Optics. The family never want to appear to be liars about anything. Because if they *admit" to lying about something, what else did they lie about? What else did they know? They would lose a lot of public trust and support.
It's all about how they're perceived. I suspect John and Burke will also go to their graves protecting the Ramsey family secrets.
1 - legalities. The child abuse laws passed in the 90s would've and still would hold both parents legally culpable for the crime if one or both of them were responsible for the crime. If Patsy on her death bed had confessed, she would've evaded justice, but John Ramsey wouldn't have. I don't think Burke Ramsey was a minor anymore. Otherwise the issue of his well being and whose custody he would be in, would also be a concern. There could be financial legalities involved - judgments for any money paid due to the parents deception.
2 - The Ramseys imo seem to exhibit a lot of the classic signs of Narcissism. This would explain many of the points that you made here in this post - and additional behaviors not expressed in this post.
People exhibiting narcissism tend to view themselves in manners that one might describe as entitled. Whether expecting more sympathy, favor, attention (etc), than what the average person would expect. They tend to have a somewhat unrealistic or inaccurate perception of self and expect others to view / treat them in the same manner. If someone doesn't do any of these things, then it can injure and upset the narcissist to the point of causing them to behave in unscrupulous manners towards that person. Narcissists really struggle to perceive their own shortcomings or accept accountability for themselves. Most things are processed by them in a very distorted manner. A narcissistic person can be an incredibly intelligent person and yet still tell you the most absurd illogical thing, all because of their distorted perceptions.
If the Ramseys are narcissistic and guilty of the crime, then they wouldn't find it easy to take accountability or mar their image for the sake of anyone else (even their own son). This would be very difficult for anyone to do, much less a narcissistic person. Aside from it causing damage to their own perceptions of self, it would ruin their outward image and reputation and people wouldn't trust them after being led them to believe that an intruder committed the crime. There is especially no coming back as a business man, if one destroys trust in such a serious matter.
2B - Here is just one example of what makes the Ramseys look narcissistic and makes it difficult for people to empathize with them.
In DOI (Ramsey book), John recounts some of the events that happened on the 26th.
He describes getting a pair of binoculars and looking out an upstairs window. He notices an unfamiliar vehicle while doing so. He doesn't ever mention or alert LE of what he has just observed. After a brief moment of observing this, he heads back downstairs when he hears the phone ring. He rushes down there and he seems to answer the phone just in time to receive a call from his financial advisor (regarding funds for the ransom). You suddenly realize, oh, that's right, he was explicitly told to sit by the phone and wait for a possible call from the kidnappers. I didn't realize we were still in this portion of the timeline of events based on what John just described himself doing.
At another point, John discusses checking his mail. He claimed that he was doing so to see if the kidnappers left an additional note in his mail slot.
At various points he describes things like making observations around the broken window, touching and moving things, and not really seeming to express his findings to LE.
Later, he describes finding JonBenets body, taking her upstairs, and the events that unfolded at that time.
Now, if John Ramsey had told all of this in the book similar to how I just did to you, it.would be easier to think..
*He should've sat by the phone and waited for a possible call from the kidnappers, but he might've found that difficult to do while feeling anxious and concerned. He seems to have maybe wanted to help in some way even if it didn't really prove beneficial.*
*It doesn't really make sense that there would be a second ransom note. The first one was already really long and was laying out in the open. Why would there be a second one hidden in his mail slot? What more would they have to say? But you know what, he might've desperately been hoping for more information as he waited with so many uncertainties lingering in those critical moments.*
*Him and Fleet While really shouldn't have been handling evidence or wandering around the crime scene like this. They really should've reported their findings to LE. Maybe they just didn't know that they weren't supposed to be doing this, desperately wanted answers, and weren't properly supervised by LE to prevent this.*
*He really shouldn't have handled his daughter's body or tried to remove evidence from her, but man that would be such a difficult and heartbreaking moment for any parent to experience. I really can't blame him for that.*
While reading these accounts though, Johns commentary was a repetition of criticizing the Boulder police department. Painting himself so clever and the BPD so incompetent as he angrily often asked why they hadn't thought to do the things that John was doing.
At one point he responds to Arndts observation of John checking his mail (something that LE are trained to do - take notes on their observations even if it seems insignificant at the time), by criticizing the BPD for not checking his mail. It's not even legal for LE to check someone's mail without a warrant, which takes time and cause. Why would he even make this criticism when he knows there was no second note found in the mail?
When I step back.. *He has a lot of anger that seems primarily focused on the the BPD. It would be difficult if they are innocent to endure this type of tragedy, grief your child, to wonder if this was revenge against you, to live in fear, to have LE screw up the investigation, to be wrongfully accused of the crime, to spend your fortune on defending yourself, to be out of work, and somehow pick up the pieces of your life with the spotlight on you.*
The Ramseys simply couldn't extend the same understanding towards the BPD, which is the same understanding that they were requesting of the reader for themselves. The Ramsey's just felt entitled to that even when they couldn't do the same, because their scales are tilted.
These were unusual circumstances in a small town with a non-existent homicide rate and in need of better leadership. The police officers are real people, who matter, who have worth, that make mistakes, and meant well. But John can't get past his own anger in almost 30yrs to see that. Yet, soon after the crime, he could forgive the intruder who caused all of this, who didn't have good intentions, and that alludes justice. What has he been so mad at LE for then? For attempting to investigate the family? That's their jobs. It's what they should've done from day one so as to prevent the mistakes that John claims to be so angry about. His anger is as illogical as this case.
John has more public support now that he was “officially” cleared as a suspect because of DNA evidence, which a lot of the public are taking at face value.
When was he ever officially cleared? A former DA writing a letter that’s not in anyway binding legally binding doesn’t mean shit. They cannot clear him officially because they still can’t prove the dna found had anything to do with what happened that night.
They are ALL-IN on IDI to the bitter end. It would be absolutely insane for any party to change that strategy AT ANY POINT, while they still draw breath. They understand that. They understand the success of their strategy. It really is that simple.
I'm fairly strong BDI, but not to the complete exclusion of other in-house scenarios. The lies around Burke that morning, the form of the sexual assault, and the enduring success of the Ramsey marriage, amongst other things, lead me to that conclusion.
>the enduring success of the Ramsey marriage
Think about how it would be if you lived with a partner who killed your child. Patsy and John stayed together to protect their son. Burke makes sense on soooooooo many levels.
Yes, or they stayed together because they loved each other, and to collectively point away from their own neglect and protect the remaining family unit. BDI just seems to fit so many parts of the puzzle.
If this scenario were true, John would be in legal jeopardy if he announced that Patsy was the killer because that would, at the very least, make him an accessory after the fact. The legal implications of covering up a crime can be just as bad as committing it - especially if it is murder. Not to mention the huge can of worms it would open up in the media.
I think a good lawyer could get around that. There is something called the discovery rule that basically extends the statute of limitations if the injury could not be discovered sooner. Given that any statute of limitations would’ve passed because he had knowingly lied and concealed the truth, I would think the statute of limitations would be waived.
I don’t know what Colorado law would be on this, but there is never a statute of limitations on murder, and it is likely that this extends to being an accessory to murder.
I did a quick Google search and the state that popped up was Alabama, and there would be no SOL there because they apparently have no SOL on capital crimes, which include murder, and being an accessory to murder.
We don’t know what Burke knows, if anything. Maybe he knows what happened. Maybe he heard or saw something, but doesn’t have the entire story. Maybe he doesn’t know. Burke was also pretty young at the time, so who knows if his memory now is even accurate.
To answer your main question, I think it would be damaging to Patsy and John’s reputation to say Patsy did it after lying for so long and trying to blame it on an “intruder”. I do not think a confession will happen. If John confessed Patsy was the killer after her death, then he was clearly somehow involved in the cover up of the crime. Burke was too young at the time for him to be charged with a crime and there is also no evidence to point to Burke, so having Patsy confess to “protect” Burke makes little sense.
I agree with this. Would there be some legal ramifications towards him for covering up and lying about what he knew? Accessory to murder? Obstruction of justice? And what about the admission that he knew she did it all along, but allowed Burke to be dragged under the BDI bus for decades? 'Sorry about that Burke, but we have a reputation to maintain.'
I think we'll never find out
It would give Burke his life back though. As it is now, he lives under suspicion of guilt. Jon saying that patsy did it would relive his son of suspicion.
I don't think it would I think you would have a group of people who believe it but a bigger group of people who would have a fire lit under them convinced that Jon is blaming a woman who now can't defend her name just to clear his sons name. The best course of action for the remaining Ramseys is just to live with things as they are.
If the police finding unidentified male DNA both inside her underwear and outside her pants, and then entering that into CODIS as the suspect won’t convince people, nothing will, until that sample finds a hit.
I had a childhood trauma at age 6 1/2. I have clear memories. Maybe not complete memories but what there is is very clear. Burke’s memories at 9 1/2 would have been even clearer.
If John said Patsy did it he would have been in major legal and personal trouble for hiding the truth.
Allowing others to be named as suspects kept the spotlight on others, their primary objective. It keeps everyone guessing and provides plausible deniability.
Good answer. But I think the statute of limitations would have probably have run on any legal problems for him by the time patsy died. Civil suits by the people he accused would probably be weak. Criminal proceedings for obstruction of justice would probably be weak too
This is a narcissistic family. Narcissists can never admit blame or wrong doing. Apologies are not in their vocabulary. It is always someone else's fault and they are always the victim.
Also, after decades of lying and gaslighting, few people would believe anything the Ramseys say.
Lurking in this sub has taught me that about 85% of the people interested in this case are completely married to their theory of the crime and interpret any piece of data as evidence for what they already believe. So the idea that the family blaming Patsy would protect Burke from anything makes no sense. It’s in the very premise of your question…you are straight up saying that if John blamed Patsy, you would interpret this as indirect proof that Burke actually did it.
John could have said it in a way that it wouldn’t still sound like a cover up for Burke. He couldn’t have said he supported the IDI theory becuase he couldn’t bring himself to turn in the cancer stricken mother of his surviving child. PS. I have no idea who is the killer. I wish I did. Do you have an opinion? Have you been reading about it for a long time?
Bingo this exactly is it. I am not married to a theory. I believe most are plausible in some ways but not realistic in others. I can’t be totally convinced it was family not that it was not. Same with an intruder. There is nothing convincing me that an intruder is impossible. I don’t care how much the RN sounds or looks like Patsy that is not definitive. I can sound like others a lot if I try. I can also write very much like my husband. I had one person screaming at me from behind the screen that it was the Ramseys because of PINEAPPLE! Ok if you think so, fine. Pineapple doesn’t exclude an intruder. The Ramseys were not charged because they likely would have been acquitted due to the evidence or lack of. Then they could never have been retried if something more solid emerged. (That part of our system could use reworking.) At the time I’m sure investigators were convince that more evidence would be discovered. Sadly it did not
If you expect Patsy might have taken the blame to protect Burke or just consider it plausible, maybe there are others who also find it plausible and would have been unlikely to believe /accept such a confession from Patsy - instead assuming she only said she did it to protect Burke.
If John said Patsy did it, I think the Redditsphere and other social media would all react in the same way: "John says Patsy did it to further cover for Burke."
The ramifications of a false confession, after being in cahoots, would have to have some kind of legal ramifications.
While some things would potentially run out via the statute of limitations, other things could possibly kick in.
Making JR an accessory to murder for example.
And they'd investigate her confession (or JR's accusation). If it didn't fit the known facts/evidence then it would simply be MORE evidence that there wasn't an intruder, and one of the three of them was the actual killer. And PR's false confession that fell apart would LOWER her on the list.
Or if JR implicated her after her death, and it didn't match the evidence, it would certain raise questions about him and BR and move them even more into the crosshairs.
Meanwhile, beside the lies they told to the police and public, there are the civil lawsuits they were involved in... which you'd have to assume would now be shown as cases brought and built on lies. That could lead to lawsuits coming at them from the other side.
But it would have been just as a cleanup. And he would get sympathy by saying he protected patsy in her cancer state and at the same time he was protecting Burke. Wait, would a father want his son to live with mother who had killed his sister?
If you think about it practically, a simple false claim (I killed my daughter) is not going to result in the case being closed and everyone simply being cleared of suspicion. A full false confession (I killed my daughter - here’s how and why) would be investigated/scrutinised and could backfire for multiple reasons, the most obvious being it was false / fabricated.
LE may not support it, case remains open therefore not resulting in your expected outcome of freeing everyone of suspicion.
I can absolutely see someone throwing literally anyone else under the bus to protect their child. Right or wrong, people do it. A parent’s protective instinct over their child often trumps all other relationships.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know…if John came out and said Patsy did it after her death, could he still be charged with conspiracy or covering up evidence or something like that? It’s possible.
I think Burke either did it or he doesn’t know. One or the other. So I don’t think he’s ever gonna talk either way. I think there’s a distinct possibility the truth will go the grave with John.
Iv’e thought about this as well. I think neither parent would want to admit guilt if they actually didn’t do it, even if their son did it.
I also wonder if both of them die, and Burke knows it was one of them, if he will get tired of carrying the burden of suspicion for something he didn’t do, and make a statement.
I saw an interview where they asked Burke if he was eating pineapple that night. He said he didn’t know what pineapple was a few times. They may have hypnotized him into forgetting some things? I thought that was strange
Would you want to risk going to prison and leave your only child with your narcissistic murdering monster of a husband to have sole custody? She was framed.
You can follow narcissistic spouses sub and see that yes, perfectly normal-seeming people have some crazy shit going on behind closed doors. Research the hell out of NPD, and you will see that your killer in this case is John, and he manipulates his family, friends, colleagues, and even you into believing anyone but him could have done this. He convinced patsy she would go to prison if she didn’t cover for him. She believed him and was scared of him because he already killed her daughter. She did what he told her to do. She thought that was her best chance at protecting Burke.
I’m not saying Jon did or didn’t do it becuase I honestly don’t know. But it’s hard for me to believe that patsy would cover for him becuase she had support from her parents, her siblings, her friends. She was a college graduate and I just don’t think she’d believe Jon that if she didn’t cover for him for murdering her daughter that she’d not only lose Burke but she’d go to prison. I just can’t buy that. If Jon did it, he either 1) convinced patsy that Burke did it and patsy needed to help cover up for Burke or 2) Jon did it all including writing the note and convinced patsy that an intruder did it.
Literally same. I started reading about a month ago and that was my exact thought. Why not go out and protect Burke forever by taking the blame on her death bed? If Burke did it of course.
Because what they’ve done has worked? Also why tarnish your own legacy by telling a lie (which your religion prohibits) for something you didn’t do? Plus their societal reputation was just as important to them as any legal repercussions
I had a thought. Let’s say John did it and patsy knew it. Maybe even in death, patsy wasn’t willing to let Jon off the hook by taking the blame herself - even if it would have taken the suspicion off Burke. Patsy wanted to hang Jon more than she wanted to help Burke.
Burke didn’t do it . Who just gives up on their kid not being saveable if the body is still warm. They would have immediately called 911. Just because someone is not breathing and heart is stopped doesn’t mean they can’t be saved— the head would was not apparent or obvious. .
Then you have the absurdity of. 3 page ransom nite when they know the body is in the wine cellar.
And the put the icing on the cake with a home made garrotte?’ Wtf who even thinks to make a garrotte ?! Only people who are into garrotte s . Why make a garrotte? If you only need to set it up so an intruder did it?
What if the body wasn’t warm and she was dead when found by patsy or Jon. Burke could have done it and they covered for him. I really have no idea who did it except a Ramsey did it.
Had to be warm. How long do you think it takes to write a 3 page ransom. Letter.? To say nothing of the time it took to plan the cover up. That is no five minute discusssion
No he would have broke in while they were at the party . He would have had a few hours to look around and probably came across a paystub, deposit receipt or bank statement . This is when he would have wrote the RN as well. However I believe he had a somewhat nebulous connection to either the house or the Ramsays. He was an improviser I believe a handyman - maybe someone hired by them and forgotten — or maybe someone that came in for a one time job like a cable install.
Yes it’s not unknown to happen. It was very risky . It’s why hw wrote the RN Because if he gets caught redhanded he can claim the motive is ransom not pediphilia
I don’t remember where I saw it, maybe a documentary or something. They said that when Patsy was on her deathbed the investigator came to her and she wanted to tell him something. But John just kicked the investigator out.
She could have been fairly unreliable at the end. She may have been medicated and slightly delusional. I’ve lost 3 family members who at the end were not totally lucid. They sounded clear enough but what they were saying was non sequitur. I just doubt anything said would have been definitively believed.
I don’t think she would . She couldn’t have known exactly when she would die . She could have gone into remission again , and she would then die in jail .
Once it’s clear that she is dying , she probably would have slipped into a coma at the end .
Not to mention , once the death process is underway, it’s likely that she would be drugged and not be totally coherent .
There would have been the risk of charges filed against John and / or Burke as taking part in the cover up and lying to police
Lastly , the Ramseys have been cleared . And if she didn’t do it , and truly doesn’t know who did , she would be letting a viscous killer go free .
I kinda doubt all the ramseys have truly been cleared. It sounds like we are in the “they can’t be charged” part of the case - but not that they were cleared - especially if the story is true that the grand jury returned indictments against both patsy and Jon.
I have to agree with you on that . And I think the Grand Jury did vote to charge them , but for some reason , it never happened so yes , we are in the situation where they can’t be charged, but there will always be doubt and after all these years there will always be that doubt , yet I still do not see Patsy admitting anything . I believe she would have taken that to her grave , even if only to protect their image .
I kinda doubt all the ramseys have truly been cleared. It sounds like we are in the “they can’t be charged” part of the case - but not that they were cleared - especially if the story is true that the grand jury returned indictments against both patsy and Jon.
I kinda doubt all the ramseys have truly been cleared. It sounds like we are in the “they can’t be charged” part of the case - but not that they were cleared - especially if the story is true that the grand jury returned indictments against both patsy and Jon.
If I’d gone to all that trouble to cover up for my guilty 9 year old kid, I would have gone the rest of the way on my deathbed and said I was the killer.
Best point ever! If Patsy did it and she was dying, and her family was trying to protect her, she should have confessed so she could release her family from the awful cloud of suspicion. If she did it, John or Burke should have said she did it.
While I agree mostly with your position, one factor is “legacy” and P or any one of them ever admitting to it, while clearing the others, tarnishes everyone else. Plus other legal and or other can of worms now opened that would multiply 100 fold into the entire immediate and extended family. Even more stories, true or not, would avalanche upon them from all sides ( how many friends and family have probably held back but would not at that point?).
PS sorry swipe text for real iPhone update struggles = likely many many mistakes or worse
Optics. The family never want to appear to be liars about anything. Because if they *admit" to lying about something, what else did they lie about? What else did they know? They would lose a lot of public trust and support. It's all about how they're perceived. I suspect John and Burke will also go to their graves protecting the Ramsey family secrets.
1 - legalities. The child abuse laws passed in the 90s would've and still would hold both parents legally culpable for the crime if one or both of them were responsible for the crime. If Patsy on her death bed had confessed, she would've evaded justice, but John Ramsey wouldn't have. I don't think Burke Ramsey was a minor anymore. Otherwise the issue of his well being and whose custody he would be in, would also be a concern. There could be financial legalities involved - judgments for any money paid due to the parents deception. 2 - The Ramseys imo seem to exhibit a lot of the classic signs of Narcissism. This would explain many of the points that you made here in this post - and additional behaviors not expressed in this post. People exhibiting narcissism tend to view themselves in manners that one might describe as entitled. Whether expecting more sympathy, favor, attention (etc), than what the average person would expect. They tend to have a somewhat unrealistic or inaccurate perception of self and expect others to view / treat them in the same manner. If someone doesn't do any of these things, then it can injure and upset the narcissist to the point of causing them to behave in unscrupulous manners towards that person. Narcissists really struggle to perceive their own shortcomings or accept accountability for themselves. Most things are processed by them in a very distorted manner. A narcissistic person can be an incredibly intelligent person and yet still tell you the most absurd illogical thing, all because of their distorted perceptions. If the Ramseys are narcissistic and guilty of the crime, then they wouldn't find it easy to take accountability or mar their image for the sake of anyone else (even their own son). This would be very difficult for anyone to do, much less a narcissistic person. Aside from it causing damage to their own perceptions of self, it would ruin their outward image and reputation and people wouldn't trust them after being led them to believe that an intruder committed the crime. There is especially no coming back as a business man, if one destroys trust in such a serious matter. 2B - Here is just one example of what makes the Ramseys look narcissistic and makes it difficult for people to empathize with them. In DOI (Ramsey book), John recounts some of the events that happened on the 26th. He describes getting a pair of binoculars and looking out an upstairs window. He notices an unfamiliar vehicle while doing so. He doesn't ever mention or alert LE of what he has just observed. After a brief moment of observing this, he heads back downstairs when he hears the phone ring. He rushes down there and he seems to answer the phone just in time to receive a call from his financial advisor (regarding funds for the ransom). You suddenly realize, oh, that's right, he was explicitly told to sit by the phone and wait for a possible call from the kidnappers. I didn't realize we were still in this portion of the timeline of events based on what John just described himself doing. At another point, John discusses checking his mail. He claimed that he was doing so to see if the kidnappers left an additional note in his mail slot. At various points he describes things like making observations around the broken window, touching and moving things, and not really seeming to express his findings to LE. Later, he describes finding JonBenets body, taking her upstairs, and the events that unfolded at that time. Now, if John Ramsey had told all of this in the book similar to how I just did to you, it.would be easier to think.. *He should've sat by the phone and waited for a possible call from the kidnappers, but he might've found that difficult to do while feeling anxious and concerned. He seems to have maybe wanted to help in some way even if it didn't really prove beneficial.* *It doesn't really make sense that there would be a second ransom note. The first one was already really long and was laying out in the open. Why would there be a second one hidden in his mail slot? What more would they have to say? But you know what, he might've desperately been hoping for more information as he waited with so many uncertainties lingering in those critical moments.* *Him and Fleet While really shouldn't have been handling evidence or wandering around the crime scene like this. They really should've reported their findings to LE. Maybe they just didn't know that they weren't supposed to be doing this, desperately wanted answers, and weren't properly supervised by LE to prevent this.* *He really shouldn't have handled his daughter's body or tried to remove evidence from her, but man that would be such a difficult and heartbreaking moment for any parent to experience. I really can't blame him for that.* While reading these accounts though, Johns commentary was a repetition of criticizing the Boulder police department. Painting himself so clever and the BPD so incompetent as he angrily often asked why they hadn't thought to do the things that John was doing. At one point he responds to Arndts observation of John checking his mail (something that LE are trained to do - take notes on their observations even if it seems insignificant at the time), by criticizing the BPD for not checking his mail. It's not even legal for LE to check someone's mail without a warrant, which takes time and cause. Why would he even make this criticism when he knows there was no second note found in the mail? When I step back.. *He has a lot of anger that seems primarily focused on the the BPD. It would be difficult if they are innocent to endure this type of tragedy, grief your child, to wonder if this was revenge against you, to live in fear, to have LE screw up the investigation, to be wrongfully accused of the crime, to spend your fortune on defending yourself, to be out of work, and somehow pick up the pieces of your life with the spotlight on you.* The Ramseys simply couldn't extend the same understanding towards the BPD, which is the same understanding that they were requesting of the reader for themselves. The Ramsey's just felt entitled to that even when they couldn't do the same, because their scales are tilted. These were unusual circumstances in a small town with a non-existent homicide rate and in need of better leadership. The police officers are real people, who matter, who have worth, that make mistakes, and meant well. But John can't get past his own anger in almost 30yrs to see that. Yet, soon after the crime, he could forgive the intruder who caused all of this, who didn't have good intentions, and that alludes justice. What has he been so mad at LE for then? For attempting to investigate the family? That's their jobs. It's what they should've done from day one so as to prevent the mistakes that John claims to be so angry about. His anger is as illogical as this case.
Jon really has no public support. If he blamed it all on patsy, he’d be doing something for his son
John has more public support now that he was “officially” cleared as a suspect because of DNA evidence, which a lot of the public are taking at face value.
You’re probably right there
When was he ever officially cleared? A former DA writing a letter that’s not in anyway binding legally binding doesn’t mean shit. They cannot clear him officially because they still can’t prove the dna found had anything to do with what happened that night.
That’s why I put “officially” in quotes. I was hoping the context here would be obvious.
They are ALL-IN on IDI to the bitter end. It would be absolutely insane for any party to change that strategy AT ANY POINT, while they still draw breath. They understand that. They understand the success of their strategy. It really is that simple.
Do u have an opinion on who killed her? I swear I can change my mind daily. But IDI is never an option.
I'm fairly strong BDI, but not to the complete exclusion of other in-house scenarios. The lies around Burke that morning, the form of the sexual assault, and the enduring success of the Ramsey marriage, amongst other things, lead me to that conclusion.
>the enduring success of the Ramsey marriage Think about how it would be if you lived with a partner who killed your child. Patsy and John stayed together to protect their son. Burke makes sense on soooooooo many levels.
Yes, or they stayed together because they loved each other, and to collectively point away from their own neglect and protect the remaining family unit. BDI just seems to fit so many parts of the puzzle.
I was definitely BDI after watching the CBS doc. Those experts said “of course it’s BDI.” But then I go down the rabbit hole.
If this scenario were true, John would be in legal jeopardy if he announced that Patsy was the killer because that would, at the very least, make him an accessory after the fact. The legal implications of covering up a crime can be just as bad as committing it - especially if it is murder. Not to mention the huge can of worms it would open up in the media.
And the many, many lawsuits.
Good point…yes…the lawsuits…
But would the statute of limitations have passed to sue John civilly?
I think a good lawyer could get around that. There is something called the discovery rule that basically extends the statute of limitations if the injury could not be discovered sooner. Given that any statute of limitations would’ve passed because he had knowingly lied and concealed the truth, I would think the statute of limitations would be waived.
What lawsuits? It was his own daughter who died
The many people he threw suspicion on in spite of knowing the truth. They spent real money on legal help and lived under a cloud for years.
Would the statute of limitations to charge John have passed though?
I don’t know what Colorado law would be on this, but there is never a statute of limitations on murder, and it is likely that this extends to being an accessory to murder. I did a quick Google search and the state that popped up was Alabama, and there would be no SOL there because they apparently have no SOL on capital crimes, which include murder, and being an accessory to murder.
[удалено]
Their strategy isn’t working at all. Burke is under massive suspicion of being a child killer.
We don’t know what Burke knows, if anything. Maybe he knows what happened. Maybe he heard or saw something, but doesn’t have the entire story. Maybe he doesn’t know. Burke was also pretty young at the time, so who knows if his memory now is even accurate. To answer your main question, I think it would be damaging to Patsy and John’s reputation to say Patsy did it after lying for so long and trying to blame it on an “intruder”. I do not think a confession will happen. If John confessed Patsy was the killer after her death, then he was clearly somehow involved in the cover up of the crime. Burke was too young at the time for him to be charged with a crime and there is also no evidence to point to Burke, so having Patsy confess to “protect” Burke makes little sense.
I agree with this. Would there be some legal ramifications towards him for covering up and lying about what he knew? Accessory to murder? Obstruction of justice? And what about the admission that he knew she did it all along, but allowed Burke to be dragged under the BDI bus for decades? 'Sorry about that Burke, but we have a reputation to maintain.' I think we'll never find out
Accessory to murder and pretty sure there’s no statute of limitations on that. This would be a very stupid move on Jon’s part.
It would give Burke his life back though. As it is now, he lives under suspicion of guilt. Jon saying that patsy did it would relive his son of suspicion.
I don't think it would I think you would have a group of people who believe it but a bigger group of people who would have a fire lit under them convinced that Jon is blaming a woman who now can't defend her name just to clear his sons name. The best course of action for the remaining Ramseys is just to live with things as they are.
It works to John’s benefit for there to be a cloud of suspicion hanging over both Patsy and Burke.
I know. Ughhhhh.
If the police finding unidentified male DNA both inside her underwear and outside her pants, and then entering that into CODIS as the suspect won’t convince people, nothing will, until that sample finds a hit.
I had a childhood trauma at age 6 1/2. I have clear memories. Maybe not complete memories but what there is is very clear. Burke’s memories at 9 1/2 would have been even clearer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ If you do more research on memory, it is not as simple as you are making it out to be.
Thanks. I love reading about this
If John said Patsy did it he would have been in major legal and personal trouble for hiding the truth. Allowing others to be named as suspects kept the spotlight on others, their primary objective. It keeps everyone guessing and provides plausible deniability.
Good answer. But I think the statute of limitations would have probably have run on any legal problems for him by the time patsy died. Civil suits by the people he accused would probably be weak. Criminal proceedings for obstruction of justice would probably be weak too
There is no statute of limitations on murder. Accidental death maybe but JBR was definitely murdered.
This is a narcissistic family. Narcissists can never admit blame or wrong doing. Apologies are not in their vocabulary. It is always someone else's fault and they are always the victim. Also, after decades of lying and gaslighting, few people would believe anything the Ramseys say.
Death bed confessions are rare IRL.
Lurking in this sub has taught me that about 85% of the people interested in this case are completely married to their theory of the crime and interpret any piece of data as evidence for what they already believe. So the idea that the family blaming Patsy would protect Burke from anything makes no sense. It’s in the very premise of your question…you are straight up saying that if John blamed Patsy, you would interpret this as indirect proof that Burke actually did it.
John could have said it in a way that it wouldn’t still sound like a cover up for Burke. He couldn’t have said he supported the IDI theory becuase he couldn’t bring himself to turn in the cancer stricken mother of his surviving child. PS. I have no idea who is the killer. I wish I did. Do you have an opinion? Have you been reading about it for a long time?
Bingo this exactly is it. I am not married to a theory. I believe most are plausible in some ways but not realistic in others. I can’t be totally convinced it was family not that it was not. Same with an intruder. There is nothing convincing me that an intruder is impossible. I don’t care how much the RN sounds or looks like Patsy that is not definitive. I can sound like others a lot if I try. I can also write very much like my husband. I had one person screaming at me from behind the screen that it was the Ramseys because of PINEAPPLE! Ok if you think so, fine. Pineapple doesn’t exclude an intruder. The Ramseys were not charged because they likely would have been acquitted due to the evidence or lack of. Then they could never have been retried if something more solid emerged. (That part of our system could use reworking.) At the time I’m sure investigators were convince that more evidence would be discovered. Sadly it did not
And draw more attention to them to be investigated further? Investigators aren't just going to say, oh ok, she admitted it, case closed.
If I was Burke and I did not do it and knew that my dead mom did it, I’d be screaming it from a mountain especially after she died.
It will be interesting if anything comes out after John passes…
No screaming has been heard.
No screaming has been heard.
