Why Ramseys *and* Karr must be innocent

From John Ramsey's own mouth from John and Patsy Ramsey's 2000 Atlanta interviews. He says he had one similar, but this one looks dirty. I have read something similar in an interview with Patsy (which I don't have time to find) where she says they had a flashlight similar to the one in the picture, but she could not say the flashlight in the picture was theirs without seeing it.
Even though they did admit to having a flashlight like that, another flashlight like that was not found in the house.

 

I don't think anyone except a handful of people think that Burke Ramsey was involved in the killing.

 

It is my opinion that they were hoping that they would/could pin this on somebody in John's workplace. That way, they could be victims without throwing their "friends" under the bus and still have a big support system

Oh well....best laid plans and all

 

Daniel, thank you for reading my analysis. However, you must have skipped the part that explained why Patsy included personal references. By including John's $118,000 work bonus AND mentioning John's "bussiness" ... Patsy WAS trying to point to someone who knew the family from where John worked at Access Graphics. The hope in trying to create an intruder was to give the impression it was someone connected to John from his association with Access Graphics.

So, your criticism of the analysis is not valid in that it DOES answer that point. In addition, Texan is right in saying I DID NOT POSTULATE that Patsy wrote the ransom note pretending to be an intruder who pretended to be Patsy!!! That is ludicrious! I never said any such thing, and there is no way to surmise such an erroneous conclusion unless you twist my analysis to say something it doesn't. Patsy was desperate to point the finger of guilt ANYWHERE but at herself, and she invented a shadowy, nefarious "foreign faction" intruder to accomplish her aims.

Furthermore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to mimic a person's linguistic style AND their handwriting for three pages. A poster on this forum who does not believe in Ramsey guilt tried to copy another person's handwriting for just ONE page, and it could not be done. She even created a computer model of a person's handwriting, singling out the different letters and then recombining them into the original page ... AND IT LOOKED NOTHING LIKE THAT PERSON'S HANDWRITING!

It COULDN'T look like the original handwriting, and the reason is because we sometimes don't write a letter in exactly the same way every time. If you carefully study my analysis, and particularly the excellent analysis of Tom Miller, you will see some of the slight variations of Patsy's script. No one could duplicate those slight variations EXACTLY like Patsy would write.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!

I would like to think you are not being obtuse, but merely blinded by your inability to believe the Ramseys were involved with their daughter's death. It's Occam's Razor ... the simplist answer is the correct answer. The Ramsey case is exactly what it seems. No intruder has to be found, no fantastic theory spun. JonBenet was fatally injured. The Ramseys decided to cover up it up in order to protect themselves and the life they lived. They were fortunate to live in Boulder where the cops were inexperienced and the District Attorney's office could be bought.

The irony is ... the ransom note was necessary to explain JonBenet's dead body and point AWAY from the Ramseys. But that same ransom note is the overwhelming evidence that points TOWARDS the Ramseys. They know it, and that's why they never mention the ransom note now. Here they have a direct link to JonBenet's killer, and they act like it doesn't exist!

Once it became clear Patsy was the ransom note author, the Ramseys dropped all mention of it, and began focusing on a less than microscopic shred of DNA contaminant found in an unwashed (straight from the package) pair of panties. And no wonder. That tiny, degraded speck of DNA (that cannot even be dated to the crime scene) has become the all-purpose rallying cry for the Ramseys because that's all they have left with which to proclaim their innocence.

How fortunate for the Ramseys that someone in Asia coughed or sneezed or sweated on the underwear being packaged for shipment to America. How fortunate for the Ramseys that most Americans don't know that Dr. Henry Lee has tested the same type of underwear and found DNA contaminent just like that found in JonBenet's panties. How fortunate for the Ramseys they were wealthy and well-connected, and could refuse to cooperate with the Boulder police and buy their way out of justice.

Patsy believed she was Saved By The Cross ... but she was fortunate to be Saved By The Cash.

Cherokee

Edited to add: Barbara, I see we were posting at the same time, saying the same thing ... great minds and all that. :hug:

 

Dear Cherokee:

"Daniel, thank you for reading my analysis. However, you must have skipped the part that explained why Patsy included personal references. By including John's $118,000 work bonus AND mentioning John's "business" ... Patsy WAS trying to point to someone who knew the family from where John worked at Access Graphics. The hope in trying to create an intruder was to give the impression it was someone connected to John from his association with Access Graphics."

--Do you believe that the Ramseys would have allowed an Access Graphics employee (or anyone else) to "take the fall" for them if the DA had arrested him or her? Why do you think they would have wanted that rather than having written a more generic kidnap note as I described previously, please?

