Larkin 1
Janet Larkin
Dr. Adams
Section 4627
4 May 2005
From Mother to Murderer:
The Death of JonBenet Ramsey
The mysterious death of a child continues to haunt the residents of Boulder,
Colorado. The entire nation observed the many details of the JonBenet Ramsey murder through the distorted eyes of the media (Ross). Despite inconsistencies and exclamations of innocence, the most plausible explanation implicates Patsy Ramsey. In a tragic moment of parental frustration, Patsy accidentally killed her daughter.
JonBenet had recently regressed to bed-wetting. Psychiatric experts concur that parental frustration in these scenarios can result in unexplained rage (Thomas and Davis
319). On Christmas night, JonBenet had rebelled against wearing the coordinating outfits with Patsy as they usually did at parties (Thomas and Davis 319). That emotional incident combined with the stress of preparing for a family trip that Patsy admittedly did not want to take put her on edge. A bed-wetting episode later that evening, revealed by the package of diapers hanging out of the cabinet outside JonBenet’s bedroom, caused more than enough strife to result in Patsy’s uncontrollable rage (Thomas and Davis 40).
In her violent cleaning up of JonBenet, Patsy caused the deadly skull fracture that led to the child’s death (Kibbey 702). The cover-up that ensued in Patsy’s panic, by law, changed this accident into murder. Larkin 2
Patsy Ramsey is an intelligent woman. She knew if authorities found a dead child in her own home, suspicion would immediately fall on the parents. In order to avoid this scenario, she created what she thought a kidnapping attempt would look like (Thomas and Davis 320). However, she made drastic errors. Due to the early departure the family planned to make, Patsy had limited time. In her haste, she failed to change clothes before authorities arrived at the scene. She also failed to remove evidence showing that
JonBenet awoke upon their return home, conflicting with her later testimony to the police. Her most fatal blunder involved the composition of the ransom note. The language, handwriting, and details referenced all indicate Patsy’s guilt.
Authorities arrived at the Ramsey house in the early hours of December 26, 1996, in response to Patsy’s call to 911 reporting the kidnapping of her six-year old daughter.
Despite the early hour, Patsy answered the door neatly attired and in full make-up
(Thomas and Davis 16). Shortly after police arrived, two couples who maintained a close friendship with the Ramseys and their minister joined the distraught couple. For approximately six hours, the kidnapping charade played out. John Ramsey, Patsy’s husband, worked with financial advisors to arrange payment of the $118,000 ransom demand (Thomas and Davis 25). The time frame within which the supposed kidnappers stated they would contact the parents came and went. The lone officer stationed at the
Ramsey house, desperately trying to keep track of where everyone was, asked John to make a search of the house for anything suspicious. This opportunity allowed John to locate the lifeless body of JonBenet in their basement (Verrengia).
The child had been bound at the wrists, gagged with duct tape, and wrapped in a blanket from her bedding. The garrote fashioned from nylon rope and a broken Larkin 3 paintbrush remained around her neck. Her favorite pink nightgown lay beside her on the floor. Although experts later determined a skull fracture as the main cause of death, this injury went unnoticed during the initial discovery of the body (Thomas and Davis 47).
The Ramsey family departed the scene shortly after this discovery, simultaneously avoiding police scrutiny (Brooks).
When experts began reviewing the details of that fateful morning, suspicion of one or both parents immediately arose (Brooks). Though the defensive and uncooperative demeanor adopted by the Ramseys first alerted authorities that something wasn’t right, examination of the evidence pointed to Patsy. Detectives came across a picture taken at the Christmas party attended by the family on Christmas night. The photo showed Patsy attired in a red turtleneck and black pants. When referring back to the notes made by detectives on the morning of the murder, the description stated Patsy’s clothing as a red turtleneck and black pants (Thomas and Davis 183). Would a woman whose closet overflowed with designer clothing wear the same outfit two days in a row? Did she really take the time to fix her hair, apply her make-up, and the not bother to pick out a clean set of clothes? This did not seem likely for a former beauty queen and Miss America contender.
When detectives had the opportunity to question Patsy about this, her lawyer became visibly unsettled (Thomas and Davis 186). Patsy, however, boldly admitted that she had redressed in her party clothes from the previous night. She claimed she did this because “they were lying where she had left them the night before” (Schiller 381). Did her clothes usually move from where she had left them the night before? Would she continue to wear the same outfit repeatedly until someone moved the clothes to another Larkin 4 location and she became forced to choose another outfit? This does not seem accurate of a woman who spends thousands of dollars on clothing and who rarely leaves her bedroom without a fresh application of make-up (Schiller 381).
