If Patsy is the killer....

06 - Impetuous, hotheaded murderers, yet without marked psychopathic features

08 - Non psychopathic people with smoldering rage who kill when rage is ignited

If Patsy was the killer, I'd place her in one of the above two categories, though I think she'd probably fit better in the second one, 08.

 

Thanks, everyone, for playing along. It's so interesting that after 10 years, so many theories are still considered, isn't it?

Like I said, I can come up with a scenario for many of the entries. And then, some of the entries look almost identical to me, like those you mention, Tril, 06 and 08. I think Dr. Stone must have some fine details missing in the short version of these categories.

Something that influences me a lot is how coldly the Ramseys left innocent people under the bus. I noticed that they tried to protect some people in public, but then ran over them in LE questioning, like the Whites. But they had no problem pushing lots of people under the bus, and that has always made me feel there's a sense of entitlement and superiority in their psyche that is really diabolical. Then I apply that to what was done to JonBenet, and it fits their personalities, to me.

And as you know, I feel that the prior vaginal injuries were significant in the decision to "cover-up" the head blow, at the very least. I can't say if the head blow was an accident or deliberate or a result of an outburst of rage. But I do believe someone was molesting JonBenet and that is at least why she wasn't taken to the hospital, if it was an accidental head blow and not deliberate or rage-fueled.

But IMO, it took one cold fish to do what was done to JonBenet to cover-up the events of that night, whatever preceeded it. So whoever did any of it had to be a narcissistic sociopath at least, as I see it. No, the average mom/dad couldn't possibly pull this off, probably wouldn't even think of it. But Patsy did, IMO. For 10 years.

As to John's part, it's my opinion he had one. As time has passed and his personality has become more observed through the decade, his own actions and words have convinced me he knows who did this, if he wasn't front and center, start to finish. John knew in his first interview after Karr's arrest that it wasn't John Mark Karr, with whom John is able to sympathize by his own admission, no matter how vile Karr's profanity against JonBenet. That's not natural, not for the father of a murdered child whose killer has never been identified or caught by LE.

So now I'm wondering, if John was involved...where is HE on the scale?

 

I would have to say...after consideration....

#14. OR, #17. Either one is probable...#17 perhaps more likely.

 

It's hard to find just the right one.

If John was the killer, I guess I'd put him in #12 - Power-hungry psychopaths who killed when they were "cornered." I don't think he killed JonBenet, so I won't worry about it not fitting my what-if-John-did-it theory very well.

Believing as I do that John was not the killer but helped in the cover-up, I'm going to put him in #14 - Ruthlessly self-centered psychopathic schemers.

 

--Now, what theory of the murder is leading you to your choices?

But I guess I was actually asking for a quick correlation--or a not so quick one, if you like--between what you think Patsy did and the rating on the scale you chose to describe her. IOW, match the actions to the scale. --

A comprehensive theory has to include the ransom note along with the condition of the body. I think Patsy killed JonBenet and wrote the note without help from anyone else. #7 is the only catagory that mentions psychosis. The ransom note is heavy with symbolism.

The accident/cover-up theory practically dismisses the content of the note as a diversionary tactic only.

Symbolic/mythic/dream content in a violent destructive, murderous act by people thinking they are accomplishing something is typical of psychosis. Examples range from the Islamic suicide bombers to Mark David Chapman's murder of Lennon.

The list of symbols in this case is lonnnnnnnnnnnng;

The star shirt, the non functional garroting, the loose wrist binding, the Wednesday panties, the wrapping, the art supplies, the pineapple with milk, the tea, 118, delivery, S.B.T.C, Victory! Christmas, midnight, birthdays, movies and books ... on and on.

Some of these things were done BEFORE the event, such as the pineapple. So post event crazy staging is in doubt. It's more likely that someone lost in dreamland did it all. Only Patsy fits that bill. IMO.

 

But don't forget that fibers from John's shirt were found on JB's outer genitals and in the crotch area of the oversized Wednesday bloomies. This connects him to the staging of the scene too imo.

 

I would think it would, but unfortunately rashomon the fiber from John's black sweater was never produced when asked for, when it was first mentioned , with John Ramsey being disgusted they would associate the fiber/s coming from him.

