YOUR TURN: "The Secret Life of Patsy Ramsey"? What Literature Might Reveal About the Crime Scene of a Beauty Queen

by Mark Soukup, Guest Contributor

When the murder of JonBenét Ramsey hit the news I thought the 6-year-old pageant princess's father John Ramsey was some kind of pedophile and guilty of the crime. I wasn't very interested in the case. But I had just switched to an early shift at work and listened to local talk radio where the case was covered extensively. But when the autopsy report and ransom note were made public, I saw Patsy Paugh Ramsey, the former Miss West Virginia, as the perpetrator.

I also saw the killing as a type of sacrifice. For years I had been reading books on the psychological interpretation of mythology. From what I'd studied, many of the odd and seemingly incomprehensible aspects of the crime could be seen as having symbolic meaning known only to the offender.

This type of attachment to myth and dream symbolism is typical of psychosis. In some cases a psychotic will take destructive action as a means to manifest their psychotic fantasy. I brought this up to the local talk-radio host but the idea was dismissed. I was curious if the idea had come up before, but back then I had no access to the Internet. So I started reading about the case.

Small Sacrifice

The first book I got was Andrew Hodge's A Mother Gone Bad, and in it I found a reference to the Seraph report. That small group of investigators was commissioned by the Boulder police for an assessment of the ransom note and crime. They concluded Patsy Ramsey had sacrificed her daughter. Their interpretation of sacrifice was different from mine but at least I knew the subject had been brought up to police. At this point the case was two years old.

My line of reasoning came from an approach to dream analysis that is used by Jungians called amplification. I took the theme of literature that is prevalent in the case from the ransom note to John Douglas's Mind Hunter to The Bible and looked for common elements. The common elements, if found, would indicate a "complex," a behavior-centering force in the mind of the perpetrator.

A Sacrifice of Biblical Contortions

For example, the role of the Psalms in the case was well known with a possible connection between the ransom amount and a common interpretation of Psalm 118 that mentions sacrifice. Also, the Ramsey family Bible (NIV study version) was open to a passage that has four lines beginning with the letters C, T, B, S—the reverse of the cryptic ransom note sign-off: S.B.T.C.

Further reading of the Psalms revealed a repeated use of words, phrases, and ideas that are common to the crime and to mother Patsy Ramsey's life in general. After careful study, I thought I had the key to not only the identification of the single perpetrator but an indication that the death of JonBenét was not due to an accident, as was the prevalent theory, but was the intentional act of a person in the grip of a psychosis.

By this time I had access to the Internet. I hit the forums with my ideas and was both lauded and rebuffed. The lack of acceptance made me dig even more. I went back to the trail of literature left by Patsy herself and fixed on Muriel Spark's The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie since Patsy had chosen to perform a soliloquy from the novel/play in the talent portions of her pageants. Again, I was looking for an indication of a complex. I started with the movie and found three uses of the word "sacrifice" by Jean Brodie (in film still, above). I thought sacrifice was the centering theme in Patsy's psychosis, which she found unavoidably attractive in Spark's work.

JonBenét and Fruit from the Poisoned Case

It took me several months before I read the book. Just a few pages in was a description of a tea party with two members of the Brodie set where pineapple was served. The appearance of pineapple in JonBenét's digestive tract along with the Ramseys' denial of having served it to her—and the use of pineapple by Spark in her novel—was the first mythic connection for me between the crime and a work of literature Patsy was known to have been intimately familiar with.

A few pages more and the question of the spelling of "possession" came up in the novel. The misspelling of possession in the ransom note was part of the heated conversation of the case on the radio and Internet. A detailed study of the book, play, and movie revealed many, many items common to both the crime and to Patsy and the literature she was known to have been associated with, including the chillingly titled Death of Innocence.

Many, many aspects of the case seemed strange and incomprehensible to investigators and to the public and were attributed to panic, amateurism, desperation with the possible source of ideas for staging found in crime books and movies. My investigation into this theme of literature, to me, has revealed coincidence after coincidence between the death of JonBenét Ramsey and the life of Patsy Paugh Ramsey. A preponderance of coincidence rules out coincidence and out of what seems to be a random jumble comes a pattern; the use of one person by another as an object in a personal psychotic fantasy.

A person in psychosis often sees themselves as either a mythic figure or related to one in some way. They also may see themselves as part of a mythic storyline. They may exhibit behaviors that have a high degree of structure but with a low degree of rationality as they follow the mythic storyline. This story may be self created and/or part of an existing, archetypal, or well- known story that can be easily found in popular literature. It is my opinion that the death of JonBenét Ramsey is the result of just such a psychosis and the evidence for it can be found in the products of the creative life of Patsy Ramsey—her writing, her artwork, her correspondences, her pageant performances, the ransom note and even what was done to the body of JonBenét.

Women in Crime Ink reader Mark Soukup is an amateur art historian who has studied symbolism and the creative process. He is owned by two sheep dogs and lives in Colorado.