The autopsy of JonBenet reveals another discrepancy. John and Patsy both claim that JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home from the White’s Christmas party.
The party menu did not include pineapple. Yet, the contents of JonBenet’s upper digestive tract prove that the last thing she consumed prior to her death was fresh cut pineapple. A ceramic bowl containing fresh cut pineapple remained on the kitchen table of the Ramsey house the morning of the murder. Further analysis of the pineapple removed from JonBenet during the autopsy indicates a perfect match, “consistent down to the rind,” with the contents of the bowl (Thomas and Davis 215). Fingerprint examination revealed only prints belonging to Patsy and Burke Ramsey, JonBenet’s eight-year old brother (Schiller 380).
Since the pineapple had not yet reached the stomach, this indicates consumption occurred within two to five hours of her death (Thomas and Davis 342). The time sequence of events allows for only two realistic possibilities. Either JonBenet ate the pineapple before leaving for the White’s party at five o-clock and her death occurred immediately after she returned home, or she ate the pineapple when she returned from the party at ten o-clock and died sometime before five o-clock the next morning when her mother claimed she awoke to brew coffee (Hewitt 43). However, Patsy claimed JonBenet ate cracked crab at the party and no evidence of this remained in JonBenet’s digestive system (Schiller 380). This indicates the pineapple consumption must have occurred after the party, further suggesting the Ramseys lied about JonBenet remaining asleep. Larkin 5
The most incriminating piece of evidence continues to be the ransom note. The length and verbiage simply does not match traditional ransom demands. The Child
Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation noted, “From a kidnapper’s point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on” (Thomas and
Davis 242). The findings by Don Foster, the top linguistics expert in the country, further support this:
Language is infinitely diverse and no two people use it in quite the same way.
They do not have the same vocabulary, use identical spelling and punctuation,
construct sentences in the same manner, read the same books, or express the same
beliefs and ideas. Ingrained and unconscious habits are virtually impossible to
conceal, even if a writer tries to disguise his identity. Individuals are prisoners of
their own language. (qtd. in Thomas and Davis 314)
Foster also pointed out that the note reveals the writer is “trying to deceive” (Thomas and
Davis 314). He stated his final determination of the comparison of Patsy’s handwriting samples and the ransom note as “a precise and unequivocal match” (Thomas and Davis
314). Out of all one hundred forty people who submitted handwriting samples, Patsy
Ramsey remains the only suspect who cannot be eliminated as the author of the note
(Petersen and Bray). This cannot even be disputed by the experts of Team Ramsey hired to defend Patsy (Thomas and Davis 344). The Colorado Bureau of Investigation even determined that twenty-four of the twenty-six letters contained in the alphabet matched
Patsy’s original handwriting submission (Thomas and Davis 81). To further compound these findings, the analysts of Speckin Forensic Laboratories concluded that “there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting Larkin 6 characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs” (Thomas and
Davis 224).
Another incriminating factor is the amount of the ransom demand. $118,000 may seem like a lot of money to most people, but for the Ramseys, it hardly scratches the surface. At the time of the murder, the estimated total value of the Ramsey estate equaled
$1,118,000 (Thomas and Davis 73). This similarity alone looks suspicious. However, the amount of John’s most recent bonus totaled the precise amount of the ransom demand:
$118,000 (Cabell).
Even the paper and pen used to compose the note incriminates Patsy. Analysts at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation determined the pages of the ransom note had originated from pages twenty-seven, twenty-eight, and twenty-nine of a tablet found in the kitchen (Thomas and Davis 81). This tablet belongs to Patsy. Page twenty-six of the same tablet contained writing suggestive of a practice ransom note (Thomas and Davis
81). The Secret Service compared the ink in both the practice and actual ransom notes to their database of over 7,000 ink standards (Thomas and Davis 60). Their findings concluded that both notes were written with a water-based ink Sharpie pen manufactured between January and October of 1992 (Thomas and Davis 60). The exact pen had been confiscated from the Ramsey kitchen by crime-scene technicians. They recovered it from a container of pens on the counter beneath the phone Patsy used to call 911 (Thomas and
Davis 59). How probable does it seem that an intruder used a pen and paper belonging to the Ramseys and then neatly replaced the items afterwards?
