Are you ready for the new Tracy Crock-'O-Crap?

Voyager

“EasyWriter....
Were it not for the evidence of prior sexual abuse, and the
murderer's knowlege of that evidence, there would have been no
reason for staging a murder....â€

Isn’t the no reason you’re speaking of coming from your
perspective as determined by your beliefs and your values? Are
they the same as every other person? Or any other person? Would
you have reason for a two and a half page note when three of four
lines would have sufficed? Would you have selected $118,000 as a
ransom amount? Would you have characterized the kidnaper\murder
as caring about John’s welfare? If yes, I’m more than a bit
surprised. If no, you have separated your mentality from that of
the note writer.

In the mind of the note writer, there was a reason for each
element. Those reasons had to be in this mind to appear on the
paper. Those reasons go the beliefs of the note writer, but not
to yours or mine. The evidence connects to this mind. It tells
of the beliefs and psychology of this mind. The evidence tell of
what was done whether you or I would have done it or not. To
superimpose one’s own beliefs is to negate what the evidence
reveals. It reveals what it reveals whether corresponding to
other beliefs or not. This is the key.

“There are many ways to explain head trauma which do not involve
murder, pedophelia, or an intruder.....Children die from head
traumas caused by accident every day in this country....:

I have already mentioned this point that Patsy simply could have
made up a story about JonBenet having an accident. But the
evidence shows that she didn’t. This means she had her reasons
whether they make sense to someone else or not.

Back to the note to make a crucial point. If you were writing a
ransom note for staging, wouldn’t you think in terms of what
others are likely to believe? Wouldn’t you focus upon trying to
present the “norm†so as to not raise any red flags? There is
none of it in the note. There is no evidence of trying to present
what others would likely believe. The note was written in an
isolated manner from “this is what I want them to believeâ€, not
from what will they most likely believe. This is because she
didn’t know. She had no empathetic connection. This changes the
whole ball game. The reasons in this mentality are not likely to
correspond with your reasons or your thinking. Again, it can’t be
understood by superimposing. Let the evidence tell the story.

I don’t want to get into this too much, but the absence of
capacity plays the critical part in the whole scenario. No matter
what public persona such persons display, underlying this is an
abiding hate, anger and distrust of others. They are emotionally
regarded as “enemies†without conscious thought on the matter.
Yet, these same persons depend on “public approval†for sense of
self value. To make a long story short, this translates into the
“need†to control, to manipulate “public opinion†to suit.

In the category of “she could have†is the fact that she could
have just left JonBenet as she fell, then called 911 the next
morning and simply claim they did not know what happened. The
option she choose was, by mental reflex, the act of staging to
control others; something she would not have had by a simple
statement of denial.

Call 911 immediately and “explain†the accident, or without doing
anything, call 911 the next day and claim ignorance of the whole
thing. Either would have been nearly impossible to disprove even
if questioned. Instead of this sensible thinking that would have
kept them isolated from the crime, they chose a route that
connected them to it in every way. Is there any doubt that the
dominant directive in this mind is to manipulate and control?

“The problem of course with the Ramseys was how to explain the
prior vaginal trauma in a 6 yr. old child....

I don’t know that there was any prior vaginal trauma, and\or
connected to sexual abuse as opposed to other potential cause of
irregularity. What would have been the necessary thinking
motivating staging to try to cover this. After all, “expertsâ€
can’t agree on whether there was prior sexual abuse. So, when,
where and by whom did the alleged sexual abuse take place. When,
where, and how did Patsy or John conclude that it had? When,
where, and how did they decide prior sexual abuse would be
detected? On what did the conclude that a genital assault with an
object would cover prior sexual abuse?

So far, all I can conclude on the information I have examined is
that there were some vaginal irregularities, but have no
information that precludes the cause as poor hygiene, itching
and scratching, and\or perhaps accident. I really don’t know. As indicated by the paragraph, there are too many things missing to convince me of
prior sexual abuse. Indeed, I don’t think it did happen for many
reason already covered in other posts.

“The Ramseys probably chose the garrote staging because they
reckoned that it was the type of sexual crime that would be most
divergent from the type of crime of which they might be
suspected....

But the “garrote†staging wasn’t a sexual crime. This is the
fantasy of Lou Smit and others. The evidence says otherwise.
What is the face value of the “garrote scene?†Death by
strangulation isn’t it? If you accept this as authentic, doesn’t
this dismiss death by skull fracture? What would a “foreign
factionâ€, “ransom seekerâ€, “pedophile “ have to gain by trying to
make cause of death something different from what it was? I have
no doubt that the genital assault was a confused mind’s knee jerk
reaction to complete the staging of the pedophile portion of staged
motivation.

“In their minds, the garrot and insertion of a stick into the
child's vaginal opening were probably the most horrific and
foreign sexual perversion possible, and not something that upper
class, loving, Christian parents would be connected with....Hence
the long and complicated ransom note explaining what their
imagined monstrous intruders were capable of.....â€

Monstrous kidnapper\killer with compassion and concern that John
best rested for tomorrow, with the assumption that John would see
the note before tomorrow? Over and over again emerges the
evidence of a mind in chaos, a mind that is not going to coincide
with minds operating quite differently. The very idea of trying
to stage a crime scene with practically no knowledge of what
he\she was doing tells clearly of the confusion, chaos and
desperation.

“My assertion is that the prior sexual abuse is key in this
case....It is both the motive for the killing and the central
evidence that had to be hidden by the murderer....â€

Let’s see if I’m understanding your position. I will stand
corrected if not.

You’re saying there was prior sexual abuse. On what do you base
this conclusion? I ask because I have encountered opposing expert
opinion on this and I don’t have the information or knowledge to
confirm of deny either of the opposing sources. I am left to
determine by other elements of the crime scene. What I can deny
are all the theories that presume the “garrote†was part of an
erotic scene. So this won’t work, meaning no cover at all.

I am also missing who, when and where. There is also the question
as to the “garrote†bit at all. If the genital assault was
supposed to cover prior sexual abuse, why not just leave it at
head trauma? Why in ignorance of what he\she was doing go to all
the trouble staging a strangling scene when it connects no more
to the genital assault than the head trauma? I keep coming back
to the attempt to cover cause of death with the genital assault
as just a knee jerk reaction to go along with the pedophile
portion of the multiple motives.

“Patsy could have killed JonBenet with a vicious head blow during
an explosion of anger when she caught JonBenet involved sexually
with either Burke or John that night or out of anger when
JonBenet made a late night confession about being involved
sexually with John, Burke, or some other male family member....â€

I have no evidence of sexual abuse; nor even a hint of who, when
and where; and given the general circumstance of that evening, it
was not at all conducive to sexual activity. I’m talking about
them coming home with a routine of getting ready for bed, etc.
This routine left Patsy downstairs getting some stuff ready for
the trip the following day.

How about JonBenet coming down stairs while Patsy was getting
some stuff ready for the trip? How about JonBenet eating some
pineapple or doing something that resulted in a violent
confrontation with Patsy? How about this culminating with
JonBenet going down hard and hitting her head against something
causing the fatal, or near fatal, skull fracture? How about Patsy
(in thinking far from the norm) decided to try to hide this with
a staged kidnap\murder scene with multiple motivation thrown in
for good measure. Doesn’t this come a whole lot closer to fitting
the known facts and has a much higher probability of being the
real as opposed to a theory based on the unknown and maybes?

“Even if it could be proved that there was no intruder, no
intention of kidnapping, and that Patsy wrote the ransom note,
without an actual confession, how could it be proved which of the
Ramseys delivered the fatal head blow, and which of them
constructed and installed the garrote which may have contributed
to JonBenet's death?......â€

For many reasons, I don’t think there was a head blow. I think
contact with fixed object is more likely. However, other than
ruling out Burke, I am in agreement that the big problem is
proving which of the Ramseys did what. I think it can be done,
but it’s not the cakewalk like proving no intruder. If LE had
stalled a bit on this issue, I could give them a bit of slack,
but the absurd pursuit of a ghost intruder for one day is
foolish, for over seven years is utter stupidity and the epitome
of incompetence. As amateurish, transparent and dumb as the
staged crime scene is, it looks like Patsy assessment of LE as
dumber was correct.

 

EasyWriter

I more or less agree with your assessment of the "garotte" as staging. Excellent analysis on that thread. You stick with the evidence. And conclude, as I would, that the evidence is far more consistent with insider staging than an attack by some intruder.

But when it comes to THIS thread, I do NOT see you sticking with the evidence. The evidence does NOT support your theory. And in order to MAKE it support your theory you must resort to an INTERPRETATION of the evidence which is rather far fetched (though certainly within the realm of possibility, I suppose). What you are really saying is: certain bits of evidence have convinced me that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter, wrote the note and convinced her husband to go along with a coverup -- and because I now believe in Patsy's guilt, I will interpret ALL the other evidence accordingly, regardless of WHERE it might point.

EW: Actually, no staging was necessary. What if Patsy had called 911
immediately and made up a story about JonBenet falling and
striking her head, a story generally consistent with the location
and degree of the head injury? Chances are, no one would have
doubted her word, and most of us would have never heard of the
incident.

DocG: I completely agree.

EW: That potential and opportune 911 call did not happen. This tells
of the mentality and the attitude of Patsy Ramsey.

DocG: THIS is what the EVIDENCE tells you? The evidence is that the head blow MIGHT have preceded the strangulation (I disagree, but forget that for now). And from this you conclude that the head blow MUST have been administered by Patsy. But there's MORE evidence: 1. there was NO 911 call in the middle of the night to report an accident; 2. Patsy called 911 much later, at around 5:40 AM, to report a kidnapping. THIS evidence tells us quite clearly that it's extremely unlikely Patsy delivered an accidental head blow to JonBenet in the middle of the night. Because, if she had, there'd have been no reason for her not to call 911 at that time. And if she'd been ashamed of the circumstances under which the head blow was administered, she could easily have made up a story giving a more innocent explanation. You yourself admit that this would have been the logical thing for her to do. But, since you are already convinced that Patsy MUST be the one who killed JonBenet via a head blow, then you are unable to accept what THIS evidence ought to have told you. And you are forced into an elaborate and totally unconvincing rationale based, NOT on the evidence, but some psychological fantasy of your own. I suggest you follow your own advice and stick with the evidence.


EW: If we convert
the actions that followed to words, it would be close to this:
“They won’t believe me if I tell them that JonBenet had an
accident. They will blame me. However, I can stage a crime scene
pointing away from me that they will believed, hence, believe I
am innocent.â€

THIS is interpretation, NOT evidence. And, as interpretation, it is QUITE a stretch I must say. Why would you assume Patsy to be a fool? WHY on Earth would she think an elaborate staging of a kidnapping, complete with possibly self-incriminating, hand printed note, would be more believable than a simple story about an accidental collision with a bathtub? You are forced to compose a psychological treatise to rationalize actions that simply make no sense. Sure, Patsy could be that bad a nut case. But where's the evidence for that? Your thinking seems to be: Only a nut case could have come up with such a crazy scheme -- Patsy came up with the scheme -- and hence: Patsy is just exactly that sort of nut case. So your case against Patsy is justified ONLY by your conviction that Patsy is guilty. NOT by the evidence, which points in a totally different direction.