--Secondly, since I read your most astute analysis of the ransom note (which, by the way, should be on some website as it is far superior to any other I've read, at least a half-dozen), I would like to ask you if you agree with my note of earlier today regarding my assessment of Burke Ramsey, and the second note explaining why I don't believe he could have possibly done it. You seem like a most perceptive (in addition to being an obviously very intelligent) person, so I was just curious.

--Finally, do you believe that Mrs. Ramsey had been the actual killer?

Thank you.

 

If you don't know the answer to that, just read their book, where they accuse everyone from Santa Claus to Fleet White of killing JB.
Pointing toward an Access Graphics employee doesn't mean they thought anyone would actually be arrested and charged with the crime. Only that they thought it could point away from their family.

And, seeing Patsy over the years, I don't think it would be possible for her to write a more 'generic' kidnap note.

 

Dear Cherokee:

"So, your criticism of the analysis is not valid in that it DOES answer that point. In addition, Texan is right in saying I DID NOT POSTULATE that Patsy wrote the ransom note pretending to be an intruder who pretended to be Patsy!!! That is ludicrious! I never said any such thing...."

--But you are obviosuly implying that the note writer was Mrs. Ramsey pretending to be an intruder. I just assumed the third phase because I can't believe that Mrs. Ramsey--or any reasonably intelligent person!--would actually not be concerned that such a note, replete with personal information and references, would cast suspicians the Ramseys' way, even if it did also cast suspician towards a fabricated, disgruntled employee at Mr. Ramsey's company.

--Are you implying that Mrs. Ramsey was not prepared for such and that her pat and rather obvious response would not be: "Someone is trying to frame us"? If not, then: "Mrs. Ramsey pretending to be an intuder pretending to be Mrs. Ramsey" as I suiggested. In other words, of course the Ramseys knew the note would sound suspicious. They would be prepared with the framing response.

--I wanted your input regarding BR because it does, in truth, continue to trouble me that he never asked what was going on that day. I just can't figure out why his parents would have coached him to act as thus and then lied about his having been awake at all during the night prior to the 911 call. I have an idea, but I was interested in your input first.

 

Dear Sue:

Thank you very much for your link to the interview with JR regarding the flashlight in question. I shall read it tonight and then comment ASAP. I appreciate it.

"If you don't know the answer to that, just read their book, where they accuse everyone from Santa Claus to Fleet White of killing JB.
Pointing toward an Access Graphics employee doesn't mean they thought anyone would actually be arrested and charged with the crime. Only that they thought it could point away from their family.

--Okay, but you dance all around the question I directly asked. Do you believed that the Ramseys would have actually allowed someone to be convicted of this crime if one of them had in fact killed JB?

Thank you.

 

I don't think the Ramseys would ever consider that someone else could be convicted of the crime. I think they would have pulled out all stops to go underground and prove the innocence of whomever would have been arrested. If that didn't work, I believe they would have let somebody go down if the only alternative would be to confess.

Just to be clear: I do not think the Ramseys even discussed the possibility. They had no idea that this case would be anything more than a local, unsolved murder in a small Colorado town that they could walk away from without ramifications.

 

Daniel, please try to bear with me as I explain the answer to your question as it is not that simple.

1. I did not say the Ramseys were trying to point to an Access Graphics employee per se. I said they were trying to implicate someone, anyone, who had been associated with John THROUGH Access Graphics. In other words, it didn't have to be an employee, but perhaps a person who had worked with the company through a business deal or by other contact. The alledged Access Graphics person could have been someone who inadvertently gave information about the Ramsey family to the shadowy "foreign faction," but was not involved in the fake kidnapping.

Patsy was desperate, and "flying by the seat of her pants" when writing the ransom note. The intruder did not have to be factual or logical. THEY ONLY HAD TO EXIST! We can look back upon the situation and analyze it from a rational and logical viewpoint, but that was not the Ramsey frame of mind when the cover-up was begun. The intruder scenario was dreamed up as a way to explain JonBenet's dead body; therefore, the intruder DID NOT have to be anyone the Ramseys actually knew ... just an imaginary "fall guy" to take the blame.

2. To answer, your question ... yes, I believe the Ramseys were willing for someone at Access Graphics (or someone else) to "take the fall." However, I don't think they ever thought it would go all the way. The Ramseys believed no one would ever be tried and convicted for the crime because they knew there was no evidence tying anyone else to the murder! Therefore, the Ramseys thought it was safe to point fingers and throw people under the bus, knowing that even if someone was arrested; eventually, they would be set free. The Ramseys rationalized that it was a necessary evil, collateral damage if you will, to save themselves and Burke.

Later, the Ramsey's pointing of fingers at innocent people and former family friends was their way of punishing those they felt might implicate THEM or turn against them in some way. The fact that the Ramseys DID accuse innocent people in their book Death of Innocence tells me they had no qualms about letting someone else "take the fall."

