October 13, 2025 • 43 mins
Dr Kirk Honda and Humberto Castaneda dive deep into the JonBenet Ramsey story.
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/KIRK to get 10% off your first month.
00:00 Did the Ramseys do it?
04:03 Did Patsy do it?
Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/join
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle
Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact
Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com
Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/
Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda
October 13, 2025
The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®
Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.
Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Photo credit: By http://www.blogstodiefor.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/jonbenet-ramsey.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32519685
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/KIRK to get 10% off your first month.
00:00 Did the Ramseys do it?
04:03 Did Patsy do it?
Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/join
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle
Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact
Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com
Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/
Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda
October 13, 2025
The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®
Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.
Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Photo credit: By http://www.blogstodiefor.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/jonbenet-ramsey.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32519685
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Deserving listeners. Is chapter four, and our deep dive
on the psychology of John Benny Ramsay and the psychology
of criminal justice and the mob and ourselves and uncertainty,
and of child beauty pageants and research the psychology of
a lot of different things. So Berto, let's continue chapter four.
(00:22):
What do you say?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Let's do it.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
This is the Psychology and Seattle Podcast. I'm your host,
doctor Kirk Honda, and I am wearing the green shirt.
Who are you, Burtal?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My name is Umberto Casta, And have you ever been
to a restaurant and like they have the little mints?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Yeah, I verify that they haven't been open and licked
before they put them back in the package.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Cool. Cool, cool.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
So last time we left off and I had just
like listed a whole bunch of information about the autopsy
report and about evidence that's been found or reported and
things like this, And this is sort of building a
cradle on which we're going to discuss some of the
explicit theories that have been put forward both by police
and other folks, but specific about who could.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Have done it and why could have done it?
Speaker 3 (01:04):
And spoiler alert, there will be no solution. We're not
solving the crime here today. Also, just to be clear,
we are not accusing anyone. We are just listing people's
speculations and offering are like a random ass opinions about it.
So it won't surprise you to hear because we've already
disgusted that there are two big main camps. One camp
(01:25):
is what they call Ramses did it or ourdi, and
the other camp is intruder did it or IDI. But
even within there there are subdivisions in the Ramseys did
it camp. There's obviously like John did it or Patsy
did it, or John and Patsy did it, or one
did it and the other one helped cover up, or
Burke did it, or another member of the Ramsey family
(01:48):
maybe a brother did it or something okay, like John
has a brother who by the way, random piece of evidence.
Remember I mentioned there was a suitcase found by the
open window or the cracked window in the basement. Yeah,
there was a blanket inside that suitcase that contained samples
of seamen from John's brother. But John had a guest
(02:12):
room at the house and he stayed there and so
maybe but random right, Also, there were fibers found inside
that suitcase from some of the other components that were
found on John Bennet's like in the blanket and stuff
in that she was found wrapped in. So anyways, that
(02:32):
one of the theories is that someone was trying to
use the suitcase to get the body out of the house.
The other theories that know, the suitcase was just for
someone to step up and exit the window.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Or it was just there, or it was just there
and fibers distribute themselves through the entire house, or it
was contaminated by these crack investigators in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
So the first theory we're going to go over is
Detective Steve Thomas's position. So the detective Steam Thomas was
one of the Boulder police detectives that were going after
this case. One thing of note is he resigned in
August nineteen ninety eight in protest, accusing the DA's office
of blocking a proper prosecution. He resigned the force, wrote
(03:15):
an eight page protest letter explaining all the reasons why
he was leaving, in all the things that he felt
had been mishandled, etc.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
And he left.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
And then we're about to watch in a little bit
videos of him actually directly confronting the Ramses in a
CNN interview discussing his theory in front of them and
stuff like that. Okay, so his whole point is, Hey,
this has been made to be some very complex who
done it?
Speaker 2 (03:40):
But I don't see it that way. I see this
as like a.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Very unfortunate but unfortunately common situation of domestic violence by
a parent to a child, gone then wrong and tried.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
To cover up.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
But basically that's what it was.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
And he says Patsy became angry at John Benay late
at night or early morning of December twenty sixth, nineteen
ninety six. Parentheses. There are reports that John Beney had
a frequent problem with bed wedding. Now that has not
been officially confirmed, like here's all the instances where she
but it's been reported by the housekeeper. The mother has
(04:16):
admitted that she did wet the bed and things like this. Also,
just when they investigated the house, the sheets were apparently
staying with urine and then on her body.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
But of course if she was killed, that's natural.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
But she had your nation.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
And stuff like this.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
So one of the theories, and it's not what he's
specifically mentioning, but one of the theories is that this
was starting to drive Patsy nuts, like literally like because
she kept wetting the bed.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And then but.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
In his reconstruction, he says that something happened. It could
either been just a basic refusing to go to bed,
soiled the bed once again, or some other issue. But
in a burst of frustration, Patsy struck John Benet, possibly
with a heavy object or pushed her and she fell
and hit her head against something like in the bathroom
(05:02):
or some eye. That the head injury caused the fracture
that was set found in the autopsy. Thomas believes that
at this point Patsy basically freaked out and started staging.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
A scene because they didn't want to.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Go to jail, and that this might have included John
or not included John, and that Patsy wrote the ransom note.
We'll talk a little bit about the handwriting analysis there,
and that she used her for the hurt paintbrush to
wrap around the cord and did this all in the
wine cellar room and that's and you know, her fibers
(05:36):
were found and blah blah blah. In the next morning
when the police arrived, Patsy was wearing the same clothing
she was wearing the previous night.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
So he asserts like, she basically never went to bed
that night and this is what happened.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
He points to things like the tone and length the
ransom note was long, along with.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Was she wearing the same thing from the previous night? Yeah,
like everything?
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, and still and wearing makeup?
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah, well the makeup thing isn't straight.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Mean some when five am at thirty she woke up,
she goes downstairs, finds the note, and she goes upstairs.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Whats makeup?
Speaker 4 (06:06):
No?
Speaker 1 (06:06):
I mean some people leave their makeup on. Oh okay,
fair enough, that's what they're That's what their guesses.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
But she was wearing the same thing, and no one
disputes that fact.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
That is weird. Yeah, I mean, who goes to bed
in the clothes that you if.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
You were really tired and a little drunk. I don't know, I've.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Done that before. Totally. Do we know what items of
clothing she was wearing, because if she's wearing like a
gown like a.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
It wasn't a gown, it was, No, it was but yeah, okay,
well I don't know exactly.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Yeah, But so I will say that this story is
absolutely possible yeah, I mean, and I hypothesized this a
while back. It does sort of fit, but without any
direct evidence, it's just making up a story.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Right right, right, So supporting themes that look that Thomas
mentioned is there was no evidence of forest entry. The
house was locked again, notwithstanding Burke's random mentioned many many
many years later as an adult that he unlocked the
front door that you know.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
In behavioral red flags.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
This is where it gets very speculative, of course, but
it's like things like the parents making many media appearances
before they ever cooperated with the police or gave an
official police interview. He claims that it was April of
nineteen ninety seven when they finally started collaborating with official
interviews with the police, and that even then they had
the lawyers, had the police agree to send them first
(07:28):
all the information about what had what the police knew,
and they had to be together for the interview, which
you know, of course, if you're trying to protect yourself
because you're innocent but you don't want to get screwed up,
that you would do and if you're guilty, you would
also do that.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
So you know, for people who don't know, that can
look suspicious, but that is the legal advice that you
will get from competent lawyers that you do not talk
with the police, especially when there's a possibility that you
are under investigation, and you only do so under legal
(08:01):
oversight and advancement, even when you're innocent, you know. So
the fact that they didn't talk just means that they
had good legal representation right away. So let's watch some.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Clips of Steve Thomas at that CNN interview with the
Ramses failure.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Let's talk about parents who I feel have failed their daughter,
who after this became a homicide. Of course they cooperated
when it was a kidnapping, but after it became a homicide. Patsy,
you waited four months before you came and talked to
the Bolder Police department and answered questions nod Well, tell
me when I was there every day? Tell me how
many hours in our home that day? How many are
(08:35):
you in our home the day? How many press releases?
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Right? And talk over each other. You say they didn't appear.
You say you didn't appear with the Bolder police And
how would he not.
Speaker 5 (08:46):
Go with the Bolder police department. I don't remember you there.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
You weren't there that they weren't you weren't there the
day they came?
Speaker 3 (08:52):
What day did you?
Speaker 5 (08:54):
Let's let's deal with facts. December twenty seventh, nineteen ninety seven.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
John goes on to state that twenty seven, basically a
couple of days after that they met with the lieutenants.
But Steve Thomas's point is that they were supposed to
come in and do an official interview and they didn't collaborate,
and that the police, not only him, the police in general,
claimed that the family was not being cooperative. And again
this could be like, yeah, they're scared that they're going
(09:18):
to be targeted a suspects, or they're guilty and they
don't want to collaborate, So you can have it both ways.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
I mean, they literally had a detective in the house,
the lead person who was there, who in their mind
had determined that John did it without any evidence.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
But that was not something that was that was they
could have picked up on that advice at the very least,
even if they didn't know it.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
They were actually being smart by not cooperating, just wildly
openly without legal advisement, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah, No, I could see that the flip side from
the police perspective is do you want us to catch
that you say there's an intruder?
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Are you going to help us? You know that's there.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
I mean, I'm assuming they did give some data.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
The police claims that we're being completely unhelpful in the house,
not the day of, Like that's what I'm saying, Like
day of they're they're like, you know, here's data.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
We don't know anyone, you know, and if if they've
given them everything the day of and nothing comes to
mind later of, just like well there is that one guy,
and they're definitely getting the picture that they're under suspicion
and that they're being locked in on which clearly they were,
then they shouldn't talk to the police, and it's their
right and it is not of this is why they
(10:29):
couldn't be charged for not cooperating.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
That's not a thing, right but but but in either case,
the police was frustrated.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
So let's go to the second clip.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Well, theory, I hope we get a chance to talk
about their convoluted sex crime, pedophile, kidnap or turned murderer theory.
But I think I think it's very I think it's
very simple, and I.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Will get that theory I want to go theory. What's
your theory?
Speaker 5 (10:53):
My theory is quite simple. Whoever authored the ransom note
killed the child absent some great conspiracy that they think
this intruder came into the house.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
You agree that whoever authored They're handsome note probably killed
the child.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I would agree. I agree.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Now, your contention is she wrote the note.
Speaker 5 (11:09):
I don't base that them.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I do.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
I base that on question document examiners when the time.
By the time I left the Boulder Police Department June
of nineteen ninety eight, Patsy, out of seventy three suspects
whose handwriting had been looked at, you were the only
one who showed evidence to suggest authorship.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Right in and arrest when you probable call.
Speaker 5 (11:32):
These people know better than anybody probable cause was not
the issue in this case, Patsy. You could have been
arrested in this case. I wish I had been, and
then we would have had a free and fair trial
and you would have met your waterley. Mister Thomas, are
you saying that.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
You would have let her?
Speaker 5 (11:47):
Let her answer that questions? John questions?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Because you have assaulted her. You've called her murderer.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
First of all, I was I was picturing myself in
this situation.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
How bizarre it is, right, Like, you're in front of
TV that's going to go to millions of people and
you are being confronted directly by a police officer. Well
he's no longer on the force at this point, but
he's confronting you and saying you did this, right, And
of course, from his perspective.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
He's like, yeah, you guys did this, or you did ed.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
List, you know whatever, and then from their perspective, assuming
they're innocent, they're.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Like, you're a horrible person, right, Like yeah, it's interesting.
It's this weird window and time when CNN was like
the social media of today that you had mass media
and twenty four to seven media and a lot of it,
because when we were growing up, it was the six
o'clock news, you know, ten o'clock National news or something, right,
(12:40):
and it wasn't even on the weekends from my memory,
and so there's this weird zone in the nineties with
the OJ Simpson and you know, the trial TV kind
of stuff, but it's not social media. So today I
was just thinking what would they do today, And what
they would do today is they would tweet or they'd
have a podcast or something. So back then, if they
wanted to get their voice out there, they had to
(13:02):
do these kinds of things. But yeah, it is pretty
striking that you have them both having this back and forth,
you know. And it also is just bizarre that I
had no idea any of this was happening. And it
just tells me, you know, because there there's blocks of
time where one I didn't have cable TV and the
(13:23):
internet wasn't what it would become, so I was just
completely in this insular world of my friends.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Well I had cable TV. I never watched the news
back then. Never, I would have never watched Larry King
Live or CNN or anything.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Say you saw that little news blurb or whatever, well
that was the end of the information. You couldn't then
go and research. So the information would just sort of
happen at you, and unless it was forced down your
throat or you went to the library or you tuned
in every time CNN had a story about it or something,
(13:58):
it would quickly get flo rushed out of your mind
in terms of any sort of detail, and so.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Or tabloids right like that was the only other source
of of course, unreliable and often false information was tabloids.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Yeah, like literally at the super anything. Tabloids in the
nineties have more factual data than Twitter does today.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That could very well be Remember Boy.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Yeah, actually I don't, but I will take it. Every
time I would go to remember, Jennifer Anderson was constantly
being talked about on the tabloids.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
I just remember, I forget it was the Inquirer, one
of the go to the store, and for years it
seems like they would always rerun this story.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
There was a picture of a boy with like going
like this.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Ah, it look bald and with pointy ears and with
the big bat teeth and.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
It was bat boy, all right.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So anyways, one last clip from Steve Thomas and Ramsey is.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
That Patsy in a violent confrontation with her daughter, not
accidental eye hypothesized in the sense that lack motive, unlike
accidental in that sense. Excuse me, did you have something else? Oh? Yeah,
(15:10):
at that point, instead of making a right turn, you
made a left turn and covered this up. It's not
unlike eleven thousand other children that have been murdered in
this country or killed feloniously by parents in the last
twenty years. I don't see this as that remarkable a
case other than what it became if.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
It's this pat as you say, and so I will say, yeah,
of the very circumstantial evidence, the pool of very light
evidence going out of direction, there's a lot of that
evidence that could.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Go both ways, but can go in that direction absolutely.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
What I like is a weird word to use here,
because there's actually little to like about.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Any of this.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
But what I quote like about this theory is the
following three main bullet points.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
One, because you know, we've seen the data that.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
We see that people post online and stuff like that,
But the police had all the information they had gathered, right,
and so if someone was close to it, well an
investigator was there. Now, could they be biased? Absolutely, And
sounds like maybe they were biased from the start. I
don't know, But they at least had access to all
the information. So that's that's one thing that I'm like, Okay,
well he has access to.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
A lot more info than I probably have.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Number Two, there is something kind of almost satisfying in
a weird way about the simplicity of like, right, the
data shows that a lot of parents kill kids in
rage blah blah blah, So maybe that's just what happened,
and that the weirdness became the very weird way to
try to cover it up. Right, then all of a sudden,
that makes it look like all these other potential things, okay.
(16:46):
And then the last thing was that all the little
circumstantial bits of like the little cloth fibers from her coat,
her paint brush.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I didn't mention this because it's not officially. It's a
lot of contention around this. But they didn't find any
evidence of that same duct tape in the house or
the rope in the house, like the right, but one
of the investigators, one of the detectives, not him, had
found oh, actually maybe it was him.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
There was a hardware store where there were there was
a purchase done by Patsy some time before this where
there were two purchases made for amounts that happened to
match things like duct tape and rope. But it couldn't
be definitely proved because they didn't have they couldn't trace it, like, oh, look,
(17:38):
we found it, but there was this circumstantial evidence other things,
the handwriting, like you said, they looked at all these suspects,
and yes, even though the handwriting analysis is kind of
a crap.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Shoot.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
The one thing is that the one that matched the
most was Patsy. Okay, and I was talking about the housekeeper.
So here's what the housekeeper.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Had to say.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
And this is again, none of this can This is
why if you want to say, like, well, they probably
couldn't have convicted anyways, because I've been waiting a long
time for this for the housekeeper.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
You've been teasing the house the housekeeper, housekeeper, tease housekeeper. Okay, yes,
so well let's tease the audience and take a break.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
What you say, all.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Right, we're back from the break, give us the money shot.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
So in three episodes from now, we're going to cover
the housekeeper.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
All right.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
So the housekeeper's name is Linda Hoffman Pugh. She initially
was actually someone that Patsy didn't accuse, but cast some.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Suspicion on Patsy herself. Said, and here's what happened.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Linda had asked to borrow money, or she was in
need of money, so she had asked money to borrow money,
but they weren't going to lend her money apparently, And.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
That said, Patsy felt, well, well, she has access to
the house. She knows how the house works. She knows
all the rooms in the house.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Do we know how much she I mean again one hundred.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
And eighteen thousand, it was like two thousand bucks or something,
and why she apparently no, but there was okay, I
don't have that bit of data. But as I remember,
it was like she had gone into financial trouble.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
So it wasn't it was just like she had a
medical bill randomly and she was behind. But if it
was like a gambling problem or right driken alcohol, Katzy
claims she had asked for twenty five hundred bucks, specifically
twenty five hundred.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
The housekeeper went on to deny that in a book
like she said, no, I actually I never asked.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
For that, but I don't know.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
But so initially Patsy was like, oh, I don't know.
There's this you know housekeeper. Look at her and she
has a husband, Linda Hoffman has or had a husband
where he was like a little sketchy. I guess I
don't have enough data there. But so she went on
to assert the following She went on to say, look,
Patsy before Christmas nineteen ninety six was moody, almost like
(19:57):
multiple personalities.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
She also believed that.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
John John Benny's death was an accident that just continued.
She said that life inside the house was she was
often changing and washing John Bennet's sheets almost every day,
and there was a plastic cover because she was often
bed wedding constantly. And again, that could be any number
of things, including pressure from competing or abuse or you know.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Or just or just getting I mean I wedded the bed,
not a lot, but I did when I still web
the bed just for fun, just for fun.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
And then her pushback on the Ramsey's book. So because
in the Ramsey's book, the claim was made that she
had asked for this money. So she pushed back and
she said that those statements were false and defamatory.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
So it wasn't just like I don't remember that. I
was like, no, that's a lie.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
So are you going to reveal something definitive because this
isn't a criticism on you, No, no, no, I'm just saying like,
because if the parents had a pattern of abusing John
Benny Ramsey, then and they don't have to have had pattern,
It could have been a one time right because remember in.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
This theory, I don't need that pattern, right in this
theory I just need. And the reason this was my
number three was.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Pointing to the guy that cut the exetra cop.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Yeah, in this theory. The reason my number three is
the housekeeper is because it's.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
The only wait, you have ranked theories.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Uh no, No, Remember I said there were three reasons
why I like this theory. One of them was it's
coming from an investigator on the case. Two, it is
simple in a way. And three, the housekeeper, the one
only other person that we know was in enough contact
with them, happens to believe that that's what happened. Well, no,
I get it, but that's why I like this theory.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Okay. And she also, I'm just saying that if there
was a pattern of abuse, because that's one of the narratives,
then in all likelihood this housekeeper or at least would
have a greater chance of having picked up on some Okay,
But she.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Didn't claim abuse, meaning she didn't claim oh and I
saw her constantly being abused by the follower or any
of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Also, she didn't claim any abuse signs at all.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
All she claimed was Hey, leading up to this thing,
Patio was acting weird. I was all the time cleaning
wet beds for John Beney. I think the note was written.
I recognize that I hear her voice in the note, okay,
and she lied.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
About me, So because of that, I think she did
it right.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So where she's also being implicated by the mob, the
mob would absolutely go out, so everyone has a motivation.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
To But you could also say she doesn't have to
then reaccuse her.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
But you know whatever, I just when I'm out of
the way of the mob, you got to present another narrative.
I'm just saying, like, no one is like this is all. Actually,
maybe this is why I'm so passionate about like anti
mob stuff, is that this is all very much reminding
me of the Amber heard Johnny Depp trial, And while
(22:53):
watching that trial, which I watched every second of, I was,
as a citizen just curious about what actually had happened
between these two during their entire relationship, because that whole
their entire relationship was basically in question, and the main
question was did abuse happen? And who was the perpetrator?
(23:13):
And literally everyone who gave testimony, including the experts, you
could argue had reason to be biased. That didn't mean
they were biased. It didn't mean that I didn't more
accept or respect their opinion if they presented it well,
you know, like the psychologists that was for the Johnny
(23:36):
Depp team. The first I can't remember her name, but
she presented herself very well and had good data and
answered questions really well, whereas the other one did in
my opinion. But there was one person who, from my perspective,
was the only person that didn't at least present the
(23:56):
opportunity to discount their testimony because of motivation that they
might have. Because so many of the people that gave
testimony were either a friend or an employee, right, But
there was this one person, and it was their housekeeper.
And I very much remember this that yes she's an employee,
but she's a employee of both of them, right, And
(24:18):
she didn't have any reason to be biased. And now
she only saw and gave testimony on a small set
of incidents. You know, she wasn't there twenty four seven
with the couple, but she did get she did give testimony,
and I remember I remember really thinking, I think we
can rely on this person's account on this small, you know,
(24:39):
bit of of story more than we can other people.
Because people would say opposite things, you know, like his
His people would say, yes, she took a shit in
his bed, and then her people would say that's ridiculous.
I was there, you know she So you'd be like, well,
which is it? You know what I mean? And and
and you're like, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
But then occasionally there are these people, so I keep
looking for that person because the cops could be motivate,
you know, have motivated reasoning. It seems like there's some
evidence there. The friends, the family, the son, this cop. Obviously,
these people and even the housekeeper now kind of presents
as someone who would have motivation because because she is
(25:21):
being attacked by the mob, because you know that the
mob intruder did it Idi people, they would absolutely go
after her and her husband, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Yes, And she gave grand jury testimony though this wasn't
just public replies and like a book she wrote. She
gave grandjury testimony under oath, and it included a couple
of bits and included all the things I already mentioned.
It also included this Swiss army knife detail. So there
was a Swiss army knife found that belonged to Burk,
(25:52):
the brother that is potentially was potentially used in cutting
the rope or whatever, and so why does this matter?
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Well, so, so this knife.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Had been put away because apparently it had been hidden
from Burke because he was using it and appropriately or
he was like whatever, and it was hidden in a
drawer in the basement that Patsy knew where it was,
and how the housekeeper knew where it was, and those
were the only two people that knew where that knife was.
And then that knife was found not in that drawer,
and that potentially was used. So she gave that testimony.
She also testified about the behavior leading up to the thing.
(26:26):
She also gave the testimony about like the fact that she.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Leaves the behavior leading that she's weird.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Well, I mean it's just no, no, it's just grand
jury testimony saying, look, leading up to that event, she
had noted because you know they're going to ask him,
did you notice anything strange? So she said, well, look
she was she was acting. And what she said was
she was acting. Now you could the wording is, you know,
she said almost like multiple personalities, right, but she said
(26:54):
she became very moody.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
That could have nothing to do with this. It could
just be Christmas whatever.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
But it is testimony, and in the end, the whole
thing about the accusation, Yeah, she was not even accused.
The Potzy claimed that she had asked to borrow at
twenty five hundred, and Patsy said they were going to
lend her the twenty five hundred. She claims that that's
a lie. But in either case it seems like a
small amount. It's not one hundred. It's not like one
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
So, but I when I'm ticking my little columns, I
go like, well, when I add up all these things,
I'm putting this one more on the category of like, yeah,
that is that casts some doubt for me on Patsy.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
And then when I add all the other things back.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
In like no footprints, blah blah blah, I start to
think this theory might have the Steve theory might have
some merrit.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yeah. Well, in another world, the police, trained paid tax
dollars would have showed up and done what I, as
a layperson even though to do, which is to get
everyone out of the house, and you quarantine it off,
and you start dusting for prints, and you search the
(27:59):
whole house, and when you find the body in the
house because you've done your job, paid by tax dollars.
You keep the body there, You demonstrate that you're very professional,
and you swab for things.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Yeah, document that the window was or was not open,
it was or not broken, suitcase was or was not there.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
And you show that there isn't suspicion that your tendency
to contaminate or not contaminate evidence is solid. Right, generally speaking,
this is massive incompetence and we can't trust. Now, maybe
they were able to demonstrate that the samples and the
DNA and the fibers and everything, because you know, I also,
(28:44):
in my mind have the Amanda Knox story and like
that was completely flubbed and it implicated amand in Ox
in completely ridiculous ways. And when you get that data,
it just seems like WHOA, Well, there you go. But
then you actually look into how they gathered the data
and that they were biased, and you're just like, well,
then we just have to throw it all out. We
(29:05):
can't know and the parents could have done it is
a thing, but the police fucked up. That's the story here.
In the same way that O. J. Simpson. When you
have Mark Furman or whatever, you have a problem and
we are denied justice as a society. The families potentially
denied justice because they could have found information going either way,
(29:27):
the parents or an intruder. That so much data has
got now it's possible that if they had quarantine off everything,
and I don't even know if they didn't, but it
doesn't sound like they did that.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
They did eventually, but not in that morning and stuff.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Okay, And like I said, you're telling me that their
friends came over. Yeah, and we're cleaning up so.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
And their friends, like I said, Fleet was the one
investigating the basement after John. Okay, John investigates the best
for reason, if John's the culprit, he had already been
allowed to go there by himself once. Then his buddy
Fleet goes down by himself. At one point, Fleet was
sort of a suspect, not really, not not by the police,
but like people were like, what about Fleet? And then
John goes back down again later with Fleet, and that's
(30:06):
when the body is found. Right, So, like the basement
had been checked out multiple times by people that are
not the cops.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yeah, and not to mention the entire house, her bedroom,
right everything.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Oh, the bedroom was the only part of the house
that they had sealed off. Her bedroom was the only
part that they had sealed off that morning.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Okay, but the rest of the seven thousand square feet
and everything, and so we just don't know. So that's
the story, is that the police fucked it up. Now
it's possible if they didn't fuck it up, there still
wouldn't be enough evidence because maybe it just didn't exist.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
But it certainly didn't help. Yeah, it didn't help.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
So let's talk a little bit about the handwriting part,
because there's a lot of other evidence that might work
in against John and other people and stuff, but the
handwriting one is the one that the only one in
the family that came close to being related to the
handwriting was Patsy. So the CBI, the Calllrodo Bureau of Investigation,
issued a report on the findings of the handwriting. They
(31:05):
said that they were indications that the author of the
Ramsen note could be Patsy, but stopped from a definitive identification,
so they didn't say it was Patsy. They said, there's
indications that it could be Patsy. Of course, there were
many experts, and of course the Ramseys hired their own experts,
and all these kinds of things, but including the defense
and independent reports say that Patsy cannot be ruled out, Yeah,
(31:28):
but cannot be officially identified.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Yeah, And I'll say that is interesting handwriting analysis. Any
expert will tell you that it's shaky at best, but
it is data that you can look at. People tend
to write in an idiosyncratic way, but there are a
lot of people that share the same idiosyncrasies. Plus it
can be manufactured pretty easily. Plus under stress, you might
(31:51):
write differently, So there's a but it is it is
notable that if experts did say that the handwriting was similar,
it is interesting, and it would make sense that if
she were to be writing a note, it would be
a little shaky at first because she's adrenaline and.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
If she's like, i'll write it with my left or something.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Yeah, or she's you know, starting to get more calm
as and then it's so outlandish because she's trying to
make it outlandish so that it'll either make the perpetrator
look like they're insane or it'll make it look like
it's a grand conspirit conspirat, you know. And also if
(32:30):
it's done in haste and you don't and it was,
it was on accident plan it wasn't something you plan
for a month. Then you could see someone just pulling
different cultural things that they're you know, but you can
all see a perpetrator doing that as well. But but yeah,
I mean the rope. You could obviously dispose of the rope,
and the fact that so much of what they have
(32:53):
in terms of you know, direct evidence that was there
that killed the girl Jobanny was from the house itself. Yeah,
which again an intruder could that happens all the time.
But it also makes sense that if it were the
parents that they would just grab stuff around the house
and then they dispose of the rope or they just
(33:13):
had a length of rope that was just that long.
But yeah, it's all just sort ubsttial. Is it possible, Absolutely,
it's absolutely possible. And it happens a lot. As that
police officer says, what do you say, like eleven thousand
kids or something, and yeah, it happens, and kids are abused.
Sometimes it's totally an accident. You know, the parent has
(33:36):
an outburst, things get kind of weird, and it wasn't
necessarily terribly abusive, but it was rageful and John Benet.
You know, Jemeny could have just been afraid, and because
the mom was like moody in the way that the
housekeeper says, and then John Manee like runs away, trips,
falls down the stairs, hits herself, and the mom feels
(33:59):
so guilty doesn't want to call the police, and so
she's like, I gotta do some you know who knows.
But without any direct evidence, we're all just making him sorrus.
There's a possibility that that, you know, the fact that
we can equally feel confident, given that you and I
don't have a bias either way, we can feel equally
(34:19):
confident of an intruder of the dad, the mom, the brother,
the housekeeper, the housekeeper's husband. I mean, I don't know
why he gets pulled into this fleet. The fact that
we can equally implicate these people says we're kind of
fucked when it comes to actually having a solid idea
(34:40):
of who did this.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
By the way, just side note, neither the housekeeper, nor
their nor her husband's DNA was.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
A match for any of the DNA the thing.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
But okay.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Donald Foster is I guess, a known handwriting and text
analysis prominent figure. At one point he claimed that he
had determined that Patsy Ramsey absolutely wrote the ransom note. Well,
I'm using the word absolutely, but he had determined that
Patsy Ramsey wrote the note.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
His credibility was later.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Questioned because earlier he had written to Patsy expressing belief
in her innocence. Now that's kind of weird because he
had said I believe you're innocent.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Later he said, yeah, that's her note.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
But whatever, Well, anyone who says they're one hundred percent sure,
I'm not claiming that I put I said absolutely.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
I'm taking that back.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
It's just he said he determined that Patsy Ramsey wrote
the randsom Well, that sounds pretty that you're I'm just
quoting a quote, right, Like so, I mean, I'm just
I'm just reading out a thing.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
I don't know what the.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Exact quote, you know, But what is a fact is
that that there was just another tick and like, hey,
this famous analysis dude says it's probably her. But then
people were like, yeah, but you were saying you wrote
her a note saying that you believed in her innocence, So.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
What are we to believe?
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Although I would say.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Like if anything, I'm like, well, maybe that made him
more impartial, and he still concluded that she's the handwriting anyways,
federal court decision, So there was a federal court decision
citing handwriting experts against identifying Patsy. So in a later case,
a federal court sided six certified handwriting experts who found
it highly unlikely that Patsy wrote the note. So some
(36:15):
other experts said, no, it's not Patsy, right, So it's
kind of this like back and forth. At the same time,
you heard the detective Steve say that that there were
other experts that they have that said that when they
had sample writ handwriting analysis from Patsy from after the
murder that she had that it looks like she was
changing her style of handwriting, which seems a little suspicious.
(36:37):
But so all in all, when I add all this up,
I look at it and I go, yeah, okay, well,
if she is potentially someone that wrote the note, and
this dude, Steve says that, hey, these things happen a lot,
and that seems like a pretty simple explanation.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
That feels fine, And the.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Housekeeper seems to only say that that she thinks it
was her.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
When I add all that up, I'm like, oh, that
seems legitimate.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Now can you imagine what some of the counters might
be against she did it, against Patsy doing it? What
do you mean if someone was like people, yeah, for example, yeah,
like what would be some of the things they would
say immediately?
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Not like super minute shit, but like, the.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Most concise thing is there's no direct or even mildly
connecting evidence that she did. So it's hard to prove
a negative, right, So without a clear alternative, you can't
point to, no, it wasn't me, it was this other person,
because they don't have that. So all you can say
is there's no evident. And the parents made a good
(37:37):
point when they were arguing on Larry King of like, well,
if it's a slam dunk, then why didn't you charge me?
Because you never charged me.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Now did you hear what Steve said to her?
Speaker 1 (37:48):
Though?
Speaker 3 (37:48):
What he said, well, they know better than anyone. The
reason she was in charge wasn't because of a.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
Lack of probable so corruption and conspiracy, that's what he claims.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
Now another couple of reasons that come to mind.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
One so I can buy the I mean, it sounds horrible, right,
but I can buy the rageful moment or the accident moment. Right,
You're in the bathroom cleaning up after being woken up
yet again on Christmas night by the frequent urination, and
I'm a little moody and multily what is a personality had?
And so ah, I'm so upset shove you. Oh gosh,
(38:24):
you just hit your head. What am I gonna do? Okay,
but the next step seems so extreme, like I'm gonna
set this up.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
I'm gonna fashion a thing and strangle my daughter. And
according to the Corners report, she was still alive at
that point and I can't tell at all, but okay,
and I'm shinkling and then I'm.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Gonna like mess with her genitals just a little bit
with something that by the way, there's some indication it
might have been part of the paintbrush, like the mom
did have to like make it look like and she
had like she switched to like full psychopath mode all
of a sudden, like so that's one of the big things. Like, okay,
maybe the start of this meet, but but then you
could say, well, she's gone crazy at that point.
Speaker 1 (39:05):
So yeah, it has this element that's similar on the
other side of just making up a story that moms
would never do that, or that it's so outlandish it
can't be true. But moms do do this, and outlandish
things like this do happen. So just saying we're supposed
(39:28):
to believe that a mom would yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
Right, But for the proponents of IDI or even not
the mom doing it, this is one of those parts
that it's hard for folks to like resolve in their head,
like well.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
And if you have an emotional psychological need to hold
on to that black and white point of view. Now,
as I've been saying, when you have a crime like this,
you will see a pattern typically, and since there's no
pattern now, could have pad and happened behind closed doors
that wasn't witnessed by in one or these people in
(40:04):
this inner circle of the you know, lizard conspiracy theory,
you know, but but you know, could could people could
fleet if honest say, well, you know, the mom could
get violent sometimes, but I don't think she did it,
So I'm not going to imagine could that have been? Yeah,
but we just don't have the.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
End one thing that I thought of, but I don't
think because there's a lot of other parts that don't match.
But I was when I was early researching this, and
I'm thinking I was I was thinking, oh, there's probably
sexual abuse happening, maybe the dad or something. Part of
me for a second thought, oh, wait a minute, what
if she did discover, like maybe even in the act
or had learned that this was happening, and instead of
(40:44):
her rage being applied towards John, she blames her quote
you know, horrors daughter for blah blah blah. Who knows, right,
So I kind of that thought ran through my head
of like, oh, maybe this was a rage like jealousy
kind of thing, because there was, you know, anecdotally the
housekeep for in others others meaning like what was it
(41:05):
the housekeeper and forget if there was others. Maybe I'm
making up those others. But at least the housekeeper had
claimed that there was, that she never noticed them being
amorous towards each other. And then some of the speculation
was like, well, she had gone through cancer treatment, so
it's quite possible they weren't having a lot of sex, and.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Wait, what the fuck? So because the housekeeper says that
they're very non emotional employers.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
Oh, that she never saw them being romantic to each other, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
And therefore he raped and killed the kid.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
What the folks online, some folks gather is like, oh wait, so,
first of all, because number one, Patsy had gone through
cancer treatment, it's likely that they weren't able to be
very physical. Two, the father was barely around, and that
is actually according to multiple accounts, even in interviews with
basically with relatives stating that pats John Benet had expressed
(42:03):
sadness that daddy wasn't around enough. And then the housekeeper
noticing that they weren't amorous to each other, that one
speculation was like, well maybe he was abusing.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
John Binet and the mom found out and she went
into it.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
It's such a leap. I don't even understand the connection there.
So because he's a typical white rich guy who is
working outside the house and is unemotional and unavailable as
a father.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
And his needs aren't being met sexually, which is a
huge leap.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
We don't even know because she went through cancer treatment.
We're making this huge leap that they're not having sex.
Then we're making this huge leap that he's not getting
a sexual needs.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
Mean, and then because of that he's abusing the darter.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
I mean, that's a misunderstanding of why people abuse me.
It's like all of us guys are that close to
raping our children if we're not getting yes. Okay, so
although this just tells you this sophistication of these camps.
Speaker 3 (43:01):
By the way, all that being said, I wanted to
this is content warning. I'm going to go with a
little more detail about the specific findings in the autopsy,
about the damage to the general area.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
So if you do want to hear this, let's take
a break. Restless episode patrons. Okay, sounds good. Not that
patrons also shouldn't be careful, that makes sense, but yeah,
so the rest of this episode will be for patrons. Otherwise,
please take care of yourself because you deserve it.
Hey, Deserving listeners. Is chapter four, and our deep dive
on the psychology of John Benny Ramsay and the psychology
of criminal justice and the mob and ourselves and uncertainty,
and of child beauty pageants and research the psychology of
a lot of different things. So Berto, let's continue chapter four.
(00:22):
What do you say?
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Let's do it.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
This is the Psychology and Seattle Podcast. I'm your host,
doctor Kirk Honda, and I am wearing the green shirt.
Who are you, Burtal?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My name is Umberto Casta, And have you ever been
to a restaurant and like they have the little mints?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Yeah, I verify that they haven't been open and licked
before they put them back in the package.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Cool. Cool, cool.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
So last time we left off and I had just
like listed a whole bunch of information about the autopsy
report and about evidence that's been found or reported and
things like this, And this is sort of building a
cradle on which we're going to discuss some of the
explicit theories that have been put forward both by police
and other folks, but specific about who could.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Have done it and why could have done it?
Speaker 3 (01:04):
And spoiler alert, there will be no solution. We're not
solving the crime here today. Also, just to be clear,
we are not accusing anyone. We are just listing people's
speculations and offering are like a random ass opinions about it.
So it won't surprise you to hear because we've already
disgusted that there are two big main camps. One camp
(01:25):
is what they call Ramses did it or ourdi, and
the other camp is intruder did it or IDI. But
even within there there are subdivisions in the Ramseys did
it camp. There's obviously like John did it or Patsy
did it, or John and Patsy did it, or one
did it and the other one helped cover up, or
Burke did it, or another member of the Ramsey family
(01:48):
maybe a brother did it or something okay, like John
has a brother who by the way, random piece of evidence.
Remember I mentioned there was a suitcase found by the
open window or the cracked window in the basement. Yeah,
there was a blanket inside that suitcase that contained samples
of seamen from John's brother. But John had a guest
(02:12):
room at the house and he stayed there and so
maybe but random right, Also, there were fibers found inside
that suitcase from some of the other components that were
found on John Bennet's like in the blanket and stuff
in that she was found wrapped in. So anyways, that
(02:32):
one of the theories is that someone was trying to
use the suitcase to get the body out of the house.
The other theories that know, the suitcase was just for
someone to step up and exit the window.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Or it was just there, or it was just there
and fibers distribute themselves through the entire house, or it
was contaminated by these crack investigators in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
So the first theory we're going to go over is
Detective Steve Thomas's position. So the detective Steam Thomas was
one of the Boulder police detectives that were going after
this case. One thing of note is he resigned in
August nineteen ninety eight in protest, accusing the DA's office
of blocking a proper prosecution. He resigned the force, wrote
(03:15):
an eight page protest letter explaining all the reasons why
he was leaving, in all the things that he felt
had been mishandled, etc.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
And he left.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
And then we're about to watch in a little bit
videos of him actually directly confronting the Ramses in a
CNN interview discussing his theory in front of them and
stuff like that. Okay, so his whole point is, Hey,
this has been made to be some very complex who
done it?
Speaker 2 (03:40):
But I don't see it that way. I see this
as like a.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
Very unfortunate but unfortunately common situation of domestic violence by
a parent to a child, gone then wrong and tried.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
To cover up.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
But basically that's what it was.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
And he says Patsy became angry at John Benay late
at night or early morning of December twenty sixth, nineteen
ninety six. Parentheses. There are reports that John Beney had
a frequent problem with bed wedding. Now that has not
been officially confirmed, like here's all the instances where she
but it's been reported by the housekeeper. The mother has
(04:16):
admitted that she did wet the bed and things like this. Also,
just when they investigated the house, the sheets were apparently
staying with urine and then on her body.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
But of course if she was killed, that's natural.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
But she had your nation.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
And stuff like this.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
So one of the theories, and it's not what he's
specifically mentioning, but one of the theories is that this
was starting to drive Patsy nuts, like literally like because
she kept wetting the bed.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And then but.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
In his reconstruction, he says that something happened. It could
either been just a basic refusing to go to bed,
soiled the bed once again, or some other issue. But
in a burst of frustration, Patsy struck John Benet, possibly
with a heavy object or pushed her and she fell
and hit her head against something like in the bathroom
(05:02):
or some eye. That the head injury caused the fracture
that was set found in the autopsy. Thomas believes that
at this point Patsy basically freaked out and started staging.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
A scene because they didn't want to.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Go to jail, and that this might have included John
or not included John, and that Patsy wrote the ransom note.
We'll talk a little bit about the handwriting analysis there,
and that she used her for the hurt paintbrush to
wrap around the cord and did this all in the
wine cellar room and that's and you know, her fibers
(05:36):
were found and blah blah blah. In the next morning
when the police arrived, Patsy was wearing the same clothing
she was wearing the previous night.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
So he asserts like, she basically never went to bed
that night and this is what happened.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
He points to things like the tone and length the
ransom note was long, along with.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Was she wearing the same thing from the previous night? Yeah,
like everything?
Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah, and still and wearing makeup?
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah, well the makeup thing isn't straight.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Mean some when five am at thirty she woke up,
she goes downstairs, finds the note, and she goes upstairs.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Whats makeup?
Speaker 4 (06:06):
No?
Speaker 1 (06:06):
I mean some people leave their makeup on. Oh okay,
fair enough, that's what they're That's what their guesses.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
But she was wearing the same thing, and no one
disputes that fact.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
That is weird. Yeah, I mean, who goes to bed
in the clothes that you if.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
You were really tired and a little drunk. I don't know, I've.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Done that before. Totally. Do we know what items of
clothing she was wearing, because if she's wearing like a
gown like a.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
It wasn't a gown, it was, No, it was but yeah, okay,
well I don't know exactly.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Yeah, But so I will say that this story is
absolutely possible yeah, I mean, and I hypothesized this a
while back. It does sort of fit, but without any
direct evidence, it's just making up a story.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Right right, right, So supporting themes that look that Thomas
mentioned is there was no evidence of forest entry. The
house was locked again, notwithstanding Burke's random mentioned many many
many years later as an adult that he unlocked the
front door that you know.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
In behavioral red flags.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
This is where it gets very speculative, of course, but
it's like things like the parents making many media appearances
before they ever cooperated with the police or gave an
official police interview. He claims that it was April of
nineteen ninety seven when they finally started collaborating with official
interviews with the police, and that even then they had
the lawyers, had the police agree to send them first
(07:28):
all the information about what had what the police knew,
and they had to be together for the interview, which
you know, of course, if you're trying to protect yourself
because you're innocent but you don't want to get screwed up,
that you would do and if you're guilty, you would
also do that.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
So you know, for people who don't know, that can
look suspicious, but that is the legal advice that you
will get from competent lawyers that you do not talk
with the police, especially when there's a possibility that you
are under investigation, and you only do so under legal
(08:01):
oversight and advancement, even when you're innocent, you know. So
the fact that they didn't talk just means that they
had good legal representation right away. So let's watch some.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Clips of Steve Thomas at that CNN interview with the
Ramses failure.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
Let's talk about parents who I feel have failed their daughter,
who after this became a homicide. Of course they cooperated
when it was a kidnapping, but after it became a homicide. Patsy,
you waited four months before you came and talked to
the Bolder Police department and answered questions nod Well, tell
me when I was there every day? Tell me how
many hours in our home that day? How many are
(08:35):
you in our home the day? How many press releases?
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Right? And talk over each other. You say they didn't appear.
You say you didn't appear with the Bolder police And
how would he not.
Speaker 5 (08:46):
Go with the Bolder police department. I don't remember you there.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
You weren't there that they weren't you weren't there the
day they came?
Speaker 3 (08:52):
What day did you?
Speaker 5 (08:54):
Let's let's deal with facts. December twenty seventh, nineteen ninety seven.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
John goes on to state that twenty seven, basically a
couple of days after that they met with the lieutenants.
But Steve Thomas's point is that they were supposed to
come in and do an official interview and they didn't collaborate,
and that the police, not only him, the police in general,
claimed that the family was not being cooperative. And again
this could be like, yeah, they're scared that they're going
(09:18):
to be targeted a suspects, or they're guilty and they
don't want to collaborate, So you can have it both ways.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
I mean, they literally had a detective in the house,
the lead person who was there, who in their mind
had determined that John did it without any evidence.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
But that was not something that was that was they
could have picked up on that advice at the very least,
even if they didn't know it.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
They were actually being smart by not cooperating, just wildly
openly without legal advisement, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Yeah, No, I could see that the flip side from
the police perspective is do you want us to catch
that you say there's an intruder?
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Are you going to help us? You know that's there.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
I mean, I'm assuming they did give some data.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
The police claims that we're being completely unhelpful in the house,
not the day of, Like that's what I'm saying, Like
day of they're they're like, you know, here's data.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
We don't know anyone, you know, and if if they've
given them everything the day of and nothing comes to
mind later of, just like well there is that one guy,
and they're definitely getting the picture that they're under suspicion
and that they're being locked in on which clearly they were,
then they shouldn't talk to the police, and it's their
right and it is not of this is why they
(10:29):
couldn't be charged for not cooperating.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
That's not a thing, right but but but in either case,
the police was frustrated.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
So let's go to the second clip.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Well, theory, I hope we get a chance to talk
about their convoluted sex crime, pedophile, kidnap or turned murderer theory.
But I think I think it's very I think it's
very simple, and I.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Will get that theory I want to go theory. What's
your theory?
Speaker 5 (10:53):
My theory is quite simple. Whoever authored the ransom note
killed the child absent some great conspiracy that they think
this intruder came into the house.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
You agree that whoever authored They're handsome note probably killed
the child.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I would agree. I agree.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Now, your contention is she wrote the note.
Speaker 5 (11:09):
I don't base that them.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
I do.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
I base that on question document examiners when the time.
By the time I left the Boulder Police Department June
of nineteen ninety eight, Patsy, out of seventy three suspects
whose handwriting had been looked at, you were the only
one who showed evidence to suggest authorship.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Right in and arrest when you probable call.
Speaker 5 (11:32):
These people know better than anybody probable cause was not
the issue in this case, Patsy. You could have been
arrested in this case. I wish I had been, and
then we would have had a free and fair trial
and you would have met your waterley. Mister Thomas, are
you saying that.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
You would have let her?
Speaker 5 (11:47):
Let her answer that questions? John questions?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Because you have assaulted her. You've called her murderer.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
First of all, I was I was picturing myself in
this situation.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
How bizarre it is, right, Like, you're in front of
TV that's going to go to millions of people and
you are being confronted directly by a police officer. Well
he's no longer on the force at this point, but
he's confronting you and saying you did this, right, And
of course, from his perspective.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
He's like, yeah, you guys did this, or you did ed.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
List, you know whatever, and then from their perspective, assuming
they're innocent, they're.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Like, you're a horrible person, right, Like yeah, it's interesting.
It's this weird window and time when CNN was like
the social media of today that you had mass media
and twenty four to seven media and a lot of it,
because when we were growing up, it was the six
o'clock news, you know, ten o'clock National news or something, right,
(12:40):
and it wasn't even on the weekends from my memory,
and so there's this weird zone in the nineties with
the OJ Simpson and you know, the trial TV kind
of stuff, but it's not social media. So today I
was just thinking what would they do today, And what
they would do today is they would tweet or they'd
have a podcast or something. So back then, if they
wanted to get their voice out there, they had to
(13:02):
do these kinds of things. But yeah, it is pretty
striking that you have them both having this back and forth,
you know. And it also is just bizarre that I
had no idea any of this was happening. And it
just tells me, you know, because there there's blocks of
time where one I didn't have cable TV and the
(13:23):
internet wasn't what it would become, so I was just
completely in this insular world of my friends.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Well I had cable TV. I never watched the news
back then. Never, I would have never watched Larry King
Live or CNN or anything.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Say you saw that little news blurb or whatever, well
that was the end of the information. You couldn't then
go and research. So the information would just sort of
happen at you, and unless it was forced down your
throat or you went to the library or you tuned
in every time CNN had a story about it or something,
(13:58):
it would quickly get flo rushed out of your mind
in terms of any sort of detail, and so.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Or tabloids right like that was the only other source
of of course, unreliable and often false information was tabloids.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Yeah, like literally at the super anything. Tabloids in the
nineties have more factual data than Twitter does today.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That could very well be Remember Boy.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Yeah, actually I don't, but I will take it. Every
time I would go to remember, Jennifer Anderson was constantly
being talked about on the tabloids.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
I just remember, I forget it was the Inquirer, one
of the go to the store, and for years it
seems like they would always rerun this story.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
There was a picture of a boy with like going
like this.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Ah, it look bald and with pointy ears and with
the big bat teeth and.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
It was bat boy, all right.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So anyways, one last clip from Steve Thomas and Ramsey is.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
That Patsy in a violent confrontation with her daughter, not
accidental eye hypothesized in the sense that lack motive, unlike
accidental in that sense. Excuse me, did you have something else? Oh? Yeah,
(15:10):
at that point, instead of making a right turn, you
made a left turn and covered this up. It's not
unlike eleven thousand other children that have been murdered in
this country or killed feloniously by parents in the last
twenty years. I don't see this as that remarkable a
case other than what it became if.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
It's this pat as you say, and so I will say, yeah,
of the very circumstantial evidence, the pool of very light
evidence going out of direction, there's a lot of that
evidence that could.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Go both ways, but can go in that direction absolutely.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
What I like is a weird word to use here,
because there's actually little to like about.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Any of this.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
But what I quote like about this theory is the
following three main bullet points.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
One, because you know, we've seen the data that.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
We see that people post online and stuff like that,
But the police had all the information they had gathered, right,
and so if someone was close to it, well an
investigator was there. Now, could they be biased? Absolutely, And
sounds like maybe they were biased from the start. I
don't know, But they at least had access to all
the information. So that's that's one thing that I'm like, Okay,
well he has access to.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
A lot more info than I probably have.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Number Two, there is something kind of almost satisfying in
a weird way about the simplicity of like, right, the
data shows that a lot of parents kill kids in
rage blah blah blah, So maybe that's just what happened,
and that the weirdness became the very weird way to
try to cover it up. Right, then all of a sudden,
that makes it look like all these other potential things, okay.
(16:46):
And then the last thing was that all the little
circumstantial bits of like the little cloth fibers from her coat,
her paint brush.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
I didn't mention this because it's not officially. It's a
lot of contention around this. But they didn't find any
evidence of that same duct tape in the house or
the rope in the house, like the right, but one
of the investigators, one of the detectives, not him, had
found oh, actually maybe it was him.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
There was a hardware store where there were there was
a purchase done by Patsy some time before this where
there were two purchases made for amounts that happened to
match things like duct tape and rope. But it couldn't
be definitely proved because they didn't have they couldn't trace it, like, oh, look,
(17:38):
we found it, but there was this circumstantial evidence other things,
the handwriting, like you said, they looked at all these suspects,
and yes, even though the handwriting analysis is kind of
a crap.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Shoot.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
The one thing is that the one that matched the
most was Patsy. Okay, and I was talking about the housekeeper.
So here's what the housekeeper.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Had to say.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
And this is again, none of this can This is
why if you want to say, like, well, they probably
couldn't have convicted anyways, because I've been waiting a long
time for this for the housekeeper.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
You've been teasing the house the housekeeper, housekeeper, tease housekeeper. Okay, yes,
so well let's tease the audience and take a break.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
What you say, all.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Right, we're back from the break, give us the money shot.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
So in three episodes from now, we're going to cover
the housekeeper.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
All right.
Speaker 3 (18:28):
So the housekeeper's name is Linda Hoffman Pugh. She initially
was actually someone that Patsy didn't accuse, but cast some.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Suspicion on Patsy herself. Said, and here's what happened.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Linda had asked to borrow money, or she was in
need of money, so she had asked money to borrow money,
but they weren't going to lend her money apparently, And.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
That said, Patsy felt, well, well, she has access to
the house. She knows how the house works. She knows
all the rooms in the house.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Do we know how much she I mean again one hundred.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
And eighteen thousand, it was like two thousand bucks or something,
and why she apparently no, but there was okay, I
don't have that bit of data. But as I remember,
it was like she had gone into financial trouble.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
So it wasn't it was just like she had a
medical bill randomly and she was behind. But if it
was like a gambling problem or right driken alcohol, Katzy
claims she had asked for twenty five hundred bucks, specifically
twenty five hundred.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
The housekeeper went on to deny that in a book
like she said, no, I actually I never asked.
Speaker 2 (19:30):
For that, but I don't know.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
But so initially Patsy was like, oh, I don't know.
There's this you know housekeeper. Look at her and she
has a husband, Linda Hoffman has or had a husband
where he was like a little sketchy. I guess I
don't have enough data there. But so she went on
to assert the following She went on to say, look,
Patsy before Christmas nineteen ninety six was moody, almost like
(19:57):
multiple personalities.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
She also believed that.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
John John Benny's death was an accident that just continued.
She said that life inside the house was she was
often changing and washing John Bennet's sheets almost every day,
and there was a plastic cover because she was often
bed wedding constantly. And again, that could be any number
of things, including pressure from competing or abuse or you know.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Or just or just getting I mean I wedded the bed,
not a lot, but I did when I still web
the bed just for fun, just for fun.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
And then her pushback on the Ramsey's book. So because
in the Ramsey's book, the claim was made that she
had asked for this money. So she pushed back and
she said that those statements were false and defamatory.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
So it wasn't just like I don't remember that. I
was like, no, that's a lie.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
So are you going to reveal something definitive because this
isn't a criticism on you, No, no, no, I'm just saying like,
because if the parents had a pattern of abusing John
Benny Ramsey, then and they don't have to have had pattern,
It could have been a one time right because remember in.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
This theory, I don't need that pattern, right in this
theory I just need. And the reason this was my
number three was.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Pointing to the guy that cut the exetra cop.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Yeah, in this theory. The reason my number three is
the housekeeper is because it's.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
The only wait, you have ranked theories.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Uh no, No, Remember I said there were three reasons
why I like this theory. One of them was it's
coming from an investigator on the case. Two, it is
simple in a way. And three, the housekeeper, the one
only other person that we know was in enough contact
with them, happens to believe that that's what happened. Well, no,
I get it, but that's why I like this theory.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Okay. And she also, I'm just saying that if there
was a pattern of abuse, because that's one of the narratives,
then in all likelihood this housekeeper or at least would
have a greater chance of having picked up on some Okay,
But she.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Didn't claim abuse, meaning she didn't claim oh and I
saw her constantly being abused by the follower or any
of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Also, she didn't claim any abuse signs at all.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
All she claimed was Hey, leading up to this thing,
Patio was acting weird. I was all the time cleaning
wet beds for John Beney. I think the note was written.