 

Transcript

Here:-

http://forums.delphiforums.com/What_happened/messages

 

One of the most argued points in the JonBenet Ramsey case are “Why would loving parents suddenly decide to murder their child?†In reality their thoughts are an unknown. However, their actions are well documented.

That’s a fair question. Loving parents would not make such a decision. However, loving parents could very well be the source of an accident. The word murder enters into many articles. Some simply state that “JonBenet was found dead in the basement of her home. Her parents deny any involvementâ€. There is no proof that this was not an accident. As a matter of fact this is exactly what Henry Lee says:

"As I have indicated before in this case, the manner of this death is still a questionable issue," Lee said Friday. "Is it really a homicide or an accidental death? We really don't know." Dr. Henry Lee Inside Denver

So if we are of the belief that the Ramseys are responsible for the cover up of an accidentally inflicted head injury to JonBenet we have to try to understand just how this went from the accidental initial injury and made the journey to the ransom note to the staging of JonBenet’s body to redirect the investigation away from themselves.

The claims of a media bias is in stark contrast to a willingness to appear on national tv; the claims of the desire to do everything in their power to help find their daughter’s killer is in stark contrast to the conditions and scripting of interviews; the secluded phone records, medical records, clothing; the finger pointing; the out and out lying about how active JonBenet was in the child pageants.

In reality we don’t know much at all about the history of the Ramseys, we do however have a record of their actions since JonBenet’s death.

However we do know that JonBenet suffered a severe blow to the back of her head. We do know that there was a ransom note that in itself reveals the most likely author. We do know that any absolute evidence belongs to the Ramsey’s themselves. We do know Patsy Ramsey’s history of education and participation in beauty contests. We do know some of Nedra Paugh’s personality. We do know some of John Ramsey’s history of being an analytical thinker, a man who built a multi-million dollar company which he started in his garage. We do know how he considered his marriage to Patsy as her being his Jacque Kennedy. We can concur from the records that John financially cared for his family, but left the child rearing and day-to-day decisions up to Patsy. We do know from Patsy’s own words that although John did not put a halt to the pageant life that he had some reservations about it. We know that Patsy was driven to perfection in all areas of her life, and that public perception was extremely important to her. We know that JonBenet became Patsy’s project.

Let’s journey from Patsy as a child and later influence. In order to understand her actions we need to understand her psyche. The italicized quotes in brackets are from someone who has assisted me in coming to the understanding that conditional on Patsy’s environment as a child that Patsy could have indeed committed the acts upon JonBenet the night of her death. The crime scene and the post death actions further support this theory about Patsy’s psychology and personality.

Throughout all of this I have been able to find documentation of Patsy’ behavior that corresponds to the theorem.

{“Although physical and\or psychological abuse may be a
contributing factor in some cases, it is not necessary to a
psychology of low self esteem.

Suppose a child is brought up in an environment in which he or
she is not much skilled in the areas held as high in value by
those to whom he or she looks for self value. The child sees self as unattractive, unlovable and near worthless. This impression may or may not be the valuations of "others", but this is what the child feels, so to the child, it is reality.

This emotional impression is so deep, constant and intense that the child feels that he or she literally cannot live with it.
Keep in mind, this is not a matter of conscious awareness, but of the child's emotional reaction as attached to self value.

If the child looks to "others" for self value and gives
credibility to what is believed to be a severe negative valuation of self, a "breaking point" is reached. In a "survival reaction", the child attempts to discount the valuation of "others" as invalid, as not true.â€}

* Nedra Paugh, Patsy’s mother, had little tolerance or understanding toward imperfection. She also showed intolerance for a child not being willing to participate in her (Nedra’s) plans.

*Pg. 191 PMPT
“Well Judith, we’re just getting JonBenet into a few pageants.â€

“Why would you do something like that?â€

“You know, she’s not too young to get started.â€

“and what if JonBenet isn’t willing?†I asked. “What if she said, ‘I’m not going to do it?’ How would you respond to that?â€

“Oh, Judith, we would never consider her saying no. We would tell JonBenet, ‘You must do it. You will be a Miss Pageant’ â€.
It was sort of eerie. A little scary. The inevitability of it-from grandmother to mother and now to daughter.
Judith Philips from PMPT

* Pg. 195-196 PMPT.
“Patsy was growing anxious about High Peaks, the school JonBenet & Burke were going to. There were children in some classes who would never be self-sufficient, physically handicapped, but they were being mainstreamed into the classroom. They have a right to be educated, but there were these other intelligent little boys and girls who were growing up to make a living, pay taxes, and they were sitting and waiting. The teacher told me her first obligation was to those handicapped children. And you just wonder how much time in the course of a day is spent on the children who need to be learning so that they can take their place in society. I know the teacher wanted to do more, but there was only one of her and an aide.â€
Nedra Paugh from PMPT

{“This emotional exclusion of "others" by denouncing their values as not "true values" sets a condition of non recognition of the individual values of "others." Face and form remain to mentally separate one human entity from another, but the psychological and emotional person does not exist in the mind of the child. They are as "objects" to be fitted into the "child's world" or else be rejected as having no value.â€}


Who fit? Who was rejected? Why did they fit? Why were they rejected?

JonBenet took Patsy’s attention and Burke was left behind. (The Ramsey’s housekeeper/babysitter)

Judith Philips was told you are either with us or against us. (told to her by Barb Fernie)

The White’s were tossed aside. (although John denied this there is much documentation to the contrary)

Bill McReynolds was tossed aside and John & Patsy ridiculed his demeanor in their interviews with the police.(from the interviews in the NE book)

Patsy’s remarks about Fleet & Priscilla White and their children. (Patsy’s statements in the Police Files NE book)

I can produce the documentation for the above statements if someone feels it is necessary, however for the sake of brevity I only mention where I found the source.

{“This philosophy, psychology and attitude becomes set and is evidenced beyond the home and beyond childhood. This person has isolated self in such degree that he or she is incapable of empathy. He or she cannot mentally project self into the emotional position of another person. Needless to say, harmonious interpersonal relationships within this psychology are non existentâ€.

“You may generally recognize the forgoing as a description of
Patsy Ramsey. What you don't know is that the foregoing was
written long before I heard of Patsy Ramsey.â€

“Focus on "This person has isolated self in such degree that he or she is incapable of empathy. He or she cannot mentally project self into the emotional position of another person. Needless to say, harmonious interpersonal relationships within this psychology are non existent."}

*Additionally noted to me:{“Persons with the psychology of absence of capacity for empathy always suffer from a feeling of low self worth. The compensation is to build self up by putting others down. This is hardly isolated to Patsy Ramsey, but its constancy along with other behavior is indicative of a severe condition.â€*}

In the following statement keep in mind the content and length of the ransom note. Also keep in mind that the author of the note appeared to have the need to micro manage and overstate their case. They became the give of pleasure and pain. I like you and I hate you all rolled into one. I like you but you made me do this. I like you but if something bad happens it’s not my fault, it is yours – you made me do it. I need to state this in words that John Ramsey will understand. I don’t know you but I know terms you would be familiar with and thus know that I am serious about my threats. I know you have $118,000.

Also keep in mind that many of the words and demands in the ransom note are the words and demands from movies and books that John Ramsey was familiar with.

* Additionally noted to me:{"Also keep in mind what your thoughts were when you first read or heard the contents of this note. The chances are you concluded that you yourself would not have written such a note. In this realization you can see how far removed your thinking is from the note writer. In this you might see how much different the writer’s values and psychology is removed from your own.â€*}


{“You can confirm this for yourself by a hypothesis: Suppose you want to stage a crime scene of which a ransom note is an intricate part. What is your thinking in regard to preparing the note? Your objective is to convince others that the note is authentic. How do you do this? Wouldn't you mentally project yourself into the minds of those you expect to examine the note?

Would you not try to anticipate the reaction of others to the
note you propose to write? Would you not try to stick with the
"norm" of ransom notes to avoid raising red flags?

Notice that all of these elements are missing in the Ramsey case "ransom note." This person is not thinking like you at all is
he\she? Why not? There is no anticipating of what others will
think. The note is simply a script isolated to the mind of the
writer with no consideration of response beyond this. What's
going on here? Why is your approach to writing a ransom note so different from that of the Ramsey case note writer?

Ans. ABSENCE OF THE CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY.â€}

Keeping with the theme of the following statement, Patsy would have perceived that the ransom note would appear to be valid. Her penchant for drama, order and control come through. Her inability to assimilate the thinking of others would lead to this “War and Peace†of ransom notes. I have never read that Patsy expressed upon reflection that this note was extraordinary in style and content. The very thing that raised red flags to the police and a great many others did not have the same effect on Patsy.


{“I won't go into minute detail of all the elements that create this condition, but this psychological condition is the central directive of the person who unknowingly suffers from this condition. There are actually many in this category, but with many individual variations. Patsy Ramsey is a very severe case.

When I read the note and saw the isolation and absence of the capacity for empathy, by logical association, I had a clear look into the mind or Patsy Ramsey. A constant condition of this psychology is a deeply seated anger; a volcano of emotions just waiting to be triggered to erupt into rage and violence.â€}

(Lou Smit’s own statement that anyone is capable of murder given the right circumstances.)

{“Now focus on "Needless to say, harmonious interpersonal relationships within this psychology are non existent."

I won’t go into the why of this at this time. Suffice it to say
the anger directed toward John in the note is no surprise; nor is the rage that resulted in the death of JonBenet. Their behavior afterwards is also indicative of the psychological condition of regarding others as "objects." All the physical evidence and the psychology of Patsy Ramsey create a seamless scenario of guilt.â€}

Serious questions:
Why have many of their friends not come to their defense? Do they suspect something more happened than what the Ramseys were willing to tell the police?

Neither of the Ramseys treated this as a kidnapping:
John didn’t report the open window or the car in the alley.

Page 20-21 DOI
By this time several officers are dusting with black fingerprint powder. There is a lot of movement around the house, with officers carrying out various assignments, although it is hard to know who’s issuing the orders. It doesn’t occur to me that we should be contained in one area to keep us from contaminating any potential evidence. The chief of police, Tom Koby, will later say they didn’t treat the house as a “crime scent†because they thought it was “only a kidnapping.â€

I look at my watch again and worry because the FBI hasn’t shown up yet. No matter where their offices are, they should be here by now. Where are they? What are they doing? We need more help. A new sense of desperation wells up inside of me because I am sure the FBI could help get JonBenet back. I urgently want more resources but don’t know how to make it happen.

Got to do something, I think. Anything. Whatever will get JonBenet back.

