don't recall seeing one on the evidence list. I don't think shredders were as well known about in 1996 as they are today but anybody with a company like Access Graphics would be putting a shredder to use alot at work. John said in DOI he was worried about other companies spying, what's that called? Industrial espionage? Being as how in 1996 shredders weren't that popular in homes I wonder if the police may have overlooked one or two and didn't take any into evidence? A good shredder could shred cord,(especially that thin one), missing pages from a pad, even duct tape. I dunno, just a thought.
     
  18. Little

    Little Member

    koldkase,

    Your post about Patsy's writing abilities was really interesting and very good research I might add :)

    We really don't, or at least I really don't, know a lot about what events helped to make Patsy or John who they now are.....John and Patsy - the formative years, and I wonder how well their friends in their adult life really knew them.

    I would suppose that many of us have had that one thing that just hits them as far as this case goes. For me it was several years ago when I read about John going almost directly to that windowless storage room that held JonBenet's body hostage. The mission was to look for anything out of place and then to report back to Arndt.

    Good question about the paper shredder Karen.

    The note and the cord, IMO, are the two major cover-up attempts in this case. Between Delmar & Cherokee they have both of those pretty much uncovered.

    Little
     
  19. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Picture from Greenie

    Picture compliments of Greenie...
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    This is so good, Greenleaf. I am very impressed. You can draw a cartoon strip, like the ones we see in the newspapers and comics (?). Ah! Was this your profession? I keep asking, but you're not telling! :)
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice