Tuesday, November 28, 2006
John Ramsey Interview
at 2:26 PM
* * *
I have to say that part of my heart really goes out to John Ramsey. He has had a tragic life, full of pain, regardless of who killed his daughter. He lost another grown daughter in a car accident in 1992. He lost JonBenet to murder in 1996. And now, this past year, he lost Patsy Ramsey. That's almost too much for a sane person to handle.
Yet when I watch John Ramsey speak, I get ill-at-ease. I don't feel his words flow naturally. His emotions, behavior and actions don't seem to be consistent with someone who is truly looking for the killer of their daughter.
If either John or Patsy Ramsey were in anyway involved in their daughter's death, I do believe it was an accident -- not premeditated.
Here are my thoughts from the 48 Hours interview that aired this past weekend:
- In the 911 call from Patsy Ramsey, she says, "Sir...we have a -- there's a note left and our daughter is gone."
I find this choice of words very strange. Also, who puts politeness first on a 911 abduction call? I also find the pauses troubling. If your daughter was missing, you'd likely say anything but "sir", "we have a--there's a note..." The last thing you would say is not that "our daughter is gone." It would be the first thing you would say.
Also, the pauses wouldn't be there. The speech wouldn't be so interrupted. It would flow-- out of fear. More complete thoughts would come naturally. They might flow to together but they would be complete -- not totally disjointed. Patsy's thoughts were really broken up. It's a red flag.
Comment: (Added 4-13-2007). It has been brought to my attention that Patsy Ramsey didn't say "Sir". I stand corrected. I suspect what happened was that when I watched 48 Hours they started the audio mid-recording (after the address information) and with that, the first word I heard wasn't a complete word, and I misheard it. I stand corrected.
- Throughout the interview with John Ramsey, he keeps smiling. It wasn't a genuine, I'm- happy-smile. It wasn't a nervous smile. It was a strange, deceptive smile. It was inappropriate in timing -- almost as if the smile is expressing his true feelings -- that he is so happy 48 Hours is doing this show because they are pointing the finger away from him. It's like he is so thrilled with it, he can't contain it. I find John Ramsey making this smile throughout the majority of his interview. It bothers me more than a little. There is no logical explanation for it.
An innocent man would not be joyous thinking about finding the killer of their daughter. He would more than likely be mad at the whole scenario, tired of being treated so badly by the media that there would be hints of anger - a truly felt emotion -- that would not flee in time upon reflection. There would be a desire to get resolve -- to find the true killer - because it would be haunting to know that killer is still out there potentially killing other children. None of these emotions would make a true victim of such a heinous crime smile. So, when I don't see any normal expressions -- and I see expressions that are out of place -- I'm on alert.
- John Ramsey says, "We should have just stood right up there in the beginning and said, 'Okay, charge me.You think I’m guilty? Charge me, or clear me,'" John Ramsey says.
I find this statement arrogant now -- after the fact -- when he knows they have nothing to charge him with at this point and time. He says this at a time when 48 Hours is focusing their efforts on the people who believe the Ramseys are innocent (Tracey, Smit, Demuth), when they show a DNA report that is supposed to (but doesn't for me) remove suspicion from the Ramseys. It's an easy time to be so smug -- when all the fingers are pointing away from you!
Tracey also clearly shows his bias on the show when he says something to the effect if the media can convict them (the Ramseys), then surely I can use the media to clear them! Tracey's investigation is clearly biased.
- In Tracey's British documentary of the case, Tracey asks the Ramseys..."Did you have anything to do with the death of JonBenet?" Watch John Ramsey's face. He shakes his head up and down in a yes motion. Then he sighs.
Don't you find that perplexing??
Then his conscious mind appears to kick in, and he shakes his head in a side to side "no" motion before he speaks..."That is the most difficult question I have ever been asked...ah...I would have given my life for JonBenet and I regret...I will regret...(he continues on)...
What does Ramsey regret? Why does shake his head yes, at first and then no before he answers? Why the inconsistency? He does this again later on, too.
- During the same question from number 4 above, Patsy Ramsey says no, shakes her head no -- consistently unlike John, yet then she smiles really oddly. The timing and behavior of her smile doesn't fit. It isn't consistent.
If you were WRONGLY accused of killing your daughter, could you EVER smile when you talked about it? Ever? I think not. If you were trying to "play cool" and hide something, you might.
- Tracey says that in an e-mail Karr referred to Patsy's mother by her nickname, Neddie. This got Tracey excited. John Ramsey says, "He referred to Patsy’s mother’s nickname: Neddie. And that was unusual that someone would know that. I went to a book that we’d written about it. To see if we ever mentioned that in the book. And we had not," Ramsey recalls. "That added fuel to the fire in my mind."
I ask you -- how would the killer find this out? Was it written on the walls of the house? How does that in any way link John Karr? I don't make that connection. John Karr was obsessed with the Ramseys so he may have unearthed it at some point -- but that doesn't mean he killed JonBenet.
- It really disturbed me when John Ramsey said (about Karr) "He was so abused and vilified and convicted in the media that I started to feel sorry for the guy, which is a bizarre feeling," Ramsey says. "Having been through what we went through, I was gonna be the last guy that leaped out there and said, 'Aha! This is the guy!'”
If you just potentially laid your eyes on someone who you believed might have killed your daughter -- do you honestly think you'd feel sorry for the killer because the media harassed and accused him -- after he made a public confession?
I think not. I know not! A true victim would be mad, furious, hoping for justice -- but would never feel sorry for the criminal --especially a criminal who could have killed his daughter and who confessed!!!
This statement by John Ramsey is exceptionally scary!!! It's inconsistent, out of place, and definitely, hands-down out of character for an innocent man. It is consistent with a man who knows who killed his daughter -- and knows the killer isn't running around out in the world somewhere. Then and only then would someone feel sympathy for Karr.
- 48 Hours goes on..."This was the biggest effort to find a suspect since really your daughter was killed," Moriarty remarked to John Ramsey.
"Oh yeah," he agrees. And he acknowledges that he had his hopes up. "I mean I was grateful that the effort was going on and I was hopeful that this, in fact would be the conclusion."
Notice Ramsey's grin. The timing is just odd. The pain of seeing a killer, or a potentially killer, would be immense. Most people whose daughter was killed, even recollecting the Karr situation, even when Karr was released -- would still feel immense pain. Why isn't John Ramsey feeling that pain??
- 48 Hours goes on... Moriarty asks John Ramsey..."John be honest. He’s obsessed with your daughter and your family. Are you at all concerned that he could show up here?"
Ramsey shakes his head side-to-side as if he is saying no. Then he says "I" as he then moves his head in a yes motion. You can see his conscious thought kicking in... "The thought has gone through my mind, absolutely and you know that you can’t live your life in fear. But you know, we tend to be careful," he replies.
- 48 Hours releases some of the tape of Karr talking about the murder of JonBenet. I find it interesting.
Karr: She, of course, was asleep from the time that she was...that I took her from her bed and took her into the basement. Her first reaction was "Where am I?" And I said, "You're in your basement."
Did you notice the searching for words? Also, when you listen to the words as Karr says them above -- he speaks slow and methodical -- as if he is thinking as he talks. When you tell a true story, it flows much more naturally. The speed and pitch of your voice is also more natural. It's not slow and methodical, calculating.
Then as Karr continues, notice the speed and pitch of his voice. It changes completely. It's fast, and full of emotion -- where before it was void of emotions. Why the change?
(Karr) "She wasn't in that room to be disgraced. I would never disgrace her or dishonor her. She was there temporarily. And what really hurts me is that she stayed there, and that's where her father found her, and I couldn't just...it's just a horrible thing. "
In the segment of speech from Karr above, I believe he talking about his true feelings. He thinks its a disgrace that her body was left there and he almost says "I couldn't just". Was he thinking, I couldn't do that?
(Later) Karr: No man could worship a pretty little girl more than this man does.
Listen to the emotion, and emphasis in Karr's voice. It's strong, said with conviction and full of emotion. Yet when Karr talks about the crime, he is void. Why?
- Tracey says that it is odd that Karr is using the words "Listen carefully" as those words were in the ransom note. Really? Who on earth didn't know about those words in the ransom note after the murder? Six years after the murder? And wouldn't you expect a man who is obsessed with the JonBenet case to at least know the basics? The basics the media printed everywhere!?
- Tracey says the following about why he is motivated to follow this case for eight years, "I wasn’t doing this as a journalist, as a scholar, I was doing this as someone who is extremely concerned about what I was reading and extremely concerned about what might happen to some other kids."
I don't find this to be true. If this is true, then how come Tracey didn't get the police involved as soon as D/December Man/Daxis admitted that he knew who did it. And furthermore when Daxis said it was he, himself!? Instead, Tracey had no problem e-mailing him and then letting this man disappear for 18 months. Tracey's behavior is inconsistent with what he is saying.
Tracey was in contact with Karr for four years before he decided to go to the district attorney -- before he started to worry. I find that haunting. If Karr truly was the killer -- how many children could he have killed or molested in four years Tracey stayed in contact with him? I shudder at the numbers.
- 48 Hours basic premises for the show is that John Karr was not arrested for the crime because his DNA did not match to the crime scene. And ironic as it may be -- the Ramseys also took a DNA test back in 1996 (or 1997) and were also not a match to the DNA yet no one knew. 48 Hours obtained the documents in manner they did not disclose.
With that, 48 Hours hints, why was Karr let go -- and the Ramseys are still under suspicion? Granted, the Department of Homeland Security is still investigating Karr.
With that, I have to ask this:
A) Why didn't the Ramseys and their attorney bring up their DNA tests to the media and go all over town with it? They should have known they gave DNA samples, shouldn't they? Weren't they given the results?? If not, why didn't they make a public outcry for them to be released...if they knew they were innocent. What did they have to hide? Let's face it, as parents, they have every excuse to be present in DNA on JonBenet regardless. A positive match to DNA on JonBenet to her parents really tells us nothing.
B). Just because JonBenet had DNA under her finger nails and in her underwear -- doesn't mean that DNA is the killer's DNA, either. JonBenet was at a party with other children the night she was killed. It is not out of the question that she could have lightly scratched one of the children while playing and got DNA under her nails -- where she could have further contaminated herself. While I am not saying that happened, it could happen. Correct?
C). At some point, 48 Hours said that investigators were not sure if the DNA was the killers. If that's the case, it should NOT be the main focus in the investigation to find the killers -- should it?
D). If I were the D.A. at this point, I would ask permission from the parents of the other children who were at the party to obtain their DNA to see if there is a match. Why not rule out self-contamination - childhood play, scratches -- different explainable DNA? If there is, it ends this whole DNA fiasco. If it's not, we are narrowing down the search.