October 17, 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 Grand jury results
12:07 Linda Hoffman-Pugh's book
31:07 Who does Humberto & Dr. Kirk think was the perpetrator?
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 17, 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 Grand jury results
12:07 Linda Hoffman-Pugh's book
31:07 Who does Humberto & Dr. Kirk think was the perpetrator?
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 17, 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):
Heyter ourn listeners. This is the final chapter in our
deep dive on the psychology of Joonpanny Ramsey, which includes
this psychology of a lot of aspects of this story.
Take it away, brutal drum roll please.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Okay, So there was a grand jury convened for a year,
you know, the grand jury convened for a year to
decide what to do about the case. Okay, So what
we're going to watch here is the district attorney announcing
what's going to happen after the grand jury again spent
about a year deliverering.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
No charges have been filed. The grand jurors have done
their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all of their
legal powers, life experiences, and shrewdness. Yet I must report
to you that I and my prosecution task for us
(00:53):
believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the
filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at
this time. Under Colorado law, the proceedings of the grand
jury are secret. Under no circumstances will I or any
of my advisors, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on
(01:18):
this case, or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings
unless ordered by the court.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Okay. So basically, he's saying in a face that he
likely practiced in the mirror in the morning to look
very serious and firm that there was not enough evidence
to point at any individual as a prosecutable perpetrator of
the murder. And he's also announcing that none of us
(01:47):
are going to talk about what happened behind closed doors
at a grand jury, which is normal, but you can
have jurors that will lab right.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
So, after a year long grand jury investigation, the DA
announced that the results of that investigation lead him to
not prosecute anyone.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
There was no trial, Okay, I mean that makes sense
given what you've told me so far, is that there's
just not enough on anybody. Everything is so circumstantial.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
So even because you know, you and I we've been talking,
we're talking about our theories and like, I think this,
I think that. But if if a set of people
that we were gonna maybe listen to had access to
all the police information because we don't write like we
don't have access, and they had time like a year
to like deliberate and things like that, they're the ones
we should maybe listen to. And if they're coming back
(02:39):
saying like, yeah, we don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
That doesn't say that anyone's innocent. No, of course, it's
something did happen, someone died. Having said that the cops
did flub it, we know that to some extent.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Right, if any group of people had something that I
might listen to, is like folks looking at at all
the data for about a year now. It doesn't mean
they're not going to have their own biases. We've seen
plenty of wrong folks anyways. And plus this would have
only been an indictment, not a not an actual trial.
In twenty thirteen, however, there was a lawsuit. There was
(03:09):
a lawsuit where the Daily Camera and the Reporter's Committee
for Freedom of the Press sued to get access to
the grand jury's information. And it turns out that they
had voted to indict the Ramseys.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Wow what yeah? Wow? Is that normal for the prosecutor
to deny the grand juries fight? No, it is not normal.
What the fuck? Yeah A okay, So here's what happened.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
So a judge unsealed because of this lawsuit, a judge
agreed to unseal portions of the record showing that the
grand jury had voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey
on two counts each. You'll see what the counts are.
One child abuse resulting in death and two accessory to
(04:05):
a crime. So it wasn't murdering the first degree. It
was child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
That's what they voted.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Now, the DA will claim because of course this was
a huge kerfuffle, right, like wait, what so two things.
First of all, the DA will claim, well, yeah, that
doesn't mean that I felt that I had enough evidence
to convict.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
And a lot of critics will say, oh, it's these das.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
They want to have their record in tact because if
they go to prosecute and it fails, it counts against
them as a But it isn't it isn't apparently usual
that the grand jury will do recommended that the DA
will like them. It doesn't mean it can't happen, you know.
And I don't have the stats, but people, and it
was a big scandal. It didn't look good too. And
there was also this narrative of like the DA was
(04:53):
always on the Ramsey side. Remember the cops were like,
it's them. The DA was like, I not so sure.
And then the injury says, yeah, let's indict him, and
the DIA goes, eh, no, and so and there's the.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Whole money part. Didn't look good. It did not look good.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
The grand jury got to see all the data we
liked to plus everything else that the police had, and
in their conclusions they thought that there was abuse going on.
So you know, they didn't go as far as saying like, oh, yeah,
it was a premeditated murder or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Are we privy to the data that they were basing
the claim of abuse?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
No, all that data, all the data is not unsealed,
and even the whole thing hasn't been unsealed the grand
So if.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
There is data that we don't know about, then okay.