We haven't heard much more on this black fiber from John's sweater (?).

 

Depends on what day you catch me on.

 

According to Levin, the fibers came from John Ramsey's black wool shirt which he had been wearing to the Whites' party on that night.
Levin was under no obligation to show Lin Wood the evidence. Levin was also a lawyer, and according to info posted here on FFJ, as opposed to the police, lawyers are not allowed to lie in such interviews.

Wood clearly did not want John Ramsey to answer the question, for fear he might say something self-incriminating. Which is why he tried to flood Levin with a tirade about the (un)reliability of fiber evidence. If he had been of the opinion that this was merely a cheap unsubstantiated trick employed by Levin to steer John Ramsey into a incriminating reply, I think a hard-boiled lawyer like Wood would have told Levin this bluntly.

Wood did not tell Levin that he thought the fibers did not exist.
Which is why he wanted to study the lab report himself.
Levin also told Wood that he was going to ask Patsy about these fibers too, so maybe she could explain how they got there.
Imo nothing in Lin Wood's reaction conveys that he thought Levin didn't have anything possibly incriminating.
Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled out anything of thin air in this interview?

It has been argued that, since Levin did not pursue the matter further in this inteview, this was the proof that Wood 'defeated' him.
I don't think Levin's moving on in the interview means that Wood 'defeated' him in any way. These interviews delve into many aspects of the case, their purpose is not to treat each matter exhaustively, but to get reactions from the suspect, to compare what he says with his prior statements, and to keep him talking as much as possible. For there is always the danger that the suspect will suddenly clam up and refuse to continue if he feels things get too critical.

 

The above text is *exactly* why I think John was up to his neck in the killing and staging. Patsy's fibers weren't found in JonBenet's panties, were they? This is the most incriminating evidence in the case, IMO.

 

Avoid being wussy- I vote 19. How about the sexual oddities she went through?

 

KK,

By any chance do you remember seeing the video of John Ramsey being disgusted when asked this question about the fiber from his black sweater? He said something like they were just trying to discredit the relationship he had with his daughter. I'm sure I saw it.

When proof was asked for, it wasn't provided on the spot.

Anyone else remember this video?

 

I know! How could that evidence be ignored? I mean the fibers from John's shirt are solid, physical evidence.
Guess the fibers were looked at like everything else that pointed to the Ram's. Money talks. :burnedup: :bsflag: :banghead:

 

Elle_1,
I remember that. Didn't John say that during the LKL interview?

 

KK,

While searching for the video I mentioned above I acame across the following deposition of John Ramsey: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/0206deposition.html

I didn't realize that John Ramsey knew Mel and Judith Phillips before he moved to Boulder.

[/size][/font]

Bolding mine.

 

Wasn't that the Atlanta interviews - if so, I don't believe we've seen a video of it.

There are a couple of pieces of evidence which the police asked the Ramseys about and were asked to provide the proof. The police moved on instead. The RST claim this is proof that the police were lying about the evidence but I asked a detective about it and he said it was a common tactic and that failure by the police to provide the proof didn't necessarily mean there was none. They often do it to rattle the suspect and the suspect then doesn't really know whether there's proof or not until it's produced at trial.

Lou Smit admitted to using rattling tactics in interviews.

 

I just know I have seen it, Jay.

 

I remember John being asked about the sweater fibers in Atlanta in Wood's office. Yes, the lawyers involved cannot lie during questioning. On camera, with the litigious Ramseys and their chief pit bull Sue Wood doing his all to disrupt the questioning, it would be professional suicide for those lawyers to lie during those sessions. They told the truth. John Ramsey said something like "Bullchit!" in the video segment I saw. Is this what you're talking about, Elle?