I recognize that I hear her voice in the note, okay,
and she lied.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
About me, So because of that, I think she did
it right.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So where she's also being implicated by the mob, the
mob would absolutely go out, so everyone has a motivation.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
To But you could also say she doesn't have to
then reaccuse her.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
But you know whatever, I just when I'm out of
the way of the mob, you got to present another narrative.
I'm just saying, like, no one is like this is all. Actually,
maybe this is why I'm so passionate about like anti
mob stuff, is that this is all very much reminding
me of the Amber heard Johnny Depp trial, And while
(22:53):
watching that trial, which I watched every second of, I was,
as a citizen just curious about what actually had happened
between these two during their entire relationship, because that whole
their entire relationship was basically in question, and the main
question was did abuse happen? And who was the perpetrator?
(23:13):
And literally everyone who gave testimony, including the experts, you
could argue had reason to be biased. That didn't mean
they were biased. It didn't mean that I didn't more
accept or respect their opinion if they presented it well,
you know, like the psychologists that was for the Johnny
(23:36):
Depp team. The first I can't remember her name, but
she presented herself very well and had good data and
answered questions really well, whereas the other one did in
my opinion. But there was one person who, from my perspective,
was the only person that didn't at least present the
(23:56):
opportunity to discount their testimony because of motivation that they
might have. Because so many of the people that gave
testimony were either a friend or an employee, right, But
there was this one person, and it was their housekeeper.
And I very much remember this that yes she's an employee,
but she's a employee of both of them, right, And
(24:18):
she didn't have any reason to be biased. And now
she only saw and gave testimony on a small set
of incidents. You know, she wasn't there twenty four seven
with the couple, but she did get she did give testimony,
and I remember I remember really thinking, I think we
can rely on this person's account on this small, you know,
(24:39):
bit of of story more than we can other people.
Because people would say opposite things, you know, like his
His people would say, yes, she took a shit in
his bed, and then her people would say that's ridiculous.
I was there, you know she So you'd be like, well,
which is it? You know what I mean? And and
and you're like, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
But then occasionally there are these people, so I keep
looking for that person because the cops could be motivate,
you know, have motivated reasoning. It seems like there's some
evidence there. The friends, the family, the son, this cop. Obviously,
these people and even the housekeeper now kind of presents
as someone who would have motivation because because she is
(25:21):
being attacked by the mob, because you know that the
mob intruder did it Idi people, they would absolutely go
after her and her husband, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Yes, And she gave grand jury testimony though this wasn't
just public replies and like a book she wrote. She
gave grandjury testimony under oath, and it included a couple
of bits and included all the things I already mentioned.
It also included this Swiss army knife detail. So there
was a Swiss army knife found that belonged to Burk,
(25:52):
the brother that is potentially was potentially used in cutting
the rope or whatever, and so why does this matter?
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Well, so, so this knife.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Had been put away because apparently it had been hidden
from Burke because he was using it and appropriately or
he was like whatever, and it was hidden in a
drawer in the basement that Patsy knew where it was,
and how the housekeeper knew where it was, and those
were the only two people that knew where that knife was.
And then that knife was found not in that drawer,
and that potentially was used. So she gave that testimony.
She also testified about the behavior leading up to the thing.
(26:26):
She also gave the testimony about like the fact that she.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Leaves the behavior leading that she's weird.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Well, I mean it's just no, no, it's just grand
jury testimony saying, look, leading up to that event, she
had noted because you know they're going to ask him,
did you notice anything strange? So she said, well, look
she was she was acting. And what she said was
she was acting. Now you could the wording is, you know,
she said almost like multiple personalities, right, but she said
(26:54):
she became very moody.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
That could have nothing to do with this. It could
just be Christmas whatever.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
But it is testimony, and in the end, the whole
thing about the accusation, Yeah, she was not even accused.
The Potzy claimed that she had asked to borrow at
twenty five hundred, and Patsy said they were going to
lend her the twenty five hundred. She claims that that's
a lie. But in either case it seems like a
small amount. It's not one hundred. It's not like one
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
So, but I when I'm ticking my little columns, I
go like, well, when I add up all these things,
I'm putting this one more on the category of like, yeah,
that is that casts some doubt for me on Patsy.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
And then when I add all the other things back.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
In like no footprints, blah blah blah, I start to
think this theory might have the Steve theory might have
some merrit.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yeah. Well, in another world, the police, trained paid tax
dollars would have showed up and done what I, as
a layperson even though to do, which is to get
everyone out of the house, and you quarantine it off,
and you start dusting for prints, and you search the
(27:59):
whole house, and when you find the body in the
house because you've done your job, paid by tax dollars.
You keep the body there, You demonstrate that you're very professional,
and you swab for things.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Yeah, document that the window was or was not open,
it was or not broken, suitcase was or was not there.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
And you show that there isn't suspicion that your tendency
to contaminate or not contaminate evidence is solid. Right, generally speaking,
this is massive incompetence and we can't trust. Now, maybe
they were able to demonstrate that the samples and the
DNA and the fibers and everything, because you know, I also,
(28:44):
in my mind have the Amanda Knox story and like
that was completely flubbed and it implicated amand in Ox
in completely ridiculous ways. And when you get that data,
it just seems like WHOA, Well, there you go. But
then you actually look into how they gathered the data
and that they were biased, and you're just like, well,
then we just have to throw it all out. We
(29:05):
can't know and the parents could have done it is
a thing, but the police fucked up. That's the story here.
In the same way that O. J. Simpson. When you
have Mark Furman or whatever, you have a problem and
we are denied justice as a society. The families potentially
denied justice because they could have found information going either way,
(29:27):
the parents or an intruder. That so much data has
got now it's possible that if they had quarantine off everything,
and I don't even know if they didn't, but it
doesn't sound like they did that.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
They did eventually, but not in that morning and stuff.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
Okay, And like I said, you're telling me that their
friends came over. Yeah, and we're cleaning up so.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
And their friends, like I said, Fleet was the one
investigating the basement after John. Okay, John investigates the best
for reason, if John's the culprit, he had already been
allowed to go there by himself once. Then his buddy
Fleet goes down by himself. At one point, Fleet was
sort of a suspect, not really, not not by the police,
but like people were like, what about Fleet? And then
John goes back down again later with Fleet, and that's
(30:06):
when the body is found. Right, So, like the basement
had been checked out multiple times by people that are
not the cops.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yeah, and not to mention the entire house, her bedroom,
right everything.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Oh, the bedroom was the only part of the house
that they had sealed off. Her bedroom was the only
part that they had sealed off that morning.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Okay, but the rest of the seven thousand square feet
and everything, and so we just don't know. So that's
the story, is that the police fucked it up. Now
it's possible if they didn't fuck it up, there still
wouldn't be enough evidence because maybe it just didn't exist.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
But it certainly didn't help. Yeah, it didn't help.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
So let's talk a little bit about the handwriting part,
because there's a lot of other evidence that might work
in against John and other people and stuff, but the
handwriting one is the one that the only one in
the family that came close to being related to the
handwriting was Patsy. So the CBI, the Calllrodo Bureau of Investigation,
issued a report on the findings of the handwriting. They
(31:05):
said that they were indications that the author of the
Ramsen note could be Patsy, but stopped from a definitive identification,
so they didn't say it was Patsy. They said, there's
indications that it could be Patsy. Of course, there were
many experts, and of course the Ramseys hired their own experts,
and all these kinds of things, but including the defense
and independent reports say that Patsy cannot be ruled out, Yeah,
(31:28):
but cannot be officially identified.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Yeah, And I'll say that is interesting handwriting analysis. Any
expert will tell you that it's shaky at best, but
it is data that you can look at. People tend
to write in an idiosyncratic way, but there are a
lot of people that share the same idiosyncrasies. Plus it
can be manufactured pretty easily. Plus under stress, you might
(31:51):
write differently, So there's a but it is it is
notable that if experts did say that the handwriting was similar,
it is interesting, and it would make sense that if
she were to be writing a note, it would be
a little shaky at first because she's adrenaline and.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
If she's like, i'll write it with my left or something.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Yeah, or she's you know, starting to get more calm
as and then it's so outlandish because she's trying to
make it outlandish so that it'll either make the perpetrator
look like they're insane or it'll make it look like
it's a grand conspirit conspirat, you know. And also if
(32:30):
it's done in haste and you don't and it was,
it was on accident plan it wasn't something you plan
for a month. Then you could see someone just pulling
different cultural things that they're you know, but you can
all see a perpetrator doing that as well. But but yeah,
I mean the rope. You could obviously dispose of the rope,
and the fact that so much of what they have
(32:53):
in terms of you know, direct evidence that was there
that killed the girl Jobanny was from the house itself. Yeah,
which again an intruder could that happens all the time.