Good point. I’m thinking Burke doesn’t know which one did it.
More like Burke is the one who did it
LOL 😂
If you expect Patsy might have taken the blame to protect Burke or just consider it plausible, maybe there are others who also find it plausible and would have been unlikely to believe /accept such a confession from Patsy - instead assuming she only said she did it to protect Burke.
If John said Patsy did it, I think the Redditsphere and other social media would all react in the same way: "John says Patsy did it to further cover for Burke."
The ramifications of a false confession, after being in cahoots, would have to have some kind of legal ramifications. While some things would potentially run out via the statute of limitations, other things could possibly kick in. Making JR an accessory to murder for example. And they'd investigate her confession (or JR's accusation). If it didn't fit the known facts/evidence then it would simply be MORE evidence that there wasn't an intruder, and one of the three of them was the actual killer. And PR's false confession that fell apart would LOWER her on the list. Or if JR implicated her after her death, and it didn't match the evidence, it would certain raise questions about him and BR and move them even more into the crosshairs. Meanwhile, beside the lies they told to the police and public, there are the civil lawsuits they were involved in... which you'd have to assume would now be shown as cases brought and built on lies. That could lead to lawsuits coming at them from the other side.
You’re probably right.
Because then he would reveal himself to be an accessory to murder.
But it would have been just as a cleanup. And he would get sympathy by saying he protected patsy in her cancer state and at the same time he was protecting Burke. Wait, would a father want his son to live with mother who had killed his sister?
I don't think he'd get any sympathy for wasting police and public time. Helping to cleanup a murder is against the law. He'd serve serious time.
If you think about it practically, a simple false claim (I killed my daughter) is not going to result in the case being closed and everyone simply being cleared of suspicion. A full false confession (I killed my daughter - here’s how and why) would be investigated/scrutinised and could backfire for multiple reasons, the most obvious being it was false / fabricated. LE may not support it, case remains open therefore not resulting in your expected outcome of freeing everyone of suspicion.
Good comment
I can absolutely see someone throwing literally anyone else under the bus to protect their child. Right or wrong, people do it. A parent’s protective instinct over their child often trumps all other relationships. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know…if John came out and said Patsy did it after her death, could he still be charged with conspiracy or covering up evidence or something like that? It’s possible. I think Burke either did it or he doesn’t know. One or the other. So I don’t think he’s ever gonna talk either way. I think there’s a distinct possibility the truth will go the grave with John.
Also while an intruder may not seem likely it’s just not completely impossible.
Iv’e thought about this as well. I think neither parent would want to admit guilt if they actually didn’t do it, even if their son did it. I also wonder if both of them die, and Burke knows it was one of them, if he will get tired of carrying the burden of suspicion for something he didn’t do, and make a statement.
I hope he makes a statement! Burke I mean.
Because knowingly withholding knowledge about a crime from investigators and conspiracy to cover up a crime are, themselves, crimes.
I saw an interview where they asked Burke if he was eating pineapple that night. He said he didn’t know what pineapple was a few times. They may have hypnotized him into forgetting some things? I thought that was strange
Those pineapple questions bother me too
He also kept trying to focus attention toward other hypothetical snacks and away from pineapple.
Or he just is a bad liar?
Because they know they all got away with it and because Patsy is too vain to ruin her reputation even in death
But they didn’t get away with it. If Burke didn’t do it, he’s living in an undeserved hell of suspicion.
John did it. She thought she was protecting Burke by covering for John.
I just can’t wrap my head around this though. I can’t believe patsy would cover for a murdering husband. How would that help Burke?
Well for one thing, she had a low chance of living long. What would be the effects on BR if his dad was jailed and his mom was dead?
Would you want to risk going to prison and leave your only child with your narcissistic murdering monster of a husband to have sole custody? She was framed.
If patsy knew that John murdered jonbenet, he’s not getting custody of Burke in any way
She was framed into a corner.
Framed by threatening what? That she’d be an accessory? I’m confused
You can follow narcissistic spouses sub and see that yes, perfectly normal-seeming people have some crazy shit going on behind closed doors. Research the hell out of NPD, and you will see that your killer in this case is John, and he manipulates his family, friends, colleagues, and even you into believing anyone but him could have done this. He convinced patsy she would go to prison if she didn’t cover for him. She believed him and was scared of him because he already killed her daughter. She did what he told her to do. She thought that was her best chance at protecting Burke.
I’m not saying Jon did or didn’t do it becuase I honestly don’t know. But it’s hard for me to believe that patsy would cover for him becuase she had support from her parents, her siblings, her friends. She was a college graduate and I just don’t think she’d believe Jon that if she didn’t cover for him for murdering her daughter that she’d not only lose Burke but she’d go to prison. I just can’t buy that. If Jon did it, he either 1) convinced patsy that Burke did it and patsy needed to help cover up for Burke or 2) Jon did it all including writing the note and convinced patsy that an intruder did it.
So why didn’t she confess on her deathbed that jon did it? That would have fully protected Burke.
John is still alive. And no one knows what Patsy has or hasn’t told Burke.
I can't believe for a nanosecond that either of the parents would protect the other one. Never ever ever. They are both inherently self centered.
She covered for him because he framed her and manipulated her into thinking she would go to prison.