But if there isn't and they were just guessing based
on what you and I know, then if I was
the prosecutor, I would also not indict because I'm like, right, you're.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Also did they even hear any evidence of the intruder theories?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yeah, well it turns out they did.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
The lou smit or whatever. The the Charlotte.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Holmes guy he.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Asked to present and he was able to present to
the grand jury, and they just didn't go along and
when interviewing an anonymous grand jury member, he mentioned that
there were too many holes in the intruder theories and
they didn't have any likely suspects.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Well, just add another detail to this story that would
compel people to be obsessed with it thirty.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Years eight, even worse by the time the indictments were
unsealed in twenty thirteen. The contemplated counts, can you guess
what might be an issue? What statute of limitations? Because
it's not murder, right, Murder is not I don't think
it expires right. Colorado law gives ten years to bring
(06:44):
most child abuse prosecutions, so the resulting in death from
child abuse that had expired.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
So even if at that.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Point someone would have been like, what fine, let's prosecute,
it's too late. It's too late if you're hoping to
get a trial in needed to be done back then.
So even by just like a delay. This was nineteen
ninety nine, so the delay would have had to be significant,
but it wasn't a delay.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
It was basically, we're not going to prosecute.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
So time went on, and the only reason we even
found out is because of this lawsuit and by then
statute of limitations, it didn't matter. It's very intriguing, very interesting.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
I will say, what a coup that the prosecutor got
away for so many years with giving the message of hey, y'all,
there's nothing to see here, let's move forward. And he
could control the narrative and he probably was or at
least influencing the process to tell the grand jury if
(07:45):
you talk about this, then big consequences because that's against
the law or something. And he just got his way.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I
guess we don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
But and he spelled it out too, like now watching
that from no what we know, like, he was so
careful with his words if you if you watch it back,
he never said, oh, you know, they're exonerating the Ramsay
and he's just like, we have no evidence to indict,
blah blah blah. And then he said like, you know,
and all of this is sealed and no one can
(08:17):
talk about it unless a judge says yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
It's like, why would you be that you know, well,
you know, I mean I was assuming it was because
they did it. They knew that people were speculating based
on little information, and so they're they're just like, you're
not going to get that information, so give it up.
There's everyone assumed that, yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
I mean, I don't think maybe you know, maybe there
were people going like, I don't believe it, but the
general from what I could gather, the general consensus was okay, well.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, And this is why conspiracy theories exist, because people
have actual examples of a conspiracy. In a sense. This
is that right, it's a it's a cover up of
us in a sense. Now, it's possible that the prosecut
did have an understandable, reasonable reason to not follow the
recommendation of the grand jury. But the problem is is
(09:08):
if it was legitimate and it was solid, because that's
one possibility if he were to come out and say that, Okay,
here are the findings. This is what the grand jury
and they recommended to charge it. And I but when
I and my team look at all the evidence, we
don't agree with the grand jury's findings because we know
how things actually work in trials. And we tried to
(09:32):
explain that to grand jury, but you never know, sometimes
people just you know, they were they had a different take.
But we you know, took we thought long and hard
about this, but it would really be a waste of
energy and money and time and would unnecessarily drag a
lot of people through the mud. And we are one
hundred percent sure that this is not going to result
(09:54):
in a in a conviction, and so we're we're gonna
go back to the drawing board, really and we're going
to continue investigating. But if that was the case, if
he said something like that with that stern face that
he practiced in the mirror in the morning, then people
wouldn't have accepted that. So there's a chance that he
knew he had to essentially deceive the public, or he's
(10:18):
fucking shady as shit and he's trying to cover something up.
It's both possible.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Now he has come out because he's no longer the
DA or what, but he's come out in interviews and
stuff and stated basically what you just said, which is, look,
I stand by my decision. I don't think we could
have gotten a conviction.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Blah blah.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
You know it makes sense. But on the other side,
it's like, damn it. But there's no other credible suspects
at this point, and these people with all the access
to the evidence felt that at the very least child abuse.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Was happening and so, but given all the other things,
you could see a tainted grand jury about the child
beauty pageant thing. The grand jury is a jury of
the community. Look at the community in terms of the
way that they're talking about this case. Could we imagine
(11:09):
it being oddly voting? Could we imagine a grand jury
being mistaken? Could we imagine the average group of people,
Now we would say, well, but they're coached on how
to think in these situations, how to listen with an
open mind and look at the data, not based on
gut feeling. They are given supposedly a lot more information
(11:31):
than we have, but we don't know that they might
have been given less information than we have actually, because
back then they might not have known everything. So could
we imagine a grand jury being wrong? Yeah? Could we
imagine a grand jury being right to recommend an innintment
because they're not saying guilt, they're just saying there's enough.
