October 10, 2025 • 36 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 Autopsy details
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 10, 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 Autopsy details
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 10, 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, deserve listeners. This is chapter three in our deep
dive on John Benet. Ramsey Ambardo is walking us through
the story. We got to the point where in the
patron zone last time, I yammered a lot about patoo, well,
about child beadie pageants, all of the research, the very
little of it there that there is my passionate opinions
(00:22):
going both directions. Really, So chapter three I kind.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Of hate it.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Were like there was a fight broke out. I feel well,
some of the equipment was damaged. Maybe well, I feel
like I brought you a little bit into my camp. Yeah,
so take it away bird.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Chapter three.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Okay, so first of all, big warning right now, I'm
going to go over autopsy report for John Benet. So
this is going to include some very gruesome details. So
I would avoid this if you don't want to hear that.
All right, So here's the deal. An official autopsy was
conducted on the body of little John Benet. It was
performed December twenty seventh, so right after the fact, in
(01:00):
nineteen ninety six, by doctor John Meyer.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
All Right.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
The official determination was that it was suspected homicide, right like,
So the corner said, yeah, this looks like a homicide.
These were the findings head injury. Now, we hadn't talked
about this. I had mentioned strangulation, right, rumor there was
a head injury and this wasn't like a small little detail.
There was a linear skull fracture about eight and a
(01:23):
half inches long on the right side of the skull.
It was a massive wound. There was an associated subdural
bleeding beneath the fracture side.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Now you will hear some reports so.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
That this would mean that it was an injury before
she died.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, see, there's been a little bit of discrepancy.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
The official autopsy report says yes, before she died. There's
been some folks that you know, because as you know,
the Ramses hired their own investigators.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
There's other people a law.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
That claimed that actually there would have been a lot
more bleeding if it had happened before death and this,
But the official current Corners report is that it was
before death.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Okay, So I'm reading between the lines. And I don't
even know if the parents get accused yet. You haven't
revealed that yet. But I'm just going to take a
guess and say that that happens. So I'm going to
take a guess and say that there is a wound
on the head, and that the people that think it
was the parents, the cops. They'll say, oh, I get it.
(02:22):
You injured her in the course of your parenting, which
is obviously bad because of the child beauty pageant. I'm
saying this from their voice, not mine, and you accidentally
killed her, and then you staged some kind of intruder
killing or something by doing all these other things after
(02:42):
she had died. And then they get their own expert
who says, Yep, she was alive when she had that wound.
Then they get their experts and they can get no. Yeah.
And as someone that is trained in this work forensic psychology,
you know I will be hired at times to do
this kind of work. And I can tell you that
unless the expert is extremely ethical and has an income
(03:08):
stream come because for me I have, you know, I
do the forensic stuff on the side or have in
the past, and so I didn't mind if people didn't
want to hire me. Again. Honestly, a lot of it
was just like I would do it as a favor
and so but a lot of these experts, they depend
on these certain attorneys and prosecutors hiring them, and so
(03:29):
either consciously or unconsciously, they will gear their opinion toward
what they assume the team wants them to say. This
happens all the time. You get two experts, the same training,
the same expertise, and they'll say the opposite thing on
the stand. We see this all the time. So what
the hell you know? And so I'm guessing that that happened?
(03:51):
And it is not a good look when you're the
parents trying to weasel out of a detail. That sort
of implies if I have this right, then and I
don't even know if this would be a good strategy
that if you're the parents, you say, look, we don't know, Yeah, okay,
what happened. So she had a wound on her head
(04:14):
and then she had these other things, Well, that could
have still been an intruder. Right, So when you try
to when you come across like you're trying to cover
something up and you're spinning the details, it makes you
look guilty. Do I have this right?
Speaker 3 (04:28):
You have a lot of things right, And I mean
like a lot of the things are saying are the
things that a lot of people say now will foreshadow
that the ramses immediately acquired two lawyers, one for the father,
one for the mother, and a PR firm.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
So park that, but of course they should hire an attorney.
Of course they should hire an attorney. Some and some
would say, well, if you have different attorneys, that means
there's some sort of thing. But I could see attorneys saying, now,
each person has their own interests, and.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
It's another one of these billions of things in this
case where you could play it both ways.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Well, can you spoil it and tell me if there
is future infighting between the Ramseys.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
No, I will spoil it and say that, like I
said in the one of the previous episodes, the Ramseys, John,
Patsy Burke, and even John's brother Well, and basically the
Ramsey family has remained united throughout What.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
About Fleet's Kippington or whatever his there we was there
were some reports of different friends having sort of fallout
periods or like maybe they stopped talking to some of
the friends and things, but all of that is there
isn't like, and then they went on to give interviews
where like, Okay, finally we're going to reveal the truth
of everything, right, So it's not uncommon to have attorneys
each they can each spend time with you. I'm guessing
(05:44):
that the attorneys were together to hire a PR term
team back then would have been actually kind of weird
now I don't know. Also, I wonder if they would
call it something different, you know what I mean, It
wouldn't be a PR team. It would be like, I
don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Just the way John describes it is that he a
close friend of him immediately advised them and said, hey,
do you mind if i'd take some steps on your
behalf And he said yes, And the friend went and
recruited council for each of them and recruited a PR team.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah, this relates to my reaction videos to reality TV shows,
there's occasional drama when someone has been found or is
suspected to be concerned about how they're coming across in
the reality TV show, you know, if a couple had
a conversation off camera and someone said, hey, can you
(06:34):
not talk about this? Or on camera, they're they're like,
I thought we weren't going to talk about that, right,
and then the audience goes berserk because they're like they're
like conspiracy on Yeah, it's just like whoa, Like you're
you're yeah, you're fake and you're grifting and you're gaslighting everywhere,
like yeah, And I'm like, they would be stupid and
(06:56):
irresponsible honestly not to think and talk with the people
around them about what they're going to be putting into
the cameras so the editors can do whatever they want
to with So when the Ramses are going through this,
particularly as the news starts to you know, come in,
you know, because if the I'm going to also take
a guess that the Ramses the parents pretty quickly realized
(07:19):
that they were going to be somewhat implicated at least
by the public. And how would they know how to
come across How would they know what actions to take
or not to take.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
The way John puts it is that the same friend
that advised them informed them that in most of these
cases it's the parents, so that to be ready for that, yeah,
and that he John claims that they were unaware of
that fact, so then they took steps. Now, you can
always also imagine how the public, in addition to the
pageant stuff, you know, there is some jealousy or animosity
(07:53):
towards like wealthy people and their problems.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
So I think there must have been some amount of
like oh.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Right, and they each got their lawyer, and they already
flew out of the state, and they already got a
PR firm, and so.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Yeah, this is this is a kid. We didn't talk
about this, but the ocean gate gate, right was it
called ocean gate? That's funny ocean gate gate.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Because I see, I think SA gate wouldn't have worked.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
The guy actually from University of Washington, or at least
he was working with researchers here in Seattle. He was
kind of he thought of himself as like the Steve
Jobs of submersibles, right, And everyone or most people know
the story that he cut a lot of corners, and
he thought of himself as a tech bro, like a disruptor.
I hate that fucking word.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Well, how come no one's ever asked the question, why
not go deeper with the same.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Metal, you know?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
And there were multiple instances of experts that were saying
this is dangerous, right, and he's just like, no, you know.
And then he brought people down and killed himself and
these innocent people, and they were all rich because to
afford a ticket on this thing meant that you were
a rich person. And there was a section of the
public that was just like fuck them because they're rich.