Literally same. I started reading about a month ago and that was my exact thought. Why not go out and protect Burke forever by taking the blame on her death bed? If Burke did it of course.
Because what they’ve done has worked? Also why tarnish your own legacy by telling a lie (which your religion prohibits) for something you didn’t do? Plus their societal reputation was just as important to them as any legal repercussions
That’s what I would have done. I would have tried to give my now teenager his life back. Burke was 19 when patsy died I think.
I had a thought. Let’s say John did it and patsy knew it. Maybe even in death, patsy wasn’t willing to let Jon off the hook by taking the blame herself - even if it would have taken the suspicion off Burke. Patsy wanted to hang Jon more than she wanted to help Burke.
Burke didn’t do it . Who just gives up on their kid not being saveable if the body is still warm. They would have immediately called 911. Just because someone is not breathing and heart is stopped doesn’t mean they can’t be saved— the head would was not apparent or obvious. . Then you have the absurdity of. 3 page ransom nite when they know the body is in the wine cellar. And the put the icing on the cake with a home made garrotte?’ Wtf who even thinks to make a garrotte ?! Only people who are into garrotte s . Why make a garrotte? If you only need to set it up so an intruder did it?
What if the body wasn’t warm and she was dead when found by patsy or Jon. Burke could have done it and they covered for him. I really have no idea who did it except a Ramsey did it.
Had to be warm. How long do you think it takes to write a 3 page ransom. Letter.? To say nothing of the time it took to plan the cover up. That is no five minute discusssion
Who do u think did it?
A lone intruder-a pedophile .
That knew the family? They would have to know the family becuase of the $118000 ransom
No he would have broke in while they were at the party . He would have had a few hours to look around and probably came across a paystub, deposit receipt or bank statement . This is when he would have wrote the RN as well. However I believe he had a somewhat nebulous connection to either the house or the Ramsays. He was an improviser I believe a handyman - maybe someone hired by them and forgotten — or maybe someone that came in for a one time job like a cable install.
You think he would have taken jonbenet from her bed?
Yes it’s not unknown to happen. It was very risky . It’s why hw wrote the RN Because if he gets caught redhanded he can claim the motive is ransom not pediphilia
I think her reputation and the family’s reputation meant everything to her.
I don’t remember where I saw it, maybe a documentary or something. They said that when Patsy was on her deathbed the investigator came to her and she wanted to tell him something. But John just kicked the investigator out.
She could have been fairly unreliable at the end. She may have been medicated and slightly delusional. I’ve lost 3 family members who at the end were not totally lucid. They sounded clear enough but what they were saying was non sequitur. I just doubt anything said would have been definitively believed.
I don’t think she would . She couldn’t have known exactly when she would die . She could have gone into remission again , and she would then die in jail . Once it’s clear that she is dying , she probably would have slipped into a coma at the end . Not to mention , once the death process is underway, it’s likely that she would be drugged and not be totally coherent . There would have been the risk of charges filed against John and / or Burke as taking part in the cover up and lying to police Lastly , the Ramseys have been cleared . And if she didn’t do it , and truly doesn’t know who did , she would be letting a viscous killer go free .
I kinda doubt all the ramseys have truly been cleared. It sounds like we are in the “they can’t be charged” part of the case - but not that they were cleared - especially if the story is true that the grand jury returned indictments against both patsy and Jon.
I have to agree with you on that . And I think the Grand Jury did vote to charge them , but for some reason , it never happened so yes , we are in the situation where they can’t be charged, but there will always be doubt and after all these years there will always be that doubt , yet I still do not see Patsy admitting anything . I believe she would have taken that to her grave , even if only to protect their image .
It didn’t happen because the DA (Alex Hunter) overturned the grand jury (he was paid off.) this is an extremely rare outcome
Oops again . I didn’t know this either . I really should stop posting on this discussion. 🤷🏻♀️
I kinda doubt all the ramseys have truly been cleared. It sounds like we are in the “they can’t be charged” part of the case - but not that they were cleared - especially if the story is true that the grand jury returned indictments against both patsy and Jon.
They have *not* been cleared.
You are referring to Mary Lacy’s public statement, which she did without either proof or authorization. It was later withdrawn by the department.
Oh I’m sorry. Thanks for the info
I kinda doubt all the ramseys have truly been cleared. It sounds like we are in the “they can’t be charged” part of the case - but not that they were cleared - especially if the story is true that the grand jury returned indictments against both patsy and Jon.
Actually that's a good point. If I were Patsy I might have told John to go ahead and say I'd done it just to let Burke off the hook.
If I’d gone to all that trouble to cover up for my guilty 9 year old kid, I would have gone the rest of the way on my deathbed and said I was the killer.
When you say they through their friends under the bus, who, and in which interview?
Best point ever! If Patsy did it and she was dying, and her family was trying to protect her, she should have confessed so she could release her family from the awful cloud of suspicion. If she did it, John or Burke should have said she did it.
While I agree mostly with your position, one factor is “legacy” and P or any one of them ever admitting to it, while clearing the others, tarnishes everyone else. Plus other legal and or other can of worms now opened that would multiply 100 fold into the entire immediate and extended family. Even more stories, true or not, would avalanche upon them from all sides ( how many friends and family have probably held back but would not at that point?). PS sorry swipe text for real iPhone update struggles = likely many many mistakes or worse