 

http://www.acandyrose.com/atl2000-interviews-john-ramsey.txt

(snip)

Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. Bulls*it. (The * is courtesy of Tril) I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are.
12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up
13 question would be --
14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in
15 light of what I said to you yesterday is
16 nothing more than an attempt to make a
17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18 disgusting fashion points what you might
19 consider to be some finger of blame at this
20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22 You knew we weren't going to
23 answer the question. Why don't you just
24 give us the report, and we'll put it out
25 there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
1 what it says and see how fair and accurate
2 you have been.
3 I know why you said what you said
4 yesterday about Patsy and the fibers and John
5 and the fibers. And you know why you did
6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to
7 get out and then people will read that and
8 be prejudiced even further against this
9 family.
10 I just don't know why you want to
11 do it, but I can't stop you.
12 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, if you
13 would like to, I would challenge you to find
14 any article anywhere that I have been quoted
15 as giving an opinion or any statement to the
16 press concerning this case.
17 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
18 quoted. You don't have to be quoted.
19 MR. LEVIN: Or any piece of
20 evidence that I have released.
21 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be
22 quoted. You do not have to be quoted.
23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder
24 investigation, and I am trying to get an
25 explanation, which can be an innocent
0060
1 explanation.
2 MR. WOOD: It could be, but you
3 pose your question as if it's not not.
4 That's what's unfair. Why don't you let us
5 see the report so we can know exactly what's
6 going on, exactly what other fibers were
7 found in that area so that you don't
8 unfairly cast an aspersion through innuendo
9 or suggestion toward this man and his
10 daughter.
11 It seems to me that you should
12 look over and go look, Mr. Wood, we want
13 your client's help, we will give you the
14 test results if it will help get this
15 answered, if it is so important, we'll tell
16 you whether there was another fiber or fibers
17 found that we doen't know where they came
18 from and maybe he can help you with that
19 information, but that is not what you are
20 doing. You are focusing on what you believe
21 is one specific area. And you are doing it
22 in a way that I think is just unfair.
23 Let me just answer your question
24 about you being quoted. Look, John and
25 Patsy Ramsey sat around for three years and
0061
1 did not go public with this case, even
2 though your people were talking to tabloids
3 and writing books and appearing on
4 television. Linda Arndt, Steve Thomas, Alex
5 Hunter.
6 You want to go through the litany
7 of how your people have publicly prosecuted
8 and persecuted this family, and now they
9 decided enough is enough and they tried to
10 go out with me, yes, sir, and them and try
11 to refute some of the absolute lies that
12 have been told about them. Do you have a
13 problem with that?
14 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood.
15 MR. WOOD: Because your people
16 have been saying it. I am not calling your
17 name. I don't know who it is linked to.
18 I don't know who gave the ransom note to
19 Vanity Fair. I'm not suggesting it is you.
20 But don't sit here and tell me that because
21 Bruce Levin hasn't been quoted that this
22 investigation from the Boulder Police
23 Department and the district attorney's office
24 is a lily white when it comes to talking
25 about this case in the media because that is
0062
1 false, and you know it.
2 MR. LEVIN: Now, Mr. Wood, if I
3 can just respond very briefly, and I want
4 Mr. Ramsey to listen to this because it's
5 important, the suggestion is that I am
6 suggesting that the only explanation for that
7 question is sinister. I am a part of a
8 team conducting an investigation into your
9 daughter's death, and an innocent explanation
10 that would help us further that investigation
11 is very welcome. I am not looking for a
12 sinister answer or innocent answer.
13 MR. WOOD: If you are looking for
14 that, then give us the test result and let
15 us know what it says.
16 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, the fact
17 of --
18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you
19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give
20 us the test result instead of representing
21 what the test result is. I, for the life
22 of me, do not understand the logic.
23 You say we can tell you what the
24 test result is, but we can't show you the
25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and
0063
1 answer this hypothetical question.
2 If that information means that
3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would
4 not hesitate to give us that report, period.
5 So let's move to something else.
6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to
7 another topic.
8 THE WITNESS: If the question is
9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your
10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not
11 possible. I don't believe it. That is
12 ridiculous.

 

John's answer is instantly defensive and hostile, which to me, speaks volumes. Why would he bristle so? Methinks the gentleman (said only in jest) doth protest too loudly. What about fibers would be "disgusting?" How would fibers "disgrace" John's relationship with, as he says, "my daughter?" Why not respond more calmly and rationally. and just say little?

He jumped instantly into responding as though they had accused him of abuse, when Levin really hadn't made any such jump. No wonder Wood went on such a tangent - he knew that John had already blown the question by responding so vehemently. It was obviously a "hot button" for John.

It makes me think of Patsy's response when Burke's name came up. Same quills-up, ferocious, vehement denial. Hmmmm....