Sometime that morning, I remember a day back in the summer when I had left my keys inside and was locked out of the house. To get in, I broke one of the panes in a basement window; then I reached in and released the latch, so I could climb inside. I think about the basement now. I jump up and hurry down there. That entry place needs to be looked at, I tell myself. I move down the basement hall and find the window. The pane is still broken, and the window is open, with a large old Samsonite suitcase sitting right under it. Odd, I think. This doesn’t look right. This suitcase is not normally kept here.

Maybe this is how the kidnapper got in and out of our house. The window ledge is about five feet off the floor, so a person would need something to stand on in order to get up and out.

I didn’t look further after finding the open window, but I carefully close it before going back upstairs.

John Ramsey DOI

Does anyone else find it just a little more than odd that on the one hand John feels "That entry place needs to be looked at," - there are officers upstairs dusting for fingerprints - YET "I didn’t look further after finding the open window, but I carefully close it before going back upstairs." - he didn't tell the officers about what he "discovered"? He keeps this bit of information to himself?

In my opinion the above statement says that John Ramsey knew that no kidnapping has occurred.

* Additionally noted to me:{“The Ramsey have NO friends; perhaps, many social acquaintances, but NO friends. When push comes shove, there is no one they wouldn't throw in front of the bus if they thought if would take attention away from their guilt.

Many persons, if not most, establish friendships in elementary school, high school, or later that last a lifetime. This does not happen to those with the psychology of absence of the capacity for empathy. These persons with intolerance for individual personal preferences, constant criticism, insensitive remarks and put downs drive all potential friends away without the foggiest notion of how and why. I'm betting that no one can find a long time friendship between Patsy Ramsey and another person of either gender during any time period of her life.â€*}

Quotes:“Everybody agrees that it was not a sophisticated killer who committed this crime,†Schiller says. “So by doing things wrong, they fashioned the perfect murder because all the wrong things are so confusing that it comes together and it’s very difficult to find out.

This was a perfect murder by accident, not by design.â€
Lawrence Schiller Dateline interview October 12, 1999

In the book, Schiller said Mrs. Ramsey was "polite and charming" during the first two days of the June interview with Haney and an attorney working on the case.

On the third day, Mrs. Ramsey became "tough." At one point, she raised her hand across the table in front of Haney's face and said, "You're going down the wrong road," Schiller said.

Case detectives believed Haney reached "the real Patsy."

"She had exhibited the hard side of her persona. A side capable of bringing harm to her daughter," Schiller wrote.

He also detailed police interviews with the Ramseys' former housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who told them JonBenét's body was wrapped in a blanket that either was on her bed or in a washe-dryer unit in a cabinet outside the girl's room.

"Only someone who knew which washer and dryer the Ramseys used for JonBenét's sheets and blankets would know where to find the blanket if it wasn't on the bed," Schiller wrote.

“Book offers insight into Patsy†Denver Post Staff and Wire Reports

Little

 

I'm still not convinced that the garrote wasn't put into place because someone thought it would prevent an autopsy ("since the cause of death was so obvious"), hence preventing any discovery of the head injury. Remember, everyone observing the autopsy was surprised to discover the massive trauma to the head.

 

On numerous occasions, I have stipulated I want what I say
challenged. However, what a challenge actually is is ignored. I
have requested that any challenger quote what I wrote with which
he\she disagrees, then say why he\she disagrees. Unfortunately, I
rarely see this. What happens is that a position is created for
me by the alleged challenger which is not my position, followed
by the assumption that my statement of alleged fact is refuted
even though my position is not identified, nor any refuting fact
offered.

“DocG:
I more or less agree with your assessment of the "garotte" as
staging. Excellent analysis on that thread. You stick with the
evidence. And conclude, as I would, that the evidence is far more
consistent with insider staging than an attack by some intruder.

But when it comes to THIS thread, I do NOT see you sticking with
the evidence. The evidence does NOT support your theory. And in
order to MAKE it support your theory you must resort to an
INTERPRETATION of the evidence which is rather far fetched
(though certainly within the realm of possibility, I suppose).
What you are really saying is: certain bits of evidence have
convinced me that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter, wrote the
note and convinced her husband to go along with a coverup -- and
because I now believe in Patsy's guilt, I will interpret ALL the
other evidence accordingly, regardless of WHERE it might point.â€

See what I mean? I see no quote and have no idea how you get the
idea that what you’re saying has anything to do with my position
or the why of it. Please quote me and be sure you know what I
believe and why I believe it before a blanket indictment as
error.

“The evidence does NOT support your theory.â€

What do you believe to be my theory? About what in particular?
What evidence have I claimed in support that does not support it?

“What you are really saying is: certain bits of evidence have
convinced me that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughterâ€

See what I mean? I dare say you cannot find a single line I have
written in four years that says anyone murdered Patsy’s daughter.

Please, quote, quote, quote, so I will have some idea of where
you are coming from. How else am I supposed to respond? Repeat
everything I’ve said over the last four years plus?


EW: Actually, no staging was necessary. What if Patsy had called
911
immediately and made up a story about JonBenet falling and
striking her head, a story generally consistent with the location
and degree of the head injury? Chances are, no one would have
doubted her word, and most of us would have never heard of the
incident.

“DocG: I completely agree.â€

EW: That potential and opportune 911 call did not happen. This
tells
of the mentality and the attitude of Patsy Ramsey.