(09:07):
They're rich, and no, yes, we have a problem with
income disparity, we have a problem with classes, and we
have a problem with materialism, we have a problem with
kickbacks from the government. Corruption. Yes, but these individuals were
killed and unless they did very evil things. But even then,
you know, like the killing Luigi killing, the CEO of the.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Right, even if the CEO is unethical, there's still a
law that protects people from just getting murdered randomly like this.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
You know, I understand the impulse on a philosophical level,
but not on a moral level. So when it comes
to this sort of thing, it's like, yeah, okay, you
can have a problem with income disparity, with profiteering, with
exploitation of labor, and you can criticize rich people like
the Ramsays. But when it comes to them being possibly
(10:03):
not only falsely accused of murder, but they are grieving
the brutal death of their daughter, you know, maybe then
you know, cool your jets. So now I want to
say that I'm guessing a lot of people will interpret
that I'm on the parents side. I am not. I
don't give a shit. I don't know I mean, maybe
I'll give a shit once you give me more data,
(10:24):
but what I won't abide is the kind of bullshit
that the mobs will impart on individuals unfairly. As a
very mild public figure myself, I guess I have a
bone to pick with that.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Well. Look, and this cuts both ways because you're going
to find out that there were intruder suspects, But we'd say,
we'd have to say the same thing about those suspects.
We can't just go lynching a suspect, you know what
I mean, Like, basically, we have to follow law.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
And data and procedure.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Yes, yes, yes, we can't get a gut feeling for example,
and say I know that the father did it like the.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Well, sorry, you can, but we can't make decisions that
we can't like prosecute you.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
You can have a feeling, but you can't conclude anything.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
So okay, so.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Right, So continuing with the autopsy information, this hit was
interesting because there was no external laceration of the scalp
at that location, meaning this wasn't like an axe or
a knife.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
It was very likely a blunt object, so it like.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Broke the skull or a fall or something.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Well, yeah, right, except but it wasn't like a cut, right,
So pathologists concluded that I had trauma was a severe,
potentially fatal injury on its own, the kind of injury that,
even if it hadn't immediately killed John Baday, likely would
have led to her death without maybe immediate medical treatment,
et cetera, et cetera, right, or potentially even with right.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
And then we pause and think, oof, a six year
old girl.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I mean, and that's the thing, right, like always remembering,
no matter what happened, something horrible, some horrible set of
things ended this little girl's life. Autopsy report continues. Then
there's this trangulation which I had mentioned. There was a
deep furrow or ligature groove pressing across the front of
the neck. And so this is gruesome, but like the
(12:21):
cord was deeply embedded, So it wasn't just kind of
it was like deeply embedded, so it had fully cut
off the oxygen and stuff like that. The cord had
been tied tightly enough to compress soft tissues of the
neck and cut off blood flow and airflow. So again
like not a quick like oh ooopsie. You know, it
was like or maybe it was an oopse but then
couldn't the oopsie perpetrator couldn't untie it or something because
(12:43):
it was like severe particular, which I'm not sure small pinpoint.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Oh wait, wait, so you're saying oopsie for the first
time meeting that.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Meaning if someone did this on accident, that even if
we were on accident, something about the accident was clear not.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Easily reversible, right because both the parents and the potential
intruder from the unknown foreign subgroup small faction. Yeah, yeah,
you know, we're claiming that they were going to kidnap her, right,
and the parents wouldn't in the course of abuse, wouldn't
likely just flat out statistically kill her. I mean maybe, yeah,
(13:22):
but more often it's on accident, this kind of thing.
And so oh at one point, so you're pointing out
that the evidence looks like it wouldn't have been the
sort of thing someone would do and accidentally kill her.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Hey, yeah, and and or that, like, I mean, things
can be an accident, right, Like, but it's the kind
of thing where how do I say this, Someone might
have been like tying a cord around her neck in
either play or torture or whatever, not intending to kill her,
but the way in which it was tied was so
tight that there wasn't an easy way to undo that tightness. Right,
(13:58):
So therefore, once the the compression had started, she was
going to die unless someone like cut the cord or
something like that.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Yeah, and you know, of course we don't know. But
if we're just in this speculation zone, it's not typical
from my layperson understanding that an intruder would take a cord.
What kind of a cord? Was it a telephone cord?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Yeah? No, it wasn't a telephone cord.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
It was a piece of white rope and on the
end of the rope there was a stick tied to it.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Oh, so you could like.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
It was kind of a groat. I mean, technically it
is a groat. But there was only one stick, not
two sticks normally, you know you've seen in the movies,
like you have the two sticks and then you tie.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
It was only one side had a stick.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Okay, now we'll talk a little bit more about where
this stick comes from in a.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Bit interesting if you're going to abduct a child that
would not be in the plant. Now, maybe someone made
a mistake, right, but typically it's biting the hands for sure,
and maybe additionally, the feet and putting something over the mouth.
Why would you you know, that's not typical.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Yeah, and then John did claim and then they verified
that she did have duct tape over her mouth when
he found her, and he ripped it off, or he
didn't rip it, but he.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Took it off and went on.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
So there were particular hemorrhages which I guess are small
pinpoint bleeding that were seen in the conjunct, like in
the CONJUNCTIV, which is the part of the eye where
you could see blood, and also in the skin above
the ligature, which is classic for strangulation. So another point too,
because someone could claim, well, the hit on the head
killed her, and after death someone like staged the strangulation.
(15:32):
But some of this points to like, actually the strangulation
happened while she was still alive to some extent. By
the way, one of the reasons I trust so much
this data is because this was done the very next
day by a corner from the city. Now you could
say maybe the da ran in or someone ran in,
like these people are rich, or the opposite. We hate
(15:53):
these people, so go ahead and fudge the numbers. But
it just seems unlikely that the case had barely started,
there was no narrative, no one had appeared on the press.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Yet nothing disagree because the lead investigator, detective aren't.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, but she didn't even talk to anyone, and she
certainly didn't talk to the corner.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
How do you know?
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Because she didn't.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Even when she testified that this later, she didn't write
this as a report like she didn't say, Oh, I
think I know who the murder is.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
All you got to do. They're friends, I know. But
but this you can't You can't rule it out? Is
a thing?
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Well, I can't, but there's zero data.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Now, if the report holds water, then it holds water.
I'm not accusing anything, but you know, given that this
this detective that, let me ask you, let me ask
the detectives have demonstrated they don't know what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
But let me ask you a question.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
If I were going to trust forensic analysis, which one
would I might? What may I trust more at the start?
The one that happened by the official corner of the
city the very next day, or post ac analyzes by
teams with vested interests.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Yeah, the first one.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yeah, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
But I'm not, but we can't know if sure.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
But I just trust this better than six months later
or ten years later or someone you know.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
I mean, given all that you've seen, I trust your now.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
And none of this includes DNA analysis. It's just corners
informa sure, right, all right. There was a small portion
of broken wooden paint brush handle found to be used
as the twisting stick for the ligature. This paint brush
handle belonged to Patsy Ramsey. It was one of her
paint brushes.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Wow, wow, how do they know that because they found
the like she has she's a painter.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Oh okay, and she has a whole down in the
basement has paint supplies and all her paint brushes.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
So you can again go both ways with it.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Someone's like init a thing for a road because I'm kidnapped,
being slashed, maybe killing, I don't know, but I'm grabbing
this thing, breaking it and tying this thing around a rope.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Or Patsy is like, oh, I gotta go there. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I mean, if it isn't the parents, you just have
to say, come on, like, give me a break, right,
But if it is the parents, then I meanly.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, it's a lot of weirdness.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
I mean, I will say that if it wasn't the parents,
and if it was an intruder, of course none of
us know. Apparently you've told us that that I'm forming
a story, a narrative that this person was confused close
enough to the family, or knew someone close to the family,
knew the names, knew that even where, knew the money amount,
(18:20):
knew where she was in the house. And you run
this experiment one hundred other times, and he would have
fell down the stairs and broke his neck, or he
would have been discovered, or he would have got lost
on the way there. But he just kind of got
in the house and he was lucky on that the alarm.
(18:43):
Was there an alarm system? Yes? Okay, So what else
sat that night? It wasn't set, was it? I don't know. Well.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
John claims he set the alarm before going to bed.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
They also claimed at different times that they rarely set
the alarm because they used to set it and one
time it went off on accident it freaked out Mbney.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
So it's unclear whether it was set that night or not.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
John has claimed both that he said it before going
to bed, but also at different times there was claims
that they likely hadn't said it because they usually didn't
set it.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Okay, I mean, as someone that has an alarm system
have had various different kinds, and especially the ones back
then where it was wasn't app based. It was like
just a you know, a console. I could see someone
initially saying no, no, I said it, I remember, and
then later thinking, well, wait, like there were times when
so maybe I didn't set it last night, I don't know, right,
(19:34):
so that, but.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
It's not like the front door was open unlocked, I mean, right,
except but I find that someone claimed that it was okay.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
But again, you know, like you run the experiment ninety
nine other times, and but this time this guy knew
of a window latch that you could open with a.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Credit card, which has no alarm system on it.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Sure, I mean there's there's like a hundred I don't
know how many.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Sorry, like because I'm saying the basement didn't have alarm.
The basement windows were not a lot.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
How dumb is that? Anyway?
Speaker 3 (20:03):
So there there it's like one hundred and seventy windows
or something, right, well, and then one.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Of the windows was already broken pre broke, so maybe
that the guy gets in and then he's he's just like, Okay,
I'm gonna kidnap, he writes this note, he's just sitting
in the kitchen. And by the way, I've you know,
consuming a fair amount of true crime stories doesn't make
me an expert the way that people on Reddit might
think there. But I will say that I do recall
(20:31):
a lot of stories like this where, you know, we
tend to think if someone breaks into your house, they've
got limited time before they get caught, or you know,
there's a franticness to it. There are plenty of stories
where someone just kind of wanders in and is there
for a long time before anyone notices.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Have you seen weapons yet?
Speaker 1 (20:48):
No? But I want to I'll go with you.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
I'll see it at third.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Time, Okay, Okay, So I won't say anything about that,
but I will say that John's John Ramsey's theory is
that actually whoever did this was all in the house
when they got back from their party, meaning that they
had broken in while they were out of the house, right,
waited was.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Hiding in the basement ourselves.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yeah, you know, right, and that would have given him
a lot more time, right, And then they wait and
then two in the morning. Meanwhile, maybe he's even downstairs
getting that rope together. And then and then he writes
the note. He plans on kidnapping her for the money.
But then because he's not exactly well, he's a very
(21:30):
disturbed person and confused.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
It's a faction, a small faction, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
And he also is struggling with planning and decision making
and impulse control or something. And something takes over, either
she screams or something, or just his sadistic urge kicks in,
and then he kills her and then stashes the body
and then walks out of the house. And you know
(21:56):
that it seems possible, right by the way.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
One one thing I've thought of, like I haven't actually
seen other folks talk about it.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
I'm sure they have, because there's like billions the note.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
You could say a lot of things about the note,
but one thing the note made a slutly clear is
not to contact the authorities.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
What did they do? They contacted the authorities, so.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Other than time of death issues, just five am whatever,
five point thirty. If they were in the basement and
that's where they were holding her, and they hear that
they're calling the cops.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Maybe they killed her at that moment and then fled.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
I mean, I'll also say that the other side theory
I guess, of which I'm guessing there are many, and
you're going to go over them, yes, is that the
parents or one of them was more abusive or something
something got out of control and they in the course
of ongoing abuse that wasn't noticed by anyone around them.
(22:52):
Unless you have other things to tell me, can you spoil.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
That about ongoing abuse?
Speaker 3 (22:57):
I remember I told you already that there were no
unlike the Menandez brothers. There's no big smoking guns of
like the coach saw or you know. The only person
that has her own theories and we'll talk about it
is the housekeeper. But even that is definitely not like,
(23:17):
oh my god, I barely have survived. I barely escaped
with my life from that household.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Right right, right, Okay. That's interesting, And because usually when
you have a parent that murders a child, either on
accident or otherwise, there's a trail, there's there are breadcrumbs,
there's what's the word, there's.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Which is John's point, John rams not always, of course,
And by the way, two aspects of this anyway, So
they were abusive on a level that wasn't noticeable from
the outside or witnesses friends have reason to not mention
that or something and things got out of control, or
(23:56):
the mom pushed.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Her or something and she fell down the stairs, she
hits her head, and she doesn't know what to do.
She's like, oh shit, you know, and she's not thinking
straight or whatever, and she's like, oh, okay, I'll just do
this thing and then I'll write this note and then
I'll tell John. And then John's like, what the fucking uh,
what do we do? Okay, well call nine one one
and they're not thinking We'll wait. So that absolutely could happen, right,
(24:20):
I mean, that happens. Sometimes I can't think of a story.
I mean, I know I've read stories in that category, but.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It's certainly not impossible, right right, right?
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Absolutely? Yeah, Okay, So let me it's sort of like
the staircase. But you know, there's a lot of people
that think the dad, the husband pushed her down the stairs,
right yet there's there's not a lot of pre evidence
pointing in that direction. But there's a lot of evidence
that someone struck her on the head, because there's like
blood splatters like up the wall, and he waited a
(24:51):
while to call the cops.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
So it's like confounding evidence.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Yeah, so you know absolutely, you know parents unfortunately.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Well okay, so this is one thing I want to
dispel and I'm imagining we're on the same page, but
I'd be curious to see if you have a different perspective.
Some quote experts, in their many various interviews over the years,
have said things like, well, some of the injuries and
a torture that this child endured are not what a
parent would do. That's not how parents kill. Parents kill
(25:19):
in a moment of rage. It's a moment of impact,
blah blah. They wouldn't do something like, you know, strangle them.
But ye, like basically, things that were more torturous are sadistic.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Right, And I'm like it's not typical, But.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I'm like, but but there are sadistic parents, So I
don't know. Yeah, yeah, like the Menendez brothers case for example,
that was just allegedly or it seems like a sadistic parent, right, Like, okay,
all right, so continuing with the autopsy.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Well, let's take a break and we get back. Yeah,
let's just continue, all right, Back from the break, Take
it away, Burta.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Okay, continue with the autopsy lungs and internal organs. The
lung showed mild congestion and edema, which is consistent with.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
The lack of oxygen asphyxia.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
So that's not surprising if you were being choked, but
it is surprising if they were if the choking.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Was just a staging after the fact.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Right, If the primary cause of death was either the
blunt force trauma or drugging or something well a drugs
would have shown up in the autopsy or and and
there wouldn't be so much like asphyxiation evidence. No other
major injuries were seen in the internal organs beyond the
head and neck, but there were other injuries. Abrasions were
(26:32):
noted in the back, legs and lower trunk, possibly from
being moved or dragged. One interesting thing to note is,
you know I mentioned this huge blow to the head, right,
there was no big pool of blood.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Where she was found. The blanket she was wrapped in
was not covered in blood.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
So either all the bleeding was internal or she was
killed somewhere else and the blood was cleaned.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
So you know, there's just no big pool of blood.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
So to clarify for the anti Ramsey's anti parents crowd,
they would say, well, this is evidence that you know,
there must have been blood somewhere. They didn't find any blood,
the parents.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Clean it up, but it could also be an intruder.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
But then the intruder people would say that there's no
medical evidence that there would have been a pool of blood. Yes,
that what we're saying.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
But there could have been a pool, yeah, because like
I said in the head part, it says there were
no external laceration, But the laceration is not necessarily means
that there was no point of exit for blood. It
just means there was no like cut, you know what
I mean where she was found. The fact is where
she was sound, there's no big pool of blood. The
blankets not covered him. There was blood, to be fair,
(27:39):
because there's there's gonna be a little blood and stuff.
The other thing was this there was ligature mark on
the wrist suggesting that at some point one hand may
have been loosely tied. So this was another weird thing,
which is that John Ramsey claims that when he found her,
her mouth was duct taped and her hands were tied,
and that he untied one of the hands, but couldn't
(28:00):
untie the other or something like this, which again I
know it's I mean, it's so hard because you can
see it from both sides. You're a parent finding your
child maybe she's still alive, and on the other hand,
you are messing up the whole crime scene. But I
think most parents might do that, you know, So all right,
all right, now this is trigger warning. There were small
(28:23):
abrasions and bruises in the genital area. The report described
it as chronic as well as acute irritation and injury.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Uh oh ah. That's not good for the parents.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Or someone because something about this report seemed to indicate
that there was a chronic in this case, meaning ongoing
injury as well as more.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Proximal to the death injury.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
You know, and you know, of course, the corner is
not going to say therefore, I conclude she was being
sexually molistic. Right, it's just just what he found in
the examination. These findings were interpreted cautiously. They were not
definitive proof of sexual assault, but were consistent with possible
prior or recent That's really tricky because now that adds
(29:11):
a new dimension to this thing. Right, because again, if
it's just kidnappers. Ah, I went wrong. Well, they're calling
the cops killer whatever, horrible.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
But why the genital Oh well, and prior, I mean
if it was just that night. But yeah, I wonder
how confident that tentative conclusion was. I'd be curious as
to what independent Well.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
I'll tell you one thing.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
The child doctor for John Biney definitively claimed on camera
that he had never seen any signs of abuse.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Well, I know, I'm just saying, what did he do,
like inspect the genitals ever?
Speaker 3 (29:50):
I mean, well, she was in one of the thirty
three visits over three years, which many people have claimed
seems excessive. It is interesting, right, in one of the
thirty three visits over three years us for vaginitis. But
kids can get vaginal infections easily, especially girls because you know.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
But you know, family doctors aren't inspecting necessarily. I'm just saying,
And it's possible that the corner was looking at internal.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Right, I'm just staying, like, I'm really curious if you
wanted to hear someone else trying to corroborate, we don't
have those ecampments.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Yeah, it's interesting because there's a pretty big range of possibilities.
On one side, this is code for a coroner to
say something was injuring this child in the general reason,
I'm you know, I'm ninety percent sure that that was
something happened. You know, maybe she fell on something, but
there's old bruising and scarring or something that's very clear.
(30:46):
On the other end of the spectrum, it's it's like, well,
there's minor signs of the possibility that there were prior injuries,
but it's unclear and there was no way to know
because of the way the body heals itself. So that's
a pretty big range given what was in the report.
Did they drag that guy onto the stand to ever
(31:07):
to have him clarify?
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Well, we'll talk about the trial soon.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
But do they ever drag him on a stand to
clarify what that means?
Speaker 2 (31:13):
Well, I don't know. We'll see what We'll see what
comes of the trial, all right.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Forensic samples swabs from genital area and underwear were taken.
A minute amount of mixed blood her own meaning John
Benet's blood, plus a trace of foreign male DNA.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Was found on her underwear.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Now clear this There was no semen found in the
body around the body but there was some trace of
foreign male DNA found on her underwear.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Yeah. Again, you know, a lot of things pointing in
a direction. But it's possible that the housekeeper had some
DNA from a from her husband or something.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Right, and then, uh.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
So, now one thing that added to this mystery is
fingernail scrapings from John Benet were collected and later also
yielded trace.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
DNA of an unidentified male.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
Really, yes, well that says something, doesn't I mean, I'm
not an expert, but that, yeah, how.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Tray samples of the unidentified male in both the underwear
and the fingernails.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
I mean, so we're supposed to believe that the housekeeper's
husband had hair follicles that somehow, like multiple multiple fingernails,
I don't know, oh but even just one. Yeah, so
somehow it got underneath like that.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
It's weird. And as you're serious that they.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Haven't because with all that twenty three and meter and
j yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Well yeah, okay, cause and manner of death. Cause of
death I fix you up by strangulation associated with craneous
cerebrial trauma and a cerebral trauma. So, in other words,
they could not rule in the autopsy the official autopsy,
they could not say it was one or the other.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
They said it was both.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah, they're saying that both injuries were happening, you know,
around the same period of time, and that killed her.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
And manner of death rule.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
The homicide coroner concluded that both injuries occurred before death.
And that's important because different factions will claim different things
and depending on the theories.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah right, I mean, but the thing is is either
of the suspects could have done both injuries. So, but
it's more indicative of an intruder. You know, the profile
is of a general I mean that's a thing like
on average, when you're going to see this kind of behavior,
this is a disturbed, sick individual that would have a
(33:49):
whole trail of horribleness behind them. Maybe not murder, but
you know, cruelty to animals, psychopathic behavior, yeah, path logical lying, stealing,
difficulty with the relationships, impulse control, violence. It would be
really unusual. Although it has happened. It can happen for
(34:09):
just two parents who have never exhibited anything like this,
and especially if the brother never came forward and said,
you know, the parents then but you know, he could
be motivated to be quiet. But you know, usually there's
some kind of.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
And remember John also has two other surviving children from
his first marriage. There's multiple people that could have come
up at some point and be like, well, let me tell.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
You the real story. Yeah, it's just and this is
just about John.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
It just sucks that if it was a disturbed individual,
which is at this point in the story I'm leaning towards,
but who knows that it's just so unfortunate that the
guy did it in the way that he did. You know,
a lot of details point at the parents, particularly the mom,
and you're just thinking, what an unlucky pair those two are, you.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Know, if that's the case.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Yeah, well, I mean they're no actually in either case, right,
they're unlucky if well, no, I guess never mind.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
No, no, no, no, no, actually that's not even true.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Jump unlucky.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
But that's not even true because a lot, not all,
but a lot of the theories about RDI Ramses did
it actually involved they start with an accidental killing. So
even in those theories, not all, but even in those theories,
they would still be unlucky, right, Like, something very unlucky happened,
and then they stupidly tried to cover up and.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I see, I see, I see. Well, let's take a break,
we get back. The rest of this episode will be
for patrons of this podcast, so if you want to
go to patreon dot com, which is this way, then
you can hear the rest of this episode and hundreds
of other Patreon exclusive episodes. Otherwise, please take care of
yourself because you deserve it.
Hey, deserve listeners. This is chapter three in our deep
dive on John Benet. Ramsey Ambardo is walking us through
the story. We got to the point where in the
patron zone last time, I yammered a lot about patoo, well,
about child beadie pageants, all of the research, the very
little of it there that there is my passionate opinions
(00:22):
going both directions. Really, So chapter three I kind.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Of hate it.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Were like there was a fight broke out. I feel well,
some of the equipment was damaged. Maybe well, I feel
like I brought you a little bit into my camp. Yeah,
so take it away bird.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Chapter three.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Okay, so first of all, big warning right now, I'm
going to go over autopsy report for John Benet. So
this is going to include some very gruesome details. So
I would avoid this if you don't want to hear that.
All right, So here's the deal. An official autopsy was
conducted on the body of little John Benet. It was
performed December twenty seventh, so right after the fact, in
(01:00):
nineteen ninety six, by doctor John Meyer.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
All Right.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
The official determination was that it was suspected homicide, right like,
So the corner said, yeah, this looks like a homicide.
These were the findings head injury. Now, we hadn't talked
about this. I had mentioned strangulation, right, rumor there was
a head injury and this wasn't like a small little detail.
There was a linear skull fracture about eight and a
(01:23):
half inches long on the right side of the skull.
It was a massive wound. There was an associated subdural
bleeding beneath the fracture side.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Now you will hear some reports so.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
That this would mean that it was an injury before
she died.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, see, there's been a little bit of discrepancy.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
The official autopsy report says yes, before she died. There's
been some folks that you know, because as you know,
the Ramses hired their own investigators.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
There's other people a law.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
That claimed that actually there would have been a lot
more bleeding if it had happened before death and this,
But the official current Corners report is that it was
before death.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Okay, So I'm reading between the lines. And I don't
even know if the parents get accused yet. You haven't
revealed that yet. But I'm just going to take a
guess and say that that happens. So I'm going to
take a guess and say that there is a wound
on the head, and that the people that think it
was the parents, the cops. They'll say, oh, I get it.
(02:22):
You injured her in the course of your parenting, which
is obviously bad because of the child beauty pageant. I'm
saying this from their voice, not mine, and you accidentally
killed her, and then you staged some kind of intruder
killing or something by doing all these other things after
(02:42):
she had died. And then they get their own expert
who says, Yep, she was alive when she had that wound.
Then they get their experts and they can get no. Yeah.
And as someone that is trained in this work forensic psychology,
you know I will be hired at times to do
this kind of work. And I can tell you that
unless the expert is extremely ethical and has an income
(03:08):
stream come because for me I have, you know, I
do the forensic stuff on the side or have in
the past, and so I didn't mind if people didn't
want to hire me. Again. Honestly, a lot of it
was just like I would do it as a favor
and so but a lot of these experts, they depend
on these certain attorneys and prosecutors hiring them, and so
(03:29):
either consciously or unconsciously, they will gear their opinion toward
what they assume the team wants them to say. This
happens all the time. You get two experts, the same training,
the same expertise, and they'll say the opposite thing on
the stand. We see this all the time. So what
the hell you know? And so I'm guessing that that happened?
(03:51):
And it is not a good look when you're the
parents trying to weasel out of a detail. That sort
of implies if I have this right, then and I
don't even know if this would be a good strategy
that if you're the parents, you say, look, we don't know, Yeah, okay,
what happened. So she had a wound on her head
(04:14):
and then she had these other things, Well, that could
have still been an intruder. Right, So when you try
to when you come across like you're trying to cover
something up and you're spinning the details, it makes you
look guilty. Do I have this right?
Speaker 3 (04:28):
You have a lot of things right, And I mean
like a lot of the things are saying are the
things that a lot of people say now will foreshadow
that the ramses immediately acquired two lawyers, one for the father,
one for the mother, and a PR firm.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
So park that, but of course they should hire an attorney.
Of course they should hire an attorney. Some and some
would say, well, if you have different attorneys, that means
there's some sort of thing. But I could see attorneys saying, now,
each person has their own interests, and.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
It's another one of these billions of things in this
case where you could play it both ways.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Well, can you spoil it and tell me if there
is future infighting between the Ramseys.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
No, I will spoil it and say that, like I
said in the one of the previous episodes, the Ramseys, John,
Patsy Burke, and even John's brother Well, and basically the
Ramsey family has remained united throughout What.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
About Fleet's Kippington or whatever his there we was there
were some reports of different friends having sort of fallout
periods or like maybe they stopped talking to some of
the friends and things, but all of that is there
isn't like, and then they went on to give interviews
where like, Okay, finally we're going to reveal the truth
of everything, right, So it's not uncommon to have attorneys
each they can each spend time with you. I'm guessing
(05:44):
that the attorneys were together to hire a PR term
team back then would have been actually kind of weird
now I don't know. Also, I wonder if they would
call it something different, you know what I mean, It
wouldn't be a PR team. It would be like, I
don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Just the way John describes it is that he a
close friend of him immediately advised them and said, hey,
do you mind if i'd take some steps on your
behalf And he said yes, And the friend went and
recruited council for each of them and recruited a PR team.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah, this relates to my reaction videos to reality TV shows,
there's occasional drama when someone has been found or is
suspected to be concerned about how they're coming across in
the reality TV show, you know, if a couple had
a conversation off camera and someone said, hey, can you
(06:34):
not talk about this? Or on camera, they're they're like,
I thought we weren't going to talk about that, right,
and then the audience goes berserk because they're like they're
like conspiracy on Yeah, it's just like whoa, Like you're
you're yeah, you're fake and you're grifting and you're gaslighting everywhere,
like yeah, And I'm like, they would be stupid and
(06:56):
irresponsible honestly not to think and talk with the people
around them about what they're going to be putting into
the cameras so the editors can do whatever they want
to with So when the Ramses are going through this,
particularly as the news starts to you know, come in,
you know, because if the I'm going to also take
a guess that the Ramses the parents pretty quickly realized
(07:19):
that they were going to be somewhat implicated at least
by the public. And how would they know how to
come across How would they know what actions to take
or not to take.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
The way John puts it is that the same friend
that advised them informed them that in most of these
cases it's the parents, so that to be ready for that, yeah,
and that he John claims that they were unaware of
that fact, so then they took steps. Now, you can
always also imagine how the public, in addition to the
pageant stuff, you know, there is some jealousy or animosity
(07:53):
towards like wealthy people and their problems.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
So I think there must have been some amount of
like oh.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Right, and they each got their lawyer, and they already
flew out of the state, and they already got a
PR firm, and so.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Yeah, this is this is a kid. We didn't talk
about this, but the ocean gate gate, right was it
called ocean gate? That's funny ocean gate gate.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Because I see, I think SA gate wouldn't have worked.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
The guy actually from University of Washington, or at least
he was working with researchers here in Seattle. He was
kind of he thought of himself as like the Steve
Jobs of submersibles, right, And everyone or most people know
the story that he cut a lot of corners, and
he thought of himself as a tech bro, like a disruptor.
I hate that fucking word.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Well, how come no one's ever asked the question, why
not go deeper with the same.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Metal, you know?
Speaker 1 (08:44):
And there were multiple instances of experts that were saying
this is dangerous, right, and he's just like, no, you know.
And then he brought people down and killed himself and
these innocent people, and they were all rich because to
afford a ticket on this thing meant that you were
a rich person. And there was a section of the
public that was just like fuck them because they're rich.
(09:07):
They're rich, and no, yes, we have a problem with
income disparity, we have a problem with classes, and we
have a problem with materialism, we have a problem with
kickbacks from the government. Corruption. Yes, but these individuals were
killed and unless they did very evil things. But even then,
you know, like the killing Luigi killing, the CEO of the.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Right, even if the CEO is unethical, there's still a
law that protects people from just getting murdered randomly like this.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
You know, I understand the impulse on a philosophical level,
but not on a moral level. So when it comes
to this sort of thing, it's like, yeah, okay, you
can have a problem with income disparity, with profiteering, with
exploitation of labor, and you can criticize rich people like
the Ramsays. But when it comes to them being possibly
(10:03):
not only falsely accused of murder, but they are grieving
the brutal death of their daughter, you know, maybe then
you know, cool your jets. So now I want to
say that I'm guessing a lot of people will interpret
that I'm on the parents side. I am not. I
don't give a shit. I don't know I mean, maybe
I'll give a shit once you give me more data,
(10:24):
but what I won't abide is the kind of bullshit
that the mobs will impart on individuals unfairly. As a
very mild public figure myself, I guess I have a
bone to pick with that.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Well. Look, and this cuts both ways because you're going
to find out that there were intruder suspects, But we'd say,
we'd have to say the same thing about those suspects.
We can't just go lynching a suspect, you know what
I mean, Like, basically, we have to follow law.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
And data and procedure.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Yes, yes, yes, we can't get a gut feeling for example,
and say I know that the father did it like the.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Well, sorry, you can, but we can't make decisions that
we can't like prosecute you.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
You can have a feeling, but you can't conclude anything.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
So okay, so.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Right, So continuing with the autopsy information, this hit was
interesting because there was no external laceration of the scalp
at that location, meaning this wasn't like an axe or
a knife.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
It was very likely a blunt object, so it like.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Broke the skull or a fall or something.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Well, yeah, right, except but it wasn't like a cut, right,
So pathologists concluded that I had trauma was a severe,
potentially fatal injury on its own, the kind of injury that,
even if it hadn't immediately killed John Baday, likely would
have led to her death without maybe immediate medical treatment,
et cetera, et cetera, right, or potentially even with right.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
And then we pause and think, oof, a six year
old girl.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I mean, and that's the thing, right, like always remembering,
no matter what happened, something horrible, some horrible set of
things ended this little girl's life. Autopsy report continues. Then
there's this trangulation which I had mentioned. There was a
deep furrow or ligature groove pressing across the front of
the neck. And so this is gruesome, but like the
(12:21):
cord was deeply embedded, So it wasn't just kind of
it was like deeply embedded, so it had fully cut
off the oxygen and stuff like that. The cord had
been tied tightly enough to compress soft tissues of the
neck and cut off blood flow and airflow. So again
like not a quick like oh ooopsie. You know, it
was like or maybe it was an oopse but then
couldn't the oopsie perpetrator couldn't untie it or something because
(12:43):
it was like severe particular, which I'm not sure small pinpoint.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Oh wait, wait, so you're saying oopsie for the first
time meeting that.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Meaning if someone did this on accident, that even if
we were on accident, something about the accident was clear not.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Easily reversible, right because both the parents and the potential
intruder from the unknown foreign subgroup small faction. Yeah, yeah,
you know, we're claiming that they were going to kidnap her, right,
and the parents wouldn't in the course of abuse, wouldn't
likely just flat out statistically kill her. I mean maybe, yeah,
(13:22):
but more often it's on accident, this kind of thing.
And so oh at one point, so you're pointing out
that the evidence looks like it wouldn't have been the
sort of thing someone would do and accidentally kill her.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Hey, yeah, and and or that, like, I mean, things
can be an accident, right, Like, but it's the kind
of thing where how do I say this, Someone might
have been like tying a cord around her neck in
either play or torture or whatever, not intending to kill her,
but the way in which it was tied was so
tight that there wasn't an easy way to undo that tightness. Right,
(13:58):
So therefore, once the the compression had started, she was
going to die unless someone like cut the cord or
something like that.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Yeah, and you know, of course we don't know. But
if we're just in this speculation zone, it's not typical
from my layperson understanding that an intruder would take a cord.
What kind of a cord? Was it a telephone cord?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Yeah? No, it wasn't a telephone cord.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
It was a piece of white rope and on the
end of the rope there was a stick tied to it.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Oh, so you could like.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
It was kind of a groat. I mean, technically it
is a groat. But there was only one stick, not
two sticks normally, you know you've seen in the movies,
like you have the two sticks and then you tie.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
It was only one side had a stick.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Okay, now we'll talk a little bit more about where
this stick comes from in a.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Bit interesting if you're going to abduct a child that
would not be in the plant. Now, maybe someone made
a mistake, right, but typically it's biting the hands for sure,
and maybe additionally, the feet and putting something over the mouth.
Why would you you know, that's not typical.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Yeah, and then John did claim and then they verified
that she did have duct tape over her mouth when
he found her, and he ripped it off, or he
didn't rip it, but he.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Took it off and went on.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
So there were particular hemorrhages which I guess are small
pinpoint bleeding that were seen in the conjunct, like in
the CONJUNCTIV, which is the part of the eye where
you could see blood, and also in the skin above
the ligature, which is classic for strangulation. So another point too,
because someone could claim, well, the hit on the head
killed her, and after death someone like staged the strangulation.
(15:32):
But some of this points to like, actually the strangulation
happened while she was still alive to some extent. By
the way, one of the reasons I trust so much
this data is because this was done the very next
day by a corner from the city. Now you could
say maybe the da ran in or someone ran in,
like these people are rich, or the opposite. We hate
(15:53):
these people, so go ahead and fudge the numbers. But
it just seems unlikely that the case had barely started,
there was no narrative, no one had appeared on the press.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Yet nothing disagree because the lead investigator, detective aren't.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, but she didn't even talk to anyone, and she
certainly didn't talk to the corner.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
How do you know?
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Because she didn't.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Even when she testified that this later, she didn't write
this as a report like she didn't say, Oh, I
think I know who the murder is.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
All you got to do. They're friends, I know. But
but this you can't You can't rule it out? Is
a thing?
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Well, I can't, but there's zero data.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Now, if the report holds water, then it holds water.
I'm not accusing anything, but you know, given that this
this detective that, let me ask you, let me ask
the detectives have demonstrated they don't know what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
But let me ask you a question.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
If I were going to trust forensic analysis, which one
would I might? What may I trust more at the start?
The one that happened by the official corner of the
city the very next day, or post ac analyzes by
teams with vested interests.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Yeah, the first one.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yeah, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
But I'm not, but we can't know if sure.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
But I just trust this better than six months later
or ten years later or someone you know.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
I mean, given all that you've seen, I trust your now.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
And none of this includes DNA analysis. It's just corners
informa sure, right, all right. There was a small portion
of broken wooden paint brush handle found to be used
as the twisting stick for the ligature. This paint brush
handle belonged to Patsy Ramsey. It was one of her
paint brushes.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Wow, wow, how do they know that because they found
the like she has she's a painter.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Oh okay, and she has a whole down in the
basement has paint supplies and all her paint brushes.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
So you can again go both ways with it.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Someone's like init a thing for a road because I'm kidnapped,
being slashed, maybe killing, I don't know, but I'm grabbing
this thing, breaking it and tying this thing around a rope.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Or Patsy is like, oh, I gotta go there. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I mean, if it isn't the parents, you just have
to say, come on, like, give me a break, right,
But if it is the parents, then I meanly.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, it's a lot of weirdness.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
I mean, I will say that if it wasn't the parents,
and if it was an intruder, of course none of
us know. Apparently you've told us that that I'm forming
a story, a narrative that this person was confused close
enough to the family, or knew someone close to the family,
knew the names, knew that even where, knew the money amount,
(18:20):
knew where she was in the house. And you run
this experiment one hundred other times, and he would have
fell down the stairs and broke his neck, or he
would have been discovered, or he would have got lost
on the way there. But he just kind of got
in the house and he was lucky on that the alarm.