Tweet

Factual Evidence in JonBenét Ramsey Case Forgotten

by Stacy Dittrich

I have been commentating on the JonBenét Ramsey case over the past week on radio and television stations from coast to coast, and there seems to be quite a misunderstanding regarding the "new" evidence that was presented in the case. The misunderstanding? That the evidence is new or even reliable.

Perhaps this was Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's last-ditch effort to rid herself of the case once and for all. Since Lacy (pictured right) took office, it has been very apparent that this case was something she wanted no part of but conceded the parents needed to be looked at. Last week, Lacy issued a public letter exonerating John Ramsey of all suspicion in the murder investigation involving his daughter, JonBenét. Bad move, Mary.

The DA's logic when issuing this exoneration was that a newly developed form of DNA testing resulted in several skin cells on JonBenét's long johns matching a sample taken from her underwear at the time of the murder. Now, instead of having unknown DNA on one piece of the victim's clothing, the same DNA is on two.

Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving.

First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court.

Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary?

The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

The DNA found in JonBenét's underwear only consisted of 9 DNA "markers." The FBI once used 13 to make comparisons. According to DNA expert Brent Turvy, 9 markers is enough nowadays. But comparing this small amount of markers to the new "spot DNA" is really pushing it.

As Mr. Turvy stated, "DNA alone is not going to tell you who committed the crime in a case like this." Are you listening, Mary Lacy? Has the District Attorney ever heard the term "totality of the evidence?"

Let's take a look at that evidence, shall we? I'll put it together in a simple timeline:

December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed."

December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police.

06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off.

01:00 p.m. - Officers in the home inform John Ramsey they are going to get a search warrant, and request that he check the inside of the home for JonBenét, and to see if any of JonBenéts clothing, toys, or items are missing. What does John do? He immediately heads to the basement, followed by his friends Fleet White and John Fernie.

(Apparently, JonBenét's bedroom slipped his mind. It also must have slipped the officers' minds to escort him to every room since it was becoming increasingly clear he or someone present was a "person of interest.")

01:03 p.m. - Fleet White comes screaming up the stairs for someone to call an ambulance while he goes to the back office to get on the phone (???). Female detective Linda Arndt ran to the basement door and sees John Ramsey running up the stairs holding the body of JonBenét. (No mention of what John Fernie was doing.)

John had found JonBenét in an obscure room off the basement underneath two blankets. In a monstrous house with a gazillion rooms in it I'd say that's damn good luck, John! (Now there's a guy that should play the lottery.)

Oh, did I mention he pulled off the tape that was covering her mouth? (evidence contamination #3,456) The autopsy report showed that JonBenét's pelvic area was most likely wiped off with a wash cloth as well. Did he do that too? (evidence contamination #3,457)

01:03 p.m. - John Ramsey lays JonBenét on the floor where she is moved by Det. Arndt and Patsy pulls up her long johns (contaminatecontaminatecontaminate).

Det. Arndt notes green garland wrapped in JonBenéts hair is most likely from the garland decoration wrapped around the staircase where the note was found. Funny, Patsy must have missed the shambled decorations on her way down to make pancakes—or write a ransom note.

Ah, the ransom note. Another key factor in the investigation. Granted, I'm not a profiler, but I've talked to enough barbaric child molesters to know that they wouldn't know what the word "attache'" means—let alone how to spell it.

I find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught.

Most would be "out of their element" and transport the body to an outside location where they wouldn't be bothered. Most of whom wouldn't bother locking doors on their way out. Which leads me to my most prized theory:

JonBenét's body was hidden inside an obscure room underneath blankets where a "suspect" would assume she wouldn't be found. But, his plan fell through. Assuming law enforcement would be out of the home searching for the victim, would allow him plenty of time to grab his "stash" and go dump it somewhere. But when officers indicated they would search the house, the panicked "suspect" ran to his "stash" first. A likely scenario? Maybe.

The time of death is also a questioning factor. The autopsy showed rigor mortis in lower extremities and joints only, an effect that occurs five to eight hours after death. This would put JonBenét's death around the early morning hours.

Did Patsy Ramsey walk in on something? Giving all the benefit of the doubt, I contacted my most favorite and respected coroner's assistant. Since the body was in the basement, the cooler temperatures easily could have delayed the process. Still, it's another question.

The end result is that there are entirely too many unanswered questions in this case to exonerate anybody, especially John Ramsey. Whether his own hand was a factor or someone else's, I truly believe he has knowledge of what happened to his daughter.

If my child were brutally murdered, I couldn't comprehend flipping through the yellow pages four days later in search of a defense attorney. Actions and emotions are some of the largest factors of evidence in any investigation; something Mary Lacy clearly missed.

Oh, and the fact that the autopsy showed JonBenét had previous sexual trauma PRIOR to the night of her death is a clue. To exonerate a suspect in which the majority of evidence points to him is premature at best, and completely irresponsible at worst. Yes, there is always the possibility of an "intruder." But at this point, all of the options should have stayed open.

Tweet

A Touch of DNA

by Pat Brown

A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.

Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.

In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.

A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might have done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

Tweet