“DocG: THIS is what the EVIDENCE tells you? The evidence is that
the head blow MIGHT have preceded the strangulation (I disagree,
but forget that for now).â€

Again, see what I mean. I have no idea of how many thousand words
I have written about the case since 2000. But one thing for
certain, there is not a single line it that even remotely suggest
that I hold that the “head blow MIGHT have preceded the
strangulation.â€

In less that fifteen minutes into reading the autopsy report,
which is the first thing I read. I knew with certainty that this
was a staged crime scene. I knew that the phony “garrote sceneâ€
with a face value of strangulation was denial of the head trauma
as primary. I have expressed and implied this time and time and
time again. Not once have I expressed or implied “MIGHT.†Yet,
this is the position you have attributed to me and expect me to
defend.

My response is this: Go through everything I have written which
is available online and find just one place where I expressed or
implied any “MIGHTâ€. Find again and again where I expressed no
doubt that the head trauma came first. The writing of which I
speak is evidence of whether you are correct, or incorrect. Take
a look and get back to me. If you can find any such statement to
support your assumption that my position is “MIGHTâ€, please post
it. I am getting on in years, but I don’t think my memory is that
far gone.

Sorry, DocG, but here’s the deal. If you wish to disagree, that’s
fine, no problem. However, quote what you believe to be in error
and why you believe it is error and I will respond. I will not
respond again to strawmen such as found in your post.

 

Little, I find this whole line of thinking and subsequent behavior very odd:

...and then he doesn't tell anyone about the window being open? Very strange for someone who's child is missing. JMH&CPO

 

the head wound

The head wound was inflicted with considerable force. That crack on the side of her head was not from a short fall against a tub or stair rail. Believe me on this. If you think it could be caused by a fall against a tub, consider the position she would have been in to hit the side of her head towards the top. Pretty difficult to hit your head hard enough that way to cause such a fracture. Try it yourself - I don't mean hit your head but get yourself in a position near your tub that would cause a fracture there. Now think about how hard you would have to hit to make that big crack in your skull. Do you think if you simply fell that way you would have an 8 " fracture of your skull? IF she were swung by her feet into something it would be enough force.
Either she was moving with some force or the object that hit her was moving with some force.

Any body ever have one of your kid's fall down the stairs? Where did the bump come up on their head? On the side? Most likely not. Think about the last time you fell down the stairs. Did you fall sideways?

Henry Lee says that it could be an accidental death but if you could question him I'm pretty sure he would tell you that it couldn't be an accidental fall unless it were from at least three floors up. More like someone accidentally bopped JBR over the head with something. (I think it was the flashlight because the skin wasn't broken open but the bat could cause similar wound)

The fracture is more consistent with someone taller than her striking her with a smooth object with alot of force. IMO

 

Your excellent post takes me back through all the research I have done over the last few years, Little, and I couldn't agree with you more. You have summed up Patsy Ramsey to a Tee. Nedra Paugh sure ruled the roost. There's not one word I would change. All highlighted notes were very interesting too, Little. This post was an excellent refresher.

 

EasyWriter

Sorry, EW, I'm going to do this my way, not yours. I don't have the time to go back and quote you. Tell you what I'm gonna do, though. I'll state what it looks to me like you've been arguing and give you the chance to correct me if I'm wrong. Fair enough?

“The evidence does NOT support your theory.â€

EW: What do you believe to be my theory? About what in particular?
What evidence have I claimed in support that does not support it?

DocG: The theory I referred to is the theory that Patsy Ramsey caused the death of her daughter as the result of an accidental blow to the head, either inflicted directly by a blow -- or indirectly, by e.g., causing her head to strike some hard object. Is this a fair statement of your theory? If not, please correct me. The evidence against that is the fact that Patsy did NOT call 911 in the middle of the night to report an accident, as she almost certainly would have if such an accident had actually occured. The evidence you've provided in favor of this theory is simply not adequate to defend your position. (For a discussion of this evidence, see below)

“What you are really saying is: certain bits of evidence have
convinced me that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughterâ€

EW: See what I mean? I dare say you cannot find a single line I have
written in four years that says anyone murdered Patsy’s daughter.

DocG: I stand corrected. Your theory seems to be that Patsy killed JonBenet by accident. Is THAT correct?

EW: Please, quote, quote, quote, so I will have some idea of where
you are coming from.

DocG: I think you know where I'm coming from. No need to quote quote quote. I'll leave that to your press agent, EW.

“DocG: THIS is what the EVIDENCE tells you? The evidence is that
the head blow MIGHT have preceded the strangulation (I disagree,
but forget that for now).â€

EW: Again, see what I mean. I have no idea of how many thousand words
I have written about the case since 2000. But one thing for
certain, there is not a single line it that even remotely suggest
that I hold that the “head blow MIGHT have preceded the
strangulation.â€

DocG: I don't doubt that. But that doesn't change anything. I was NOT quoting you, EW, I was stating my OWN take on that evidence. You seem to assume (and again correct me if I'm wrong) that staging of the "garotte" means the head blow must have come first -- and was what killed her. There I don't agree at all. There is very good evidence that strangulation preceded the head blow. I quoted Wecht on that matter, and he most definitely is an expert on such things. According to Wecht there was simply not enough bleeding for the head blow to have been the cause of death. According to Wecht, she must already have been either dead or near death at that time. Your response to that (I won't quote you but I think the paraphrase is accurate enough) is that there have been cases where similar head blows have resulted on only a small amount of blood. You didn't provide any examples of such cases, but I'll let that pass. And I'm willing to accept that this might apply to the JonBenet case, though clearly it would be an exception to the rule. Which is why I stated "The evidence is that
the head blow MIGHT have preceded the strangulation." I don't really think that very likely but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Is this now clearer? If you have any evidence that the head blow HAD to have preceded the strangulation, please don't be shy. Please repeat it here for my benefit, to save me time.