(18:43):
Was there an alarm system? Yes? Okay, So what else
sat that night? It wasn't set, was it? I don't know. Well.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
John claims he set the alarm before going to bed.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
They also claimed at different times that they rarely set
the alarm because they used to set it and one
time it went off on accident it freaked out Mbney.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
So it's unclear whether it was set that night or not.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
John has claimed both that he said it before going
to bed, but also at different times there was claims
that they likely hadn't said it because they usually didn't
set it.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Okay, I mean, as someone that has an alarm system
have had various different kinds, and especially the ones back
then where it was wasn't app based. It was like
just a you know, a console. I could see someone
initially saying no, no, I said it, I remember, and
then later thinking, well, wait, like there were times when
so maybe I didn't set it last night, I don't know, right,
(19:34):
so that, but.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
It's not like the front door was open unlocked, I mean, right,
except but I find that someone claimed that it was okay.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
But again, you know, like you run the experiment ninety
nine other times, and but this time this guy knew
of a window latch that you could open with a.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Credit card, which has no alarm system on it.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Sure, I mean there's there's like a hundred I don't
know how many.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Sorry, like because I'm saying the basement didn't have alarm.
The basement windows were not a lot.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
How dumb is that? Anyway?
Speaker 3 (20:03):
So there there it's like one hundred and seventy windows
or something, right, well, and then one.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Of the windows was already broken pre broke, so maybe
that the guy gets in and then he's he's just like, Okay,
I'm gonna kidnap, he writes this note, he's just sitting
in the kitchen. And by the way, I've you know,
consuming a fair amount of true crime stories doesn't make
me an expert the way that people on Reddit might
think there. But I will say that I do recall
(20:31):
a lot of stories like this where, you know, we
tend to think if someone breaks into your house, they've
got limited time before they get caught, or you know,
there's a franticness to it. There are plenty of stories
where someone just kind of wanders in and is there
for a long time before anyone notices.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Have you seen weapons yet?
Speaker 1 (20:48):
No? But I want to I'll go with you.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
I'll see it at third.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Time, Okay, Okay, So I won't say anything about that,
but I will say that John's John Ramsey's theory is
that actually whoever did this was all in the house
when they got back from their party, meaning that they
had broken in while they were out of the house, right,
waited was.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Hiding in the basement ourselves.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yeah, you know, right, and that would have given him
a lot more time, right, And then they wait and
then two in the morning. Meanwhile, maybe he's even downstairs
getting that rope together. And then and then he writes
the note. He plans on kidnapping her for the money.
But then because he's not exactly well, he's a very
(21:30):
disturbed person and confused.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
It's a faction, a small faction, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
And he also is struggling with planning and decision making
and impulse control or something. And something takes over, either
she screams or something, or just his sadistic urge kicks in,
and then he kills her and then stashes the body
and then walks out of the house. And you know
(21:56):
that it seems possible, right by the way.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
One one thing I've thought of, like I haven't actually
seen other folks talk about it.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
I'm sure they have, because there's like billions the note.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
You could say a lot of things about the note,
but one thing the note made a slutly clear is
not to contact the authorities.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
What did they do? They contacted the authorities, so.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Other than time of death issues, just five am whatever,
five point thirty. If they were in the basement and
that's where they were holding her, and they hear that
they're calling the cops.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Maybe they killed her at that moment and then fled.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
I mean, I'll also say that the other side theory
I guess, of which I'm guessing there are many, and
you're going to go over them, yes, is that the
parents or one of them was more abusive or something
something got out of control and they in the course
of ongoing abuse that wasn't noticed by anyone around them.
(22:52):
Unless you have other things to tell me, can you spoil.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
That about ongoing abuse?
Speaker 3 (22:57):
I remember I told you already that there were no
unlike the Menandez brothers. There's no big smoking guns of
like the coach saw or you know. The only person
that has her own theories and we'll talk about it
is the housekeeper. But even that is definitely not like,
(23:17):
oh my god, I barely have survived. I barely escaped
with my life from that household.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Right right, right, Okay. That's interesting, And because usually when
you have a parent that murders a child, either on
accident or otherwise, there's a trail, there's there are breadcrumbs,
there's what's the word, there's.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Which is John's point, John rams not always, of course,
And by the way, two aspects of this anyway, So
they were abusive on a level that wasn't noticeable from
the outside or witnesses friends have reason to not mention
that or something and things got out of control, or
(23:56):
the mom pushed.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Her or something and she fell down the stairs, she
hits her head, and she doesn't know what to do.
She's like, oh shit, you know, and she's not thinking
straight or whatever, and she's like, oh, okay, I'll just do
this thing and then I'll write this note and then
I'll tell John. And then John's like, what the fucking uh,
what do we do? Okay, well call nine one one
and they're not thinking We'll wait. So that absolutely could happen, right,
(24:20):
I mean, that happens. Sometimes I can't think of a story.
I mean, I know I've read stories in that category, but.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It's certainly not impossible, right right, right?
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Absolutely? Yeah, Okay, So let me it's sort of like
the staircase. But you know, there's a lot of people
that think the dad, the husband pushed her down the stairs,
right yet there's there's not a lot of pre evidence
pointing in that direction. But there's a lot of evidence
that someone struck her on the head, because there's like
blood splatters like up the wall, and he waited a
(24:51):
while to call the cops.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
So it's like confounding evidence.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Yeah, so you know absolutely, you know parents unfortunately.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Well okay, so this is one thing I want to
dispel and I'm imagining we're on the same page, but
I'd be curious to see if you have a different perspective.
Some quote experts, in their many various interviews over the years,
have said things like, well, some of the injuries and
a torture that this child endured are not what a
parent would do. That's not how parents kill. Parents kill
(25:19):
in a moment of rage. It's a moment of impact,
blah blah. They wouldn't do something like, you know, strangle them.
