The Ramsey's own words

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by rashomon, May 22, 2006.

  1. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    John and Patsy Ramsey have made quite a few statements which are very revealing.
    I recently read this one from Patsy which almost made me fall off my chair:
    Ramseys' press conference May 1, 1997:

    Patsy: "We feel there are at least two people on the face of this earth that know who did this: and that is the killer, and someone that that person may have confided in."
    I think this extremely odd statement is a bombshell. Things which stand out:

    - by saying that, Patsy indirectly admits that she knows the ransom note was faked. For: of how many people did the 'small foreign faction' consist'? Per the note, it was a group of people, and in case the Ramseys would not follow directions, JonBenet was going to be 'beheaded' by this very same group. And now suddenly per Patsy there was one lone killer? At this moment, Patsy quite obviously forgot what she had written in the ransom note.

    - even if we leave out that Patsy's statement contradicts what was written in the ransom note, and go along with her scenario that one person had killed JonBenet: how can Patsy allege that this person confided in anyone? Most killers don't do that because for obvious reasons it is important for them to keep their mouth shut. The more they talk, the riskier.

    And if the killer talked at all, how would Patsy know that he confided in just one person? This doesn't make sense either.

    - imo this even rules out Burke as the perpetrator, for suppose Burke did it, both parents would have known this, and not just one parent Burke might have 'confided in'.

    Imo, without realizing it, Patsy gave us insight into what happened. Yes indeed, there are "at least two people on the face that know who did this: the killer (imo Patsy Ramsey) and someone that that person may have condfided in (imo John Ramsey)."

    Then Patsy's statement would make sense and she even told the truth here!
  2. Elle

    Elle Member


    Your eagle eye is picking up many of the important parts that have been discussed before, with this statement being one of them. Many of us think the same as you. You're a good P.I. :)
  3. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    Or it could be that they are both involved in their daughter's (Oops! Sorry, Patsy. I mean "that child") death, with each one viewing the other as the actual killer and they are the other's confidant.

    Wasn't there some interview they did during which John asked as a hypothetical, "Well, what if we did kill our daughter?" I see that question as a "testing-the-waters" one from him. Does anyone know the interview of which I speak?

  4. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

  5. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    I'm kind of partial to this little beaut from John-

    John Ramsey: The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, woke up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went down and discovered her body - Then was able to act distraught. Patsy was able to throw up that morning because of gut-wrenching anxiety - She faked it - Help me understand that. Where is our common sense as a society, as a race of people?

    Yep. That's quite a little admission we have there.

  6. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    And hence......the ability to barely pass a Lie Detector Test!

  7. Skigwy

    Skigwy Member

    Patsy: "We feel there are at least two people on the face of this earth that know who did this: and that is the killer, and someone that that person may have confided in."

    John Douglas's Mindhunter mentions this exact thing, when he's developing profiles of killers. I don't have the book here to cite (I'm busy with writing papers for classes to make A's on) but as memory serves, in more than one 'profile' his insight suggested to him that the killer would confide in someone close to him (or in this case her).

    It always struck me, since they owned the book, that this was the source of Patsy's assertion.
  8. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Once again, John places the JonBenet's head injury BEFORE strangulation in his narrative of the crime.
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Excellent thread, rashomon. Any time you read what the Ramseys say, you find stuff like this.

    I noticed that John changed his story, didn't he? I believe he says later that JB was first strangled and then the head blow was struck. Smit changed his mind on that one, didn't he? Right. Smit is another person you see and think he's so nice. In fact, he's so full of himself, he lost all objectivity and went on a crusade, like it was his job to save the Rams.

    Odd, isn't it, how many people who do NOT know the Rams at all, never saw them before they became their shills, have made it their "mission" to save the Rams. For a small fee...of course.
  10. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    I remember there was this news conference regarding the results of the lie detector tests, with John and Patsy (wearing a white jacket with a blue blouse) sitting behind this long table. At one point John held up the kindergarten photo of JonBenet and said, "Someone killed this six-year old child. We know that and we want them captured."

    "This six-year old child". He doesn't say "our daughter" or even "our child". He says "this six-year old child". Those are the words I would expect from someone who had no relation whatsoever to the victim, not from the father. In using the words he did, he essentially distances himself from her as her father. And when he said "We know that", Patsy looked down and away from the camera.