To make things a bit clearer for you, I'll share my own take on the situation. I agree that the "garotte" is staging. But I find it very hard to accept the head blow coming first, since I tend rather strongly to agree with Wecht. And we can't forget the coroner's verdict that she died of strangulation. Professionals have all sorts of ways to distinguish between a head blow and strangulation as cause of death, so his conclusion can't just be dismissed. So where does that leave us? I think we have no choice but to conclude she was killed neither by a head blow NOR by the "garotte." Which is why I've speculated she could have been killed by manual strangulation, probably gentle, probably accidental. A different kind of accident. Also supported by the evidence. But maybe there was some other cause, I can't say for sure. But I can be confident in saying that if we look closely at the evidence, it points away from EITHER the head blow OR the "garotte."

EW: In less that fifteen minutes into reading the autopsy report,
which is the first thing I read. I knew with certainty that this
was a staged crime scene.

DocG: Agreed.

EW: I knew that the phony “garrote sceneâ€
with a face value of strangulation was denial of the head trauma
as primary.

DocG: Here I can't agree. See above. There has to be another possibility. While an initial head trauma might possibly have resulted in such a small amount of blood, I find that highly unlikely. If you really want to follow the evidence, you won't go there.

EW: I have expressed and implied this time and time and
time again. Not once have I expressed or implied “MIGHT.†Yet,
this is the position you have attributed to me and expect me to
defend.

DocG: Read me again. I did NOT attribute that to you. I stated that as my OWN conclusion.

And you can QUOTE me on that.

 

Yes, JR John Ramsey's thinking was very odd indeed. There were many unusual happenings in this case relating to both Patsy and John, but the most peculiar thing of all, is they got away with "all of them." Something not right with this scene.

 

question about a fall

Texan, you wrote:

Question to anyone - I did ask my husband this (he has a degree in physics but no interest in this case - geesh).

If a child was pulling one way and an adult (or whoever) was pulling another way, when the child broke lose could that be enough to propel them back hard enough to really crack their head?

Little

 

Here's my take on the situation!

There was a red top/jumpsuit which had been rinsed out on JonBenét's bathroom counter. This tells me that Patsy Ramsey wakened her daughter up at her usual time at midnight to make her go to the bathroom, and found
JonBenét in a soiled bed, and hauled her out of it.

Patsy Ramsey told the police on 26 December that she had put on a red top on JonBenét on Christmas night. Later, she changed that testimony to the white top with the white star. ( Steve Thomas).

Nedra Paugh said JonBenét would scream blue bloody murder if she was hauled out her bed. (Steve Thomas)

I believe JonBenét was hauled out of her bed and dragged to her bathroom with Patsy in a rage, throwing her against the tub or the toilet, striking her head. Patsy Ramsey washed her down. No intruder would bother with that
procedure. No intruder would have known about her favourite nightie either This was when her mother changed her into the white top with the star.

If not the tub, according to Texan above, what about a hand held
shower head, Those are heavy!! She could have angrily put JonBenét in the tub and maybe just swiped her one if JonBenét was screaming her head off (?).

I think she had to bring John Ramsey into the scene to help her cover-up. Patsy wrote the ransom note as I mentioned in another post. This was a piece of cake to her. She was good at writing speeches. She majored in journalism.

I think that JonBenét may have stirred with them thinking she was already dead, and they panicked and had to think up someting fast.

The garotte was created. Her paint tray was handy in the basement. She may have used the art sling cord from a canvas. John may have broken the paint brush for her (?).

The inconsistencies of the Ramseys are unbelievable! I'll guarantee they're stunned at getting away with this cover-up. The police files are out there
for everyone to read. Their lies stand out!.

Calling all their friends to come over for the contamination party. Good idea Patsy and John! Patsy still in the same Christmas clothes, the red top and the black velvet jeans, so she could fall on top of JonBenét's body
in front of witnesses, and that's how the fibers were found.

How about the two different stories of her going into JonBenét's room first, and then changing that to running up the stairs and opening JonBenét's door?

The other feat was Patsy reading what was on the ransom note which was on the floor with her husband bent over it "supposedly" really amazed me. The phone wasn't that close. She must have a rubber neck!

Amazing that John and Patsy Ramsey were allowed to study their police interviews and read what they had said the last time, before their next interview. Even to look at their videos. How lucky can you get? Talk about "service with a smile." Is it any wonder Steve Thomas was disgusted?

As Steve said it was like actors reading for a part in a play. Some play!
Enuff said!

 

elle

Some variation or other of what you've written above has been presented over and over again for years as an explanation for what happened to JonBenet. Many on the internet have bought into it. But it just won't wash. A good defense lawyer would cut it to shreds in a few minutes and it would be laughed out of court. Sure, a tragic accident of that sort could occur, between a stressed out mother and an upset child. Possibly scenarios of that sort have been played out in the past, regardless of how devoted the mother is to the child. That's not the problem.

A murderer may well try to coverup his murder by staging an accident. But why would someone in the position you describe above want to coverup an accident by staging a murder? Complete with incriminating hand printed note? Is Patsy really THAT off the wall? And what about John, why would HE want to buy into such a looney scheme?

It's exactly that sort of flabby thinking that's made it all but impossible to get justice for JonBenet. Thomas got nowhere with it. Darnay Hoffmann less than nowhere. Patsy's been our favorite Patsy for many years now, the lady has been scrutinized as very few in history have ever been. If there was a case against her she'd at the very least have been brought to trial. There IS no case against Patsy. We've been there, done that. Go back to the drawing board folks.