The intruder theory continues as Patsy’s main defense. She claims, as she always has, that an intruder broke into her house, left the ransom note, attempted to kidnap Larkin 7
JonBenet, and then left her murdered body in the basement. Though acquaintances and strangers alike cling to this theory to avoid losing faith in “the purity of their own society,” the evidence speaks for itself (Kibbey 707).
The broken window in the basement seems the most logical point of entry for an intruder based on the Ramseys’ claims that the house was properly secured (Thomas and
Davis 18). The location offers seclusion from outside view and allows entry into the least inhabited area of the house (McCullen). Investigators for both the Boulder Police and the
District Attorney’s Office attempted entry from this point (Thomas and Davis 218).
Though all managed successful entry, none could do it without dragging in dirt and pine needles from the outside debris along with them. No evidence of this existed at the crime scene (Thomas and Davis 218).
If an intruder had managed to enter the house elsewhere, the location of the body does not make sense. The Ramsey home sprawled out over 6,646 square feet (McCullen).
Everyone who had previously visited the house admitted that the obscure storage room where the body was found would be extremely difficult to find if you had never been there before (Thomas and Davis 101). Even Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, a housekeeper for the
Ramsey family since October 1995, did not know the room existed (Schiller 238).
Moreover, the wrapping of the body in her blanket and disposal in the basement with her favorite nightgown rather than outside in the cold is indicative of a person who cared deeply for JonBenet and wanted her body found (Schiller 498).
Even the nylon cord and duct tape supposedly used to restrain JonBenet appear staged. Examination of the duct tape revealed a flawless imprint of JonBenet’s lips, indicating she did not struggle against it (Thomas and Davis 344). If she had been alive to Larkin 8 fight against the application of the tape, skin trauma would be apparent. The coroner found no such evidence (Schiller 306). The nylon cord around her wrists bound her hands in front of her, thus would only be possible to apply with the child face-up. The rope could not possibly have restrained the child effectively as the coroner had no trouble slipping it off (Bellamy). Unlike the wrist cord, the ligature around the neck did leave a deep impression. However, the crime scene photos reveal the perfect alignment of the noose between JonBenet’s shoulders, further indicating no struggle occurred (Schiller
307).
Only a staged kidnapping attempt resulting after the death of JonBenet can plausibly explain the physical evidence. If one also considers the defensive and uncooperative behavior exhibited by the Ramseys, Patsy’s guilt becomes virtually irrefutable. Perhaps the most disturbing crime in our society is when a mother kills her own child. We cannot understand or comprehend it. Yet, with our lack of prosecution of this case, we managed an even worse offense: we ignored it.
Larkin 9
Works Cited
Bellamy, Patrick. “Murder of JonBenet Ramsey: Who did it?” The Crime Library.
(1999). CrimeLibrary.com. 15 Feb 2005 notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/it_5.html?sect=7>. Brooks, Julie. E-mail interview. 26 April 2005. Cabell, Brian. “Report: Ransom demand was equal to Ramsey’s bonus.” CNN Interactive. 21 Jan 1997. CNN.com. 26 April 2005 US/9701/21/ramsey.ransom/index.html>. Hewitt, Bill. “Lost Innocent.” People Weekly 20 Jan 1997: 38-45. Kibbey, Ann. “Trial by Media: DNA and Beauty-pageant evidence in the Ramsey Murder Case.” New York School Law Review 43 (1999/2000): 691-714. McCullen, Kevin. “Key JonBenet evidence in Hand: Ramsey investigation on track after a year of disappointment.” Rocky Mountain News. 21 Dec 1997. Rockymountain News.com. 1 May 2005 21prob2.html>. Petersen, Jana, and Bray, Jennifer. “Ramsey Update #84: Police mark fifth anniversary of investigation.” City of Boulder. 17 Dec 2001. 20 Feb 2005 boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr011217.html>. Ross, Ryan. “Solving the JonBenet Case.” Crime Magazine: an encyclopedia of crime. 14 April 2003. Crimemagazine.com. 15 March 2005 /solvingjbr-main.htm>. Schiller, Lawrence. Perfect Murder Perfect Town. New York: Harper, 1999. Thomas, Steve, and Don Davis. JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. New Larkin 10 York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Verrengia, Joseph. “Forensic Evidence: Much detective work in JonBenet Ramsey murder case conducted under lab microscope.” Rocky Mountain News. 2 February 1997. Rockymountainnews.com. 1 May 2005 com/extra/ ramsey/0202jon.htm>.