It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. Right, it's just like,
is there enough reason it's not a trial. Yeah, it's
(11:55):
just all over the board. We will never know because
this guy did a essentially all right, let's take a break,
we get back more stuff. What do you say, let's
do it all right, back for the break, take it away, Birtle, Yeah,
all right.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
So do you remember our favorite housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh yea.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
So she wrote a book that.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
She never finished, she never published, and it was called
Death of an Innocent It was her accusing Patsy. And
there's a lot of details here now just her word,
but there's a lot of details early, Like I think
in the first chapter, in one of the early chapters
you were asking, we were talking about how, unlike the
Menendez brothers case, we didn't have all these accounts of
(12:38):
like oh I saw the father hitting Jean Benet, or
oh the way that the mother yelled at her at
that one pageant you know, that said there was one
person that did have these kinds of accounts, and that
is the housekeeper. You brought up a good point. Was
she always going to bring up these accounts or did
she only bring these up because Patsy started throwing shade
(13:00):
her way?
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Hard to know, meaning that there was an implication at
the very least that it's possible that she or her
husband or someone killed John Binney Ramsey and so, and
she might feel compelled consciously or unconsciously to say it's
not me, it's another. In fact, it's Patsy because she's
implying it's me that kind of because.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
The day of, with the interviews with the cops day of,
the only person that Patsy like pointed at was not
saying like I think it was her, but like well
kind of in a way, saying that the housekeeper had
access to the house, knows the house had asked to
borrow money. So you know, when I ran and cops
ask you, do you know anyone who might have kidnapped
(13:42):
your daughter? So I mean, what are you supposed to
not mention things that you think might be You could.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Say it from both ways.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
There's something else that John Ramsey said to Detective Linda
Arndt when he brought the body up, And this isn't
like something that she said in an interview years later.
This all written in her official report. When he came up,
he said, this has to be an inside job. No
one would know about that room. This has to be
(14:09):
an inside job. John Ramsey said that now is he
right wrong?
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Who knows?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
But he said it, And that to me raises a
couple of interesting thoughts because if it was him, if
he's the one who did it, that's some three dimensional
chess he's playing. Yeah, like it's got to be an
What does an inside job mean?
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Well, it is I think him saying, this has to
be someone that knows the family has been in the house,
like a housekeeper, well, like a friend or and it's
just someone that knows, Like so, how would they know
that there was that nook or something? But you know,
so either John is actually really honest, less it was
like a secret door or something like in Dungeons of Dragons.
It's you know, not strange.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
It is hard to find, and it was good. But still,
you know, he saw.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
We saw the video. It didn't look that hard to find, right,
it wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Sometimes you're right. Sometimes they make it sound like there
was this labor underneath.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Yeah, it was just at the end of a hall
and it was a concrete room that was and there
was like a little nook behind so you know, you
could see someone. So if anything, it just points away
from the father for him to say something like that.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
That's true, you could see it from that perspective, or.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
He's trying to throw people off the scent, you know.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
I could see it again, like everything in this case,
because on the one hand, if he was actually totally
in the dark at that point of the story, but
he was maybe starting to have inklings, he might be like,
this has to be someone in the inside.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Because right, and he says that to the cop.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
On the other hand, you're right that he could be
doing a double double de ceu or something.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
The other thing is if he didn't do it, for
him to hypothesize at that point, if he didn't do it,
he's traumatized. He just found the body. You know, he's
not a genius, he's not a re he's not an investigator.
He doesn't know. He's just randomly saying something based on
he's like, you know, trying to figure out who did
(15:59):
this to my child. For him to just say somebody,
that's not an indicator of anything really, right, So yeah, but.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
It is intriguing. Okay, So back to our housekeeper. So
here's some of the specific things she wrote that are
in my mind interesting, you know.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
She says, first of all that she recognizes Patsy's voice and.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Handwriting in the note.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Now you could say whatever, but you know, she she
points to certain use of words the use of the
accents over the e because she was always very particular
with John Beney's spelling and always.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Making sure the accent the thing. Okay maybe, but if.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Other people, I don't know, it's just because of the
attache thing, you like, you know, it's kind of interesting.
But she points that out, and she says that she
also sound.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Like she could hear her voice. Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Another thing is that Patsy had asked her or like, Basically,
Patsy had confided that she did not enjoy having sexual relations,
especially oral sex with John. Okay, So Patsy had asked
her for advice in this regard and asked her if
she had any suggestions. She wanted to enjoy sex with John,
(17:08):
but she couldn't bring herself to do it. So what's
the implication the implication and she says that Patsy appeared desperate.