Thank you for the kind words. To answer your question ... no, I don't believe Burke fashioned the garrote or participated in the cover-up ... but I DO believe he knows, or has an idea, of what happened. I am open to the possibility Burke may have been involved with the initial accidental injury (the fatal head blow) to JonBenet, but I don't think he participated in the cover-up, and he certainly DID NOT write the ransom note.

To be honest, the answer is ... I don't know. I lean that way because of the evidence we know, but as the posters here have heard many times, I have always said that I have no firm theory on who inflicted the fatal head blow on JonBenet.

Whatever happened that night, I believe it began with (as Dr. Henry Lee says) a horrific domestic accident. I also believe the Ramseys covered up what happened to protect themselves, and their place in society. There is evidence JonBenet was being molested prior to the night of her death. I believe this was a mitigating factor in their decision not to get emergency medical care for their daughter.

I believe the garrote was merely a device used in the staging to point away from the head blow, and hopefully, point TO an intruder. I believe JonBenet may have been strangled prior to the head blow by the twisting of her shirt collar, or by the use of someone's hands ... and that the garrote may also have been used to help cover any strangulation marks that might have appeared.

This I do know ... I did not want to believe the Ramseys were involved in JonBenet's death, but I had to put aside my feelings and look at the evidence. From my own knowledge and training, I am convinced Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. That conviction is what brought me to the case, and why I believe a terrible injustice has been committed in letting the Ramseys go free.

 

Barbara ... we were once again posting at the same time! Twins separated at birth?!

 

:toast: :hug: :highfive:

 

And right there, Daniel, is the fallacy in your argument. You "assumed" and you "can't believe."

Neither assumptions nor personal beliefs will yield accurate results when dealing with ANOTHER person's mind set. As I said in my previous post, we can logically analyze the ransom note and the Ramsey's actions in hindsight, but they did not have that luxury.

I did NOT imply any such thing! I believe Patsy Ramsey was fully prepared to say someone was trying to frame them if the ransom note was not accepted at face value. In fact, I think that was part of her "plan B" as it were.

First of all, we only have Patsy's word that Burke never asked what was going on. We don't know what really happened. Since the Ramseys lied about so many things, why not lie about Burke? I believe it was the Ramseys way of trying to cut off that avenue of investigation. Nope. No one saw or heard anything. We were all asleep. Burke is fine. He didn't want to talk about it. HE KNOWS NOTHING!

Secondly, I think the Ramseys told Burke something of what happened (if he didn't experience it himself) and let him know it was in the family's best interest to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. Otherwise, he might lose mama and daddy and his life would be ruined. That's a very big incentive to a young boy to stay quiet and act disinterested when questioned.

 

Dear Cherokee:

Okay, that was a very thoughtful and thorough reply. We shall end the discussion there, and I thank you. I must ponder all that has been said.

My thought about Burke--to explain his seemingly odd behavior when awakened by his dad and Mr. White in not asking any questions, nor afterwards at the Whites--was that he, as indicated in my speculated profile of him from what I have been able to learn--had been so naturally aloof and detached that he acted in character and tried to pretend that none of this had anything to do with him; not unlike my observation regarding his father's behavior afterwards as well. I think this is a common trait in Ramsey family males. It does not point to any sense of guilt, but rather just a personality quirk they employ to avoid facing unpleasantness.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the boy later cried his eyes out--but in private.

He was probably awake in bed for quite awhile and, being very intelligent, pieced together what happened. He didn't ask any questions because he wanted no answers. That is perhaps the Ramsey way.

Thank you, again.

 

I agree with Barbara. I don't think I am not answering your question. I just think it is something they had not considered.
But, if you DO read their book, you will see that they directly accuse a whole lot of people they knew of trying to abduct and kill their daughter.
So, my answer is this. I think they would accuse someone because they did. I think they would make the assumption that if it came down to a trial, there would probably be reasonable doubt, so I don't think they would go all the way to letting someone be convicted in their place (although if it was someone they considered a 'bad person' who deserved to be put away, I think they would go along with it.)

 

Barbara and Sue,
I completely disagree. Look at all the people who had their careers destroyed by the Ramseys and their scam. They have never given a hoot about anyone but themselves. They even put themselves before "that child".

 

I don't disagree with you. I think they rationalized(maybe a good word) that they could throw anyone under the bus, to use Cherokee's phrase, and it should not be a problem for that person to prove reasonable doubt if they did go to trial.

You can see from reading their book how much they are only thinking of themselves. At the same time as they are complaining (and whining) about how everyone thinks they are guilty and about how unfair it is, they are doing the same thing to many of their acquaintances and former friends. They only seem to see the unfairness when it applies to them. When they do it to other people, it's perfectly justified in their eyes.