  11. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    my favorite

    My favorite admission from a Ramsey(sounds kind of like an academy award) is where Patsy says she saw the red heart on JonBenet's hand. When asked when she saw it she says that morning and then goes on to hint that an adult must have drawn it because it was a pretty good drawing.
    Sadly, the follow up was not good and she was able to return the next day and gloss over a blockbuster admission.
  12. Cranberry

    Cranberry Member

    In the 6/98 JR interview (line 0144) JR says that morning after his initial shock of "she is gone" his next thoughts were to get her back - thoughts of "is she in the closet, in the refrigerator or behind the curtain" (sbtc?) The inside of the home was checked but I don't remember reading of even a cursory look outside by the R's (even to look out the windows) in the minutes prior to the police arriving. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
  13. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    From the May 31, 2000 Larry King Live show-

    P. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil...

    KING: What was the guy doing?

    P. RAMSEY: ... man.

    KING: Why did the intruder do this?

    J. RAMSEY: It was an evil, evil person.

    John Ramsey stated in their book that the murderer was a male pedophile, so it's rather telling that he would not agree with his wife's comment about the killer being a man, and used the gender neutral "person" instead.

    Last edited: May 25, 2006
  14. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Here we have it again: per JohnRamsey, the killer was one person, and not the foreign faction kidnapping group in the ransom note. So John too admits that he knows the ransom note was bogus.
    I have question: have the Ramseys ever offered any opinion on that ransom note? Did they say for example: "this note was faked" (by a pedophile for example). And if they did, did they elaborate why a pedophile would have written such a note at all?
  15. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    A poster on another forum brought this up:

    Her mother [Nedra] said: Patsy told me "I know in my heart I did not do this."
    Now that's a very odd statement to make. For this is actually something one would say to another person, e. g. "I know in my heart you didn't do this",
    But Patsy said this of herself, as if she wanted to reassure herself.

    Even if Patsy had only said "I know I didn't do this", it would have been odd enough, because it adds an element of uncertainty.
    "I know in my heart I didn't do this" is even more strange.
    For if a person didn't do it, wouldn't she simply state: "I didn't do it."?

    Why did Patsy feel the need to phrase it like that? Possible interpretation:

    "My heart tells me that this could not (really) have been me who did this to my beloved daughter" - maybe these are the thoughts which keep running through Patsy's head. So there could be a defense mechanism at work here: she blocks out that part of her personality who in fact did this to JonBenet.
  16. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    The man who was arrested (and released) for the 1992 Butts triple homicide in Cass County, Texas, said as much as the same thing - he knew in his heart he didn't do it. :beammeup:
  17. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Member

    When did Nedra say this, rashomon?

  18. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    The poster did not give the source, but I'll ask her about it.
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Please do - jameson has devoted a thread to this - it's clearly important to the Ramsey Spin Team

    RST jameson started the thread and called it "BORG Bull", then Candy joined in to attack the Guttah, then Tipper joined in to argue semantics, then Candy joined in to attack the Guttah..... and so it goes on.

    Come to think of it..... it's just a typical RST thread actually. ALl we need is for E2 to join in and claim that it wasn't actually Nedra who said this, but Janet McReynolds DRESSED as Nedra, then Candy will join in to attack the Guttah. Then Dave the self-procalimed Expert of all things will start another thread called "Inadequacy of the BORG self" ... except he'll start it in the protected forum so Candy and Tipper won't be able to join in...

    Edited to add:- Come to think of it - just a typical thread at yonder forum. Starts with an attack on an unnamed "BORG" poster for an unsourced "BORG" post at an unsourced "BORG" forum and then the RST all join in to attack the BORG.
    Last edited: May 27, 2006
  20. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    So true EasyWriter.
    No wonder Lou Smit quickly changed the subject after John said that, lol.
    For this would not have fit into Smit's intruder time line at all:
    Because it doesn't make sense for killers to strangle an already dead child. It doesn't make sense to put wrist ligatures on an already dead body. It doesn't make sense to put duct tape on a dead child's mouth.

    I believe that without being aware of it, JR spoke of what had indeed happened: the head injury had come first. Both Ramseys believed JB was already dead, and Patsy (helped by John who wanted to cover up for her) tied the knot around her neck and staged the rest of the scene to make it look like a sexual pervert had committed the crime.

    And what you wrote in your letter to Mary Keenan is a fascinating interpretation of JR's statement:

    Translation: "Please tell me that she was dead from the head injury before the strangulation. I don't want to believe there was a chance she could have survived and wasn't given the chance."
    Last edited: May 27, 2006
  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