So the implication is that their relationship is not going
well right at least not sexually. Let's say sexually, they
might be having some problems, okay.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
And what's the implication from that? Is this back to like, well,
if he's sexually frustrated.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
No, because she's not accusing John. She's accusing Patsy. So
she's saying that she was getting desperate in her relationship,
that she was frustrated about her child. She accuses or
she says that on a daily basis, John Benet was
soiling the bed and this is one of the biggest
ones she accuses Patsy of. She says that essentially that
(17:55):
every time or a lot of times, when she would
wet the bed, Patsy would take her into the bathroom
and that she would hear yelling and cries. Okay, so
she is basically implying that there's some sort of potential
child abuse going on related to the wet bedding.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, wet bedding, wet bedding. Yeah, that's what I would
That's something I would say. So I don't know the rate,
but from my memory and anecdotal experience of the kids
that are chronically urinating during their sleep or in bed,
I'm going to take a guess and say that only
a minority are found to traumatized and abused, and that's
(18:33):
at least the attributal factor to their wedding the bed.
But of kids that are sexually abused, their rate of
wedding the bed are higher than kids that aren't being
sexually abused, you know, so people will say, oh, wedding
the bed, well, that means that she's likely to be abused.
If that's all you heard, was wedding the bed, that
(18:54):
would not be my assumption. It would raise a bit
of a yellow flag about abuse. But again I don't
know the exact rate, but from my memory, most kids
that are wedding the bed are just wedding the bed.
The fact that you have a parent in the early
nineties who doesn't know how to handle this situation isn't
surprising to me. That you have a mom that is
(19:17):
complicated and not helpful in the way that she approaches
her daughter about this, and that the daughter would cry
even if the mom was taking her aside. And you know,
because one of the strategies with kids is to tell
them to get up at night, or make sure they
don't drink water, or make sure they go to the
bathroom before they go to bed, you know, various different techniques.
Plus we don't know what those conversations were. You have
(19:39):
the housekeeper who is overhearing. It also seems like the
housekeepers trying to make a point, so there could be
some motivated remembering you know, it could be legitimate statements.
She's not necessarily lying, but she could be spinning it
even in her own mind. She could be purposely spinning it.
She could even be spinning it to be nicer than
it actually was. But yeah, is there a flag there
(20:02):
of ongoing abuse? Yeah, but it's not. Again, most situations,
especially where you have a housekeeper that that that is
that close, where the mom is literally asking for blowjob advice,
then there would be overt indications the house unless you're
going to tell me otherwise. The housekeeper would say, I
(20:24):
saw Patsy smack her across the face, I saw her
spanking her. Repeat, I saw bruises, I saw her smacking
you know. Now, can it be that you would hide that? Yeah,
but it's it's not typical. No, totally.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
And no, that's not in her book or her thing.
She and to your point, it could be that like
one time Patsy did yell and Joe Jumbnne started crying,
but that was it, you know, Like, but she does
claim that she heard this all the time, that that
her you know, the way she puts it is that
her way to discipline her, to take her in the bathroom,
(21:01):
and she would hear the screams and the cries.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Yeah, but that's a far cry from a blow to
the head that would have killed her and then a
massive sadistic cover up of strangling her and throwing her
like that's such a leap from you know, basically, based
on what you're telling me that she reports, I would
assume that abuse in terms of the classic presentation, isn't there. Now,
(21:28):
I want to be clear that I'm not saying abuse
didn't happen, but if we're looking at positive evidence of
something happening, it's not there. Could it be there? All
sorts of things could have been there. We just don't
know that a lot of things happened behind closed doors.
Could have happened behind the scenes. It could have been
a one time event where she hit pushed her down
the stairs, you know. Dah da da da. I'm not
saying it didn't have I'm just saying there's no evidence
(21:49):
that it did.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
She specifically talks about the following. One of the ways
in which Patsy Ramsey would communicate with me was through
handwritten notes, which she would leave for me with instructions
for various duties around the house that needed my attention.
In the fourteen month period that I worked for the Ramses,
I was left several dozen handwritten notes by Patsy Ramsey.
(22:12):
I am quite familiar with her handwriting, and I believe
I can recognize it with very little difficulty. I told
the grand jury that since leaving the employee of the Ramses,
I had had occasion to see a copy of the
Ramsom note.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Da Da Da Da da.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
It was heartbreaking for me to admit that the high
end writing in the ransom note looked very much like
the handwriting Patsy used in the notes she wrote to me.