But it also makes sense that if it were the
parents that they would just grab stuff around the house
and then they dispose of the rope or they just
(33:13):
had a length of rope that was just that long.
But yeah, it's all just sort ubsttial. Is it possible, Absolutely,
it's absolutely possible. And it happens a lot. As that
police officer says, what do you say, like eleven thousand
kids or something, and yeah, it happens, and kids are abused.
Sometimes it's totally an accident. You know, the parent has
(33:36):
an outburst, things get kind of weird, and it wasn't
necessarily terribly abusive, but it was rageful and John Benet.
You know, Jemeny could have just been afraid, and because
the mom was like moody in the way that the
housekeeper says, and then John Manee like runs away, trips,
falls down the stairs, hits herself, and the mom feels
(33:59):
so guilty doesn't want to call the police, and so
she's like, I gotta do some you know who knows.
But without any direct evidence, we're all just making him sorrus.
There's a possibility that that, you know, the fact that
we can equally feel confident, given that you and I
don't have a bias either way, we can feel equally
(34:19):
confident of an intruder of the dad, the mom, the brother,
the housekeeper, the housekeeper's husband. I mean, I don't know
why he gets pulled into this fleet. The fact that
we can equally implicate these people says we're kind of
fucked when it comes to actually having a solid idea
(34:40):
of who did this.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
By the way, just side note, neither the housekeeper, nor
their nor her husband's DNA was.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
A match for any of the DNA the thing.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
But okay.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Donald Foster is I guess, a known handwriting and text
analysis prominent figure. At one point he claimed that he
had determined that Patsy Ramsey absolutely wrote the ransom note. Well,
I'm using the word absolutely, but he had determined that
Patsy Ramsey wrote the note.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
His credibility was later.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Questioned because earlier he had written to Patsy expressing belief
in her innocence. Now that's kind of weird because he
had said I believe you're innocent.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Later he said, yeah, that's her note.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
But whatever, Well, anyone who says they're one hundred percent sure,
I'm not claiming that I put I said absolutely.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
I'm taking that back.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
It's just he said he determined that Patsy Ramsey wrote
the randsom Well, that sounds pretty that you're I'm just
quoting a quote, right, Like so, I mean, I'm just
I'm just reading out a thing.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
I don't know what the.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Exact quote, you know, But what is a fact is
that that there was just another tick and like, hey,
this famous analysis dude says it's probably her. But then
people were like, yeah, but you were saying you wrote
her a note saying that you believed in her innocence, So.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
What are we to believe?
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Although I would say.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Like if anything, I'm like, well, maybe that made him
more impartial, and he still concluded that she's the handwriting anyways,
federal court decision, So there was a federal court decision
citing handwriting experts against identifying Patsy. So in a later case,
a federal court sided six certified handwriting experts who found
it highly unlikely that Patsy wrote the note. So some
(36:15):
other experts said, no, it's not Patsy, right, So it's
kind of this like back and forth. At the same time,
you heard the detective Steve say that that there were
other experts that they have that said that when they
had sample writ handwriting analysis from Patsy from after the
murder that she had that it looks like she was
changing her style of handwriting, which seems a little suspicious.
(36:37):
But so all in all, when I add all this up,
I look at it and I go, yeah, okay, well,
if she is potentially someone that wrote the note, and
this dude, Steve says that, hey, these things happen a lot,
and that seems like a pretty simple explanation.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
That feels fine, And the.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Housekeeper seems to only say that that she thinks it
was her.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
When I add all that up, I'm like, oh, that
seems legitimate.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Now can you imagine what some of the counters might
be against she did it, against Patsy doing it? What
do you mean if someone was like people, yeah, for example, yeah,
like what would be some of the things they would
say immediately?
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Not like super minute shit, but like, the.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Most concise thing is there's no direct or even mildly
connecting evidence that she did. So it's hard to prove
a negative, right, So without a clear alternative, you can't
point to, no, it wasn't me, it was this other person,
because they don't have that. So all you can say
is there's no evident. And the parents made a good
(37:37):
point when they were arguing on Larry King of like, well,
if it's a slam dunk, then why didn't you charge me?
Because you never charged me.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Now did you hear what Steve said to her?
Speaker 1 (37:48):
Though?
Speaker 3 (37:48):
What he said, well, they know better than anyone. The
reason she was in charge wasn't because of a.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
Lack of probable so corruption and conspiracy, that's what he claims.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
Now another couple of reasons that come to mind.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
One so I can buy the I mean, it sounds horrible, right,
but I can buy the rageful moment or the accident moment. Right,
You're in the bathroom cleaning up after being woken up
yet again on Christmas night by the frequent urination, and
I'm a little moody and multily what is a personality had?
And so ah, I'm so upset shove you. Oh gosh,
(38:24):
you just hit your head. What am I gonna do? Okay,
but the next step seems so extreme, like I'm gonna
set this up.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
I'm gonna fashion a thing and strangle my daughter. And
according to the Corners report, she was still alive at
that point and I can't tell at all, but okay,
and I'm shinkling and then I'm.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Gonna like mess with her genitals just a little bit
with something that by the way, there's some indication it
might have been part of the paintbrush, like the mom
did have to like make it look like and she
had like she switched to like full psychopath mode all
of a sudden, like so that's one of the big things. Like, okay,
maybe the start of this meet, but but then you
could say, well, she's gone crazy at that point.
Speaker 1 (39:05):
So yeah, it has this element that's similar on the
other side of just making up a story that moms
would never do that, or that it's so outlandish it
can't be true. But moms do do this, and outlandish
things like this do happen. So just saying we're supposed
(39:28):
to believe that a mom would yeah.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
Right, But for the proponents of IDI or even not
the mom doing it, this is one of those parts
that it's hard for folks to like resolve in their head,
like well.
Speaker 1 (39:43):
And if you have an emotional psychological need to hold
on to that black and white point of view. Now,
as I've been saying, when you have a crime like this,
you will see a pattern typically, and since there's no
pattern now, could have pad and happened behind closed doors
that wasn't witnessed by in one or these people in
(40:04):
this inner circle of the you know, lizard conspiracy theory,
you know, but but you know, could could people could
fleet if honest say, well, you know, the mom could
get violent sometimes, but I don't think she did it,
So I'm not going to imagine could that have been? Yeah,
but we just don't have the.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
End one thing that I thought of, but I don't
think because there's a lot of other parts that don't match.
But I was when I was early researching this, and
I'm thinking I was I was thinking, oh, there's probably
sexual abuse happening, maybe the dad or something. Part of
me for a second thought, oh, wait a minute, what
if she did discover, like maybe even in the act
or had learned that this was happening, and instead of
(40:44):
her rage being applied towards John, she blames her quote
you know, horrors daughter for blah blah blah. Who knows, right,
So I kind of that thought ran through my head
of like, oh, maybe this was a rage like jealousy
kind of thing, because there was, you know, anecdotally the
housekeep for in others others meaning like what was it
(41:05):
the housekeeper and forget if there was others. Maybe I'm
making up those others. But at least the housekeeper had
claimed that there was, that she never noticed them being
amorous towards each other. And then some of the speculation
was like, well, she had gone through cancer treatment, so
it's quite possible they weren't having a lot of sex, and.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Wait, what the fuck? So because the housekeeper says that
they're very non emotional employers.
Speaker 2 (41:33):
Oh, that she never saw them being romantic to each other, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
And therefore he raped and killed the kid.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
What the folks online, some folks gather is like, oh wait, so,
first of all, because number one, Patsy had gone through
cancer treatment, it's likely that they weren't able to be
very physical. Two, the father was barely around, and that
is actually according to multiple accounts, even in interviews with
basically with relatives stating that pats John Benet had expressed
(42:03):
sadness that daddy wasn't around enough. And then the housekeeper
noticing that they weren't amorous to each other, that one
speculation was like, well maybe he was abusing.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
John Binet and the mom found out and she went
into it.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
It's such a leap. I don't even understand the connection there.
So because he's a typical white rich guy who is
working outside the house and is unemotional and unavailable as
a father.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
And his needs aren't being met sexually, which is a
huge leap.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
We don't even know because she went through cancer treatment.
We're making this huge leap that they're not having sex.
Then we're making this huge leap that he's not getting
a sexual needs.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
Mean, and then because of that he's abusing the darter.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
I mean, that's a misunderstanding of why people abuse me.
It's like all of us guys are that close to
raping our children if we're not getting yes. Okay, so
although this just tells you this sophistication of these camps.
Speaker 3 (43:01):
By the way, all that being said, I wanted to
this is content warning. I'm going to go with a
little more detail about the specific findings in the autopsy,
about the damage to the general area.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
So if you do want to hear this, let's take
a break. Restless episode patrons. Okay, sounds good. Not that
patrons also shouldn't be careful, that makes sense, but yeah,
so the rest of this episode will be for patrons. Otherwise,
please take care of yourself because you deserve it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!