 

You said it, DocG! Off the wall! jmo

I would say YES DocG! Patsy is off the wall! I have posted this several times here recently,so forgive the repeat. I read "Death of Innocence" in the Spring of 2001 and felt the Ramseys may be innocent, but I didn't like the contamination party on the scene of the crime. I thought the Ramseys were a bit odd to have all these people around them at a crucial time.

John Ramsey was a steel headed businessman. He didn't need anyone. Patsy Ramsey was a confident beauty queen. she didn't need anyone, not when a serious kidnapping of their youngest daughter was "in play." I'm amazed they didn't invite, the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker to join them that morning (?). Everyone else was invited,including a minister and a doctor. All there while police were trying to set up telephone equipment etc., Police don't need people like this around with a serious kidnapping scene.

John Ramsey's behaviour with the broken window put another question mark over his head. Not reporting it added another (??).

Patsy Ramsey's strange behaviour with the "Twinn Doll" looking like JonBenét in a coffin, plus going into raptures about her purple ribbon on the Christmas tree relating to good Friday in her church sounded like someone who was a religious fanatic, and to quote your own statement, she sounded like someone who was a bit "off the wall!"

Four months later after a lot of research, it became very obvious to me that the Ramseys lied a lot. No need to go into them, we know them all, but of course if you're a PDDI poster, you won't agree. That's okay. We're all entitled to our own opinions.

You ask:

He never made the phone calls in his house (?) because "that's the way it was done in his house " he told Steve Thomas. I repeat the same answer to your question above:

And what about John, why would HE want to buy into such a looney scheme?

Because that's the way things were done in his house. Patsy Ramsey was the Boss.

You said you were doing it your way, and like Frankie, "I'll do it my way too!
Que Sera Sera! That's what we're all here for to express opinions.

 

lol elle!!! Well. If you like your "off the wall" Patsy Ramsey, then I have an "off the wall" intruder you'd just LOVE. This guy is ALSO a total nut case. Mabye it's something in the Boulder air, who knows? THIS guy is stupid enough to scramble down into a filthy window well instead of breaking in through one of the many far more convenient ground level windows. Or simply prying a door open with a crowbar. He's such a lousy planner, he forgets to take a ransom note with him so is forced to write one using stationary found in the house. He's so dumb he actually writes it by hand, all three pages of it, and then decides to leave it on an out of the way spiral staircase where it might never even be noticed. Instead of actually kidnapping his victim as planned, he "accidently" kills her. Oops! But as he's leaving in a panic forgets to retrieve his now meaningless -- and incriminating -- note. In his panic he leaves his flashlight on the kitchen table, so he must grope in the dark around the basement until he finds a suitcase he can use as a prop to let himself out the basement window he snuck in through. And of course he manages to get in and out without leaving a trace on the sill or the frame.

Sound pretty crazy to you? No moreso than the Patsy Ramsey you've painted for us. You can't have it both ways, elle. If your theory requires an off the wall Patsy, someone elses theory can include an equally off the wall intruder.

 

I don’t see where it is Elle who is trying to have anything “both waysâ€. Elle is addressing a non-fictitious person with known ties to the home, the child, the fiber evidence and who had ample known-opportunity, time, and ability. If someone is not going to deal with what is known then serious discussions as to what happened to JonBenet becomes moot.

Little

 

We're on the same Ramsey Carousel

Of course DocG, we're all riding on the same Ramsey Carousel, going nowhere, just round and round and round ... ... ... ... ... :nuts:

 

Can't you see Little, DocG is the one who speaks no evil, sees no evil and hears no evil:monkey: *cough!* because he thinks he speaks the truth, sees the truth and hears the truth! Poor DocG! Wot a shame!

 

Little and Elle

Yes, Elle, I'll agree about that carousel. Round and round it goes and it does seem to be going nowhere. But I've taken a long vacation from it and for some perverse reason am now wanting to give it yet another whirl. Hey, it's cheaper than the amusement park.

Little writes: "I don’t see where it is Elle who is trying to have anything “both waysâ€. Elle is addressing a non-fictitious person with known ties to the home, the child, the fiber evidence and who had ample known-opportunity, time, and ability. If someone is not going to deal with what is known then serious discussions as to what happened to JonBenet becomes moot."

You do certainly have a point and FYI I do NOT buy the intruder theory and DO believe the crime was committed by someone inside the home. I just don't think it happens to be Patsy. (Or Burke.)

However, the point I was trying to make has to do with the logic of the case rather than the circumstances. We are trying to have it both ways when we are willing to accept that Patsy may have acted in a totally irrational, self-defeating manner but at the same time reject any intruder theory for exactly those same reasons. This sets a double standard: it's OK to accept that Patsy is off-the-wall (because we're convinced she must be guilty) but it's not OK to accept that the "intruder" is off-the-wall (because we can't accept the intruder theory). I believe this to be a serious mistake because the strongest arguments against an intruder have to do with the absurdity of his behavior. Suppose that a Helgoth, along with an accomplice, got into the Ramsey home with the intent of either kidnapping or molesting JonBenet. If the intent was to kidnap, then why was the body left in the house? If the intent was to molest, then why was the note left? And if both were intended then, again, why was the note left after the kidnap attempt was abandoned? Moreover, why bother to write a possibly incriminating note at all when a phone call would have worked as well? And why not have a pre-written (or computer printed) note already with you when you enter the house? Team Ramsey argues that the intruder(s) must have been "off-the-wall," just nut cases who couldn't think straight. And if you sanction that sort of "logic" by claiming the same mentality for Patsy, then you strengthen THEIR argument.