By way of example, her a's are very distinctive. She
would use accents over words like jean, bonnet and attache.
She would often use initializing of words in combination. And
then she gives a few more examples. So from her perspective,
(22:48):
just as someone that I allegedly saw her handwriting a lot,
She's like, yeah, that's her. Yes, says I am convinced
that Patsy killed and then covered up the death of
her daughter. And then she goes on to as essentially
talking to Patsy, says, if I were speaking to Patsy,
I would say you were spent and exhausted, weren't you
The holidays do that to people. At the party on
(23:08):
December you appeared a little out of sorts. It's just
that I'm going to skip a few things because there's
a lot. If it was five in the afternoon and
I was on my way out the door, leaving you
without help.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
That makes sense why you would be stressed.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
So it's okay if you dipped deeply into the barringer chardonnay.
So she's accusing her of like drinking alcohol, your favorite wine.
You loved John Beney, but she was a handful wedding
the bed night after night.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
She was driving you crazy. You were wary that night.
John was no help because.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Also she claims that John was barely ever around. He
did nothing around the house.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
This kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
He swallowed a couple of melatonin capsules and fell deeply
asleep that night.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
Da da da.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
He wouldn't have heard a canon go off. Okay, So
then here goes John Beney. Weent the bed again that night,
didn't she. She woke up told you, and you took
her into the bathroom. It was the same destination you
always took John Benay when it was time to punish
for bed wedding. You forget that I saw you take
her there so many times before, shutting the door tightly
(24:07):
behind you, so her screams could not be heard except
this time. There was an accident, wasn't there? And then
then she proceeds to explain that she thinks that there
was an accident and that she felt she had to
cover it up. So, of course this is not evidence.
It's just that it is. Well, it is a kind
of evidence. It is there is someone that lived that
spent a lot of time in their house around them,
(24:30):
claiming she had witnessed frequent of these bathroom discipline sessions
that led to screams or something like that.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
That is, that is what she's claiming. So she literally
said she heard John Benet's screaming in the bathroom, Yeah,
on multiple occasions. Okay, well then there's that she.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Could just like you said, she could be making it
up or she heard it once and then she's like,
oh my god, she's who knows. But the claim, and
she made this claim according to her to the Grandeur,
is that she would hear this happen.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
She would hear it. Jombati's screaming in the bathroom. Yeah, okay, yeah,
and you know the cops. The cops theory was that
this is basically what happened.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
He didn't go as far as like make it for
sure that it was bed wedding, but he said that's
what could have happened.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
No. Yeah, on the so, I've been on the record
that I'm fifty to fifty and of the fifty percent
that the parents did it or one of the parents
did it, this would be one of the possible narratives
that could have resulted in an accidental child abuse killing
of the child, and then a very weird cover up
(25:33):
that either the father knew about or didn't know about.
So yeah, yeah, it's a possible. It's definitely a possibility
of the possibilities, This is definitely a possibility, but without evidence. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
So in the end, the the cop theory that we
heard from the guy who quit and protests right was
that it was basically this that Patsy flew into fit
of rage accidentally or maybe not so excillently, but either way,
like John Mane, suffered a nearly deadly blow to the
(26:06):
head and then the cover everything else was cover. I
also personally as I've mentioned before, found a lot of
very odd things and inconsistent things with John's statements and
things about what the window and the broken window. But
it's hard to know if that was him covering for
his own crime, or him covering for Patsy, or him
(26:26):
covering for Burke, or Patsy and him both covering.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
For Burke, right, because that's the other version of the story,
or the two of them covering for misremembering earlier and
making statements that were documented that if they're innocent and
they forgot, you know, like about the pineapple in the
you know, fit of all the trauma that's happening in
the moment, they're like, we didn't give her pineapple last night,
And then the next day they're like, oh shit, we
(26:51):
did give her pineapple. Right, But if we say it
was us, is that going to throw at all of
our memory into questions? So we just have it's not
a big deal. We'll just say that, Yeah, we'll just
continue to say it wasn't us the pineap and will
tell Burke don't talk about the pineapple. Right. They just
proceed with that, and they don't really realize that thirty
years later people are going to be, you.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Know, and that's possible. Now, I will tell you what
I think. A lot of folks, probably including myself, lean
in the direction of a Burke accident of some sort
and the parents covering maybe, is that the indictment from
the grand jury suggested that the parents place their daughter
(27:33):
in a situation that posed a threat to her life
and then assisted and concealing the crime and protecting the killer.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Right right. The bat being outside the house is not
necessarily something because if you're playing with your bat outside
and it just gets left outside and then it snows later.