But ye, like basically, things that were more torturous are sadistic.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Right, And I'm like it's not typical, But.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
I'm like, but but there are sadistic parents, So I
don't know. Yeah, yeah, like the Menendez brothers case for example,
that was just allegedly or it seems like a sadistic parent, right, Like, okay,
all right, so continuing with the autopsy.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Well, let's take a break and we get back. Yeah,
let's just continue, all right, Back from the break, Take
it away, Burta.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Okay, continue with the autopsy lungs and internal organs. The
lung showed mild congestion and edema, which is consistent with.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
The lack of oxygen asphyxia.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
So that's not surprising if you were being choked, but
it is surprising if they were if the choking.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Was just a staging after the fact.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Right, If the primary cause of death was either the
blunt force trauma or drugging or something well a drugs
would have shown up in the autopsy or and and
there wouldn't be so much like asphyxiation evidence. No other
major injuries were seen in the internal organs beyond the
head and neck, but there were other injuries. Abrasions were
(26:32):
noted in the back, legs and lower trunk, possibly from
being moved or dragged. One interesting thing to note is,
you know I mentioned this huge blow to the head, right,
there was no big pool of blood.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Where she was found. The blanket she was wrapped in
was not covered in blood.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
So either all the bleeding was internal or she was
killed somewhere else and the blood was cleaned.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
So you know, there's just no big pool of blood.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
So to clarify for the anti Ramsey's anti parents crowd,
they would say, well, this is evidence that you know,
there must have been blood somewhere. They didn't find any blood,
the parents.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Clean it up, but it could also be an intruder.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
But then the intruder people would say that there's no
medical evidence that there would have been a pool of blood. Yes,
that what we're saying.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
But there could have been a pool, yeah, because like
I said in the head part, it says there were
no external laceration, But the laceration is not necessarily means
that there was no point of exit for blood. It
just means there was no like cut, you know what
I mean where she was found. The fact is where
she was sound, there's no big pool of blood. The
blankets not covered him. There was blood, to be fair,
(27:39):
because there's there's gonna be a little blood and stuff.
The other thing was this there was ligature mark on
the wrist suggesting that at some point one hand may
have been loosely tied. So this was another weird thing,
which is that John Ramsey claims that when he found her,
her mouth was duct taped and her hands were tied,
and that he untied one of the hands, but couldn't
(28:00):
untie the other or something like this, which again I
know it's I mean, it's so hard because you can
see it from both sides. You're a parent finding your
child maybe she's still alive, and on the other hand,
you are messing up the whole crime scene. But I
think most parents might do that, you know, So all right,
all right, now this is trigger warning. There were small
(28:23):
abrasions and bruises in the genital area. The report described
it as chronic as well as acute irritation and injury.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Uh oh ah. That's not good for the parents.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Or someone because something about this report seemed to indicate
that there was a chronic in this case, meaning ongoing
injury as well as more.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Proximal to the death injury.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
You know, and you know, of course, the corner is
not going to say therefore, I conclude she was being
sexually molistic. Right, it's just just what he found in
the examination. These findings were interpreted cautiously. They were not
definitive proof of sexual assault, but were consistent with possible
prior or recent That's really tricky because now that adds
(29:11):
a new dimension to this thing. Right, because again, if
it's just kidnappers. Ah, I went wrong. Well, they're calling
the cops killer whatever, horrible.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
But why the genital Oh well, and prior, I mean
if it was just that night. But yeah, I wonder
how confident that tentative conclusion was. I'd be curious as
to what independent Well.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
I'll tell you one thing.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
The child doctor for John Biney definitively claimed on camera
that he had never seen any signs of abuse.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Well, I know, I'm just saying, what did he do,
like inspect the genitals ever?
Speaker 3 (29:50):
I mean, well, she was in one of the thirty
three visits over three years, which many people have claimed
seems excessive. It is interesting, right, in one of the
thirty three visits over three years us for vaginitis. But
kids can get vaginal infections easily, especially girls because you know.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
But you know, family doctors aren't inspecting necessarily. I'm just saying,
And it's possible that the corner was looking at internal.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
Right, I'm just staying, like, I'm really curious if you
wanted to hear someone else trying to corroborate, we don't
have those ecampments.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Yeah, it's interesting because there's a pretty big range of possibilities.
On one side, this is code for a coroner to
say something was injuring this child in the general reason,
I'm you know, I'm ninety percent sure that that was
something happened. You know, maybe she fell on something, but
there's old bruising and scarring or something that's very clear.
(30:46):
On the other end of the spectrum, it's it's like, well,
there's minor signs of the possibility that there were prior injuries,
but it's unclear and there was no way to know
because of the way the body heals itself. So that's
a pretty big range given what was in the report.
Did they drag that guy onto the stand to ever
(31:07):
to have him clarify?
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Well, we'll talk about the trial soon.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
But do they ever drag him on a stand to
clarify what that means?
Speaker 2 (31:13):
Well, I don't know. We'll see what We'll see what
comes of the trial, all right.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Forensic samples swabs from genital area and underwear were taken.
A minute amount of mixed blood her own meaning John
Benet's blood, plus a trace of foreign male DNA.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Was found on her underwear.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
Now clear this There was no semen found in the
body around the body but there was some trace of
foreign male DNA found on her underwear.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Yeah. Again, you know, a lot of things pointing in
a direction. But it's possible that the housekeeper had some
DNA from a from her husband or something.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Right, and then, uh.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
So, now one thing that added to this mystery is
fingernail scrapings from John Benet were collected and later also
yielded trace.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
DNA of an unidentified male.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
Really, yes, well that says something, doesn't I mean, I'm
not an expert, but that, yeah, how.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
Tray samples of the unidentified male in both the underwear
and the fingernails.
Speaker 1 (32:22):
I mean, so we're supposed to believe that the housekeeper's
husband had hair follicles that somehow, like multiple multiple fingernails,
I don't know, oh but even just one. Yeah, so
somehow it got underneath like that.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
It's weird. And as you're serious that they.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Haven't because with all that twenty three and meter and
j yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Well yeah, okay, cause and manner of death. Cause of
death I fix you up by strangulation associated with craneous
cerebrial trauma and a cerebral trauma. So, in other words,
they could not rule in the autopsy the official autopsy,
they could not say it was one or the other.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
They said it was both.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah, they're saying that both injuries were happening, you know,
around the same period of time, and that killed her.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
And manner of death rule.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
The homicide coroner concluded that both injuries occurred before death.
And that's important because different factions will claim different things
and depending on the theories.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah right, I mean, but the thing is is either
of the suspects could have done both injuries. So, but
it's more indicative of an intruder. You know, the profile
is of a general I mean that's a thing like
on average, when you're going to see this kind of behavior,
this is a disturbed, sick individual that would have a
(33:49):
whole trail of horribleness behind them. Maybe not murder, but
you know, cruelty to animals, psychopathic behavior, yeah, path logical lying, stealing,
difficulty with the relationships, impulse control, violence. It would be
really unusual. Although it has happened. It can happen for
(34:09):
just two parents who have never exhibited anything like this,
and especially if the brother never came forward and said,
you know, the parents then but you know, he could
be motivated to be quiet. But you know, usually there's
some kind of.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
And remember John also has two other surviving children from
his first marriage. There's multiple people that could have come
up at some point and be like, well, let me tell.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
You the real story. Yeah, it's just and this is
just about John.
Speaker 1 (34:35):
It just sucks that if it was a disturbed individual,
which is at this point in the story I'm leaning towards,
but who knows that it's just so unfortunate that the
guy did it in the way that he did. You know,
a lot of details point at the parents, particularly the mom,
and you're just thinking, what an unlucky pair those two are, you.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
Know, if that's the case.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Yeah, well, I mean they're no actually in either case, right,
they're unlucky if well, no, I guess never mind.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
No, no, no, no, no, actually that's not even true.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Jump unlucky.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
But that's not even true because a lot, not all,
but a lot of the theories about RDI Ramses did
it actually involved they start with an accidental killing. So
even in those theories, not all, but even in those theories,
they would still be unlucky, right, Like, something very unlucky happened,
and then they stupidly tried to cover up and.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I see, I see, I see. Well, let's take a break,
we get back. The rest of this episode will be
for patrons of this podcast, so if you want to
go to patreon dot com, which is this way, then
you can hear the rest of this episode and hundreds
of other Patreon exclusive episodes. 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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!