Because of the botched investigation, I'm guessing they couldn't date
the bat, you know, someone might have just grabbed it
(28:04):
or something without like taking a picture. But it is
a possible narrative that Burke used the bat, hit her
over the head, and maybe even they thought she was dead, yeah,
and then they decided to try to make it look
like she was strangled, but then in the process might
have actually well, the coroner said that she would have
died from the from the head injury anyway or anyway.
(28:27):
So yeah, I mean, again, no evidence, it's just a story.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Well, no evidence that you and I have seen anyways, yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah, right, the grand jury might have seen it, but
I don't know. I'm just going to take a guess
and say that by this point there might have been
so of the possible things that happened. Yeah, any one
of the family members could have been the one to
accidentally injure her, and anyone I mean aside from Burke
doing the cover up, although given how weird the cover
(28:56):
up was. Yeah, but it would point towards the being
at least one of them because of the of the note.
You know, is that possible? Yeah, you know that. Unfortunately,
these sort of things do happen. Yeah. And also, and
you can see the parents thinking that they're being altruistic
because they're like, well, what's done is done. We have
to save our childs, you know, as an accident, and
(29:17):
so they feel totally out. They're not psychopathic, they're not
pathological liars, and they're dedicated to making sure that the
arrow was appointed at them because they love their son,
you know. Ye, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
So it is to me that one always felt like
it explains some things. It doesn't explain everything, but explain
somethings like because I kept thinking, okay, if John was
the abuser and Patsy knows this, and even in interviews,
because there's there's this interview where they ask her and
she goes like, if I thought that that was the case,
I wouldn't be doing this interview. Okay, fine, But she
(29:53):
could just be saying but, and she could be a
victim herself, she could be scared. Who knows, But that
even in the police interviews, like I saw a lot
of footage where I just like, doesn't seem to me.
It doesn't mean it can't be. But so I always
doubted that John actually was both the abbus around the
killer because Patsy.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
I just felt like, why would Patsy go along with it?
But who knows?
Speaker 2 (30:14):
And then also that Patsy flew into a fitter rage
killed her and stuff. The only way that one worked
for me was if John actually kind of didn't know.
But then he was so weird with so many of
the other little details about the window, So I'm like, hmm.
And then John is still after all these years, actively
working with investigators to try to find the killer. It's
kind of like the OJ thing, but OJ wasn't really
(30:36):
doing that. He said he was doing that, where John
seems to still be doing that. So I'm like, and
Patsy's dead.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
So if he were to admit that it was Patsy,
then one he would have committed a crime. Yeah, yeah,
And two they would absolutely now wonder about him.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Because because crime is past the statute alone.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
But but he will not murder, right, No, not murder.
But if he wasn't the murderer, if he was just
an accessory, that's yeah. But you know he has all
the reasons in the world. So it's not evidence.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Yeah, no, I know, it's none of this is hard.
It's just kind of when I think through it. You know,
I'm like, if I'm putting, you know, my bets. If
I'm putting my bets, I'm gonna allocate a hundred bucks, right, Okay.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
Wait, no, I think a better way to look at
it is you have a hundred bucks. How much money
would you bet on anything? Because if you're very sure,
you put a hundred bucks.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
If you're not, you know the little spread can I
a little bit? Okay, So I'm going to put ten
bucks on John. I'm going to put and then she
helps cover it up, Patsy helps cover it up.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Who writes the note?
Speaker 2 (31:39):
No, No, John's the whole he's the whole thing. He
fakes her handwriting. Patsy's in the dark.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Why would he take her handwrite.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Because he wants to plausible deniability because she's not guilty,
so they're not going to be able.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
To tie her to it. But why not emulate just
because he doesn't have other samples of handwriting.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
But he's got her handwriting. That's why it's only ten bucks. Okay,
I'm putting forty bucks on Patsy. Forty bucks, I'm putting
fifty bucks on Brick.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
Really wow, But I have no data. No, And here's
the here's the bottom line. Wait, so, according to this
thought experiment, even though you're not confident, you're willing to
waste all hundred of your dollars, just one hundred bucks.
But you know what I mean, I know what you mean. Yeah, yeah,
I mean, so you're not you're not using.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I got thirty on Patsy and forty on on Brick
and I'll keep a little bit of the money.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
But still like that, you're very confident.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
I am very okay, yes, I am very confident that
it was an inside job.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
And you're very confident that one and you're pretty sure
one or sevenved you're well, you're pretty sure that Patsy
was involved somehow, Yeah, and why. Ultimately it comes for me,
it comes down to this. Number one.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I'm gonna not trust, but I'm gonna put some weight
on the grand juris and indictments.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Okay, number one. Number two I think that sound by
the way, Yeah, number two.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
When I look at the evidence we've talked about, I
can't reasonably point the finger at a specific intruder that
we looked at. So if it is an intruder, it's
still some mystery intruder. And the story I told the
kind of the nice or the charitable version, but the
full version goes something like the intruder who knows them
(33:27):
but not well enough to where he can be really connected,
breaks in without leaving any trace of anything. Waits figures
out that there's this one hundred eighteen thousand dollars, writes
this very specific note, never intending to really collect the money,
because they really have these sexual appetites. But the sexual
appetites are actually in the scale of things very minor
(33:49):
and very specific, mostly introduced or involving choking and maybe
some irritation of the general area. And then when things
go wrong, or because they just wanted to for the record,
it's them in the head for the records. The autopsy
didn't indicate to me. I mean, I'm not a medical expert.
It didn't sound like minor irritation. It sounded like actual,
(34:10):
very obvious injury.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
But it didn't. And there's no seaman or anything.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
And and then hits over the head at about the
same time, and then escapes again with no trace and
has never found and there's no more leads on any legendment.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
So when I when I do that, I'm like, yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
It doesn't sound as plausible.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
That said, if I had maybe another hundred bucks, I
might bet a little bit on Oliva.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
You know, maybe, yeah, Okay.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
And so but then when I go back to the
evidence and I think about the inconsistencies and the stories
about the window, and then the weirdness of the note
and the fact that it's their path, their thing, that
the handwriting seems to match according to a lot of experts.
One thing that I underplayed, by the way, is the
expert that said that that he was pretty convinced it
was Patsy. The guy who initially wrote to Patsy expressing
(34:55):
his support, but later said that yeah, I'm pretty sure
it was her. He wasn't just some random expert. He
had actually done. He was already famous for doing things
like identifying historical handwritings that no one could figure out,
like all these things, so other murders that he had,
you know, so you know, I play some value on that.
And finally, my final bit is that I believe that
(35:18):
the one person that they tried to frame that also
would have been an inside job or not framed, but
the one person that they pointed to that would have
been an inside job was the housekeeper, and that I
just don't believe that the housekeeper would have needed to
come back so hard and even write a book just
because some some some comments were thrown her away with
(35:40):
zero evidence and the cops weren't even looking at her
as a legitimate s So in the end, I wrap
all that up and I'm like, yeah, I guess if
I'm betting my hundred bucks, I'm betting them on the
ramses distributed and I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Okay, well, let's take a break. The rest of this
episode will be for patrons, and I will make my bets.
What do you say sounds good, so become a patron. Otherwise,
please take care of yourself because you deserve it.
Heyter ourn listeners. This is the final chapter in our
deep dive on the psychology of Joonpanny Ramsey, which includes
this psychology of a lot of aspects of this story.
Take it away, brutal drum roll please.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Okay, So there was a grand jury convened for a year,
you know, the grand jury convened for a year to
decide what to do about the case. Okay, So what
we're going to watch here is the district attorney announcing
what's going to happen after the grand jury again spent
about a year deliverering.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
No charges have been filed. The grand jurors have done
their work extraordinarily well, bringing to bear all of their
legal powers, life experiences, and shrewdness. Yet I must report
to you that I and my prosecution task for us
(00:53):
believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the
filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at
this time. Under Colorado law, the proceedings of the grand
jury are secret. Under no circumstances will I or any
of my advisors, prosecutors, the law enforcement officers working on
(01:18):
this case, or the grand jurors discuss grand jury proceedings
unless ordered by the court.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Okay. So basically, he's saying in a face that he
likely practiced in the mirror in the morning to look
very serious and firm that there was not enough evidence
to point at any individual as a prosecutable perpetrator of
the murder. And he's also announcing that none of us
(01:47):
are going to talk about what happened behind closed doors
at a grand jury, which is normal, but you can
have jurors that will lab right.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
So, after a year long grand jury investigation, the DA
announced that the results of that investigation lead him to
not prosecute anyone.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
There was no trial, Okay, I mean that makes sense
given what you've told me so far, is that there's
just not enough on anybody. Everything is so circumstantial.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
So even because you know, you and I we've been talking,
we're talking about our theories and like, I think this,
I think that. But if if a set of people
that we were gonna maybe listen to had access to
all the police information because we don't write like we
don't have access, and they had time like a year
to like deliberate and things like that, they're the ones
we should maybe listen to. And if they're coming back
(02:39):
saying like, yeah, we don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
That doesn't say that anyone's innocent. No, of course, it's
something did happen, someone died. Having said that the cops
did flub it, we know that to some extent.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Right, if any group of people had something that I
might listen to, is like folks looking at at all
the data for about a year now. It doesn't mean
they're not going to have their own biases. We've seen
plenty of wrong folks anyways. And plus this would have
only been an indictment, not a not an actual trial.
In twenty thirteen, however, there was a lawsuit. There was
(03:09):
a lawsuit where the Daily Camera and the Reporter's Committee
for Freedom of the Press sued to get access to
the grand jury's information. And it turns out that they
had voted to indict the Ramseys.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Wow what yeah? Wow? Is that normal for the prosecutor
to deny the grand juries fight? No, it is not normal.
What the fuck? Yeah A okay, So here's what happened.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
So a judge unsealed because of this lawsuit, a judge
agreed to unseal portions of the record showing that the
grand jury had voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey
on two counts each. You'll see what the counts are.
One child abuse resulting in death and two accessory to
(04:05):
a crime. So it wasn't murdering the first degree. It
was child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
That's what they voted.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Now, the DA will claim because of course this was
a huge kerfuffle, right, like wait, what so two things.
First of all, the DA will claim, well, yeah, that
doesn't mean that I felt that I had enough evidence
to convict.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
And a lot of critics will say, oh, it's these das.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
They want to have their record in tact because if
they go to prosecute and it fails, it counts against
them as a But it isn't it isn't apparently usual
that the grand jury will do recommended that the DA
will like them. It doesn't mean it can't happen, you know.
And I don't have the stats, but people, and it
was a big scandal. It didn't look good too. And
there was also this narrative of like the DA was
(04:53):
always on the Ramsey side. Remember the cops were like,
it's them. The DA was like, I not so sure.
And then the injury says, yeah, let's indict him, and
the DIA goes, eh, no, and so and there's the.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Whole money part. Didn't look good. It did not look good.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
The grand jury got to see all the data we
liked to plus everything else that the police had, and
in their conclusions they thought that there was abuse going on.
So you know, they didn't go as far as saying like, oh, yeah,
it was a premeditated murder or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Are we privy to the data that they were basing
the claim of abuse?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
No, all that data, all the data is not unsealed,
and even the whole thing hasn't been unsealed the grand
So if.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
There is data that we don't know about, then okay.
But if there isn't and they were just guessing based
on what you and I know, then if I was
the prosecutor, I would also not indict because I'm like, right, you're.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Also did they even hear any evidence of the intruder theories?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yeah, well it turns out they did.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
The lou smit or whatever. The the Charlotte.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Holmes guy he.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Asked to present and he was able to present to
the grand jury, and they just didn't go along and
when interviewing an anonymous grand jury member, he mentioned that
there were too many holes in the intruder theories and
they didn't have any likely suspects.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Well, just add another detail to this story that would
compel people to be obsessed with it thirty.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Years eight, even worse by the time the indictments were
unsealed in twenty thirteen. The contemplated counts, can you guess
what might be an issue? What statute of limitations? Because
it's not murder, right, Murder is not I don't think
it expires right. Colorado law gives ten years to bring
(06:44):
most child abuse prosecutions, so the resulting in death from
child abuse that had expired.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
So even if at that.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Point someone would have been like, what fine, let's prosecute,
it's too late. It's too late if you're hoping to
get a trial in needed to be done back then.
So even by just like a delay. This was nineteen
ninety nine, so the delay would have had to be significant,
but it wasn't a delay.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
It was basically, we're not going to prosecute.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
So time went on, and the only reason we even
found out is because of this lawsuit and by then
statute of limitations, it didn't matter. It's very intriguing, very interesting.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
I will say, what a coup that the prosecutor got
away for so many years with giving the message of hey, y'all,
there's nothing to see here, let's move forward. And he
could control the narrative and he probably was or at
least influencing the process to tell the grand jury if
(07:45):
you talk about this, then big consequences because that's against
the law or something. And he just got his way.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I
guess we don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
But and he spelled it out too, like now watching
that from no what we know, like, he was so
careful with his words if you if you watch it back,
he never said, oh, you know, they're exonerating the Ramsay
and he's just like, we have no evidence to indict,
blah blah blah. And then he said like, you know,
and all of this is sealed and no one can
(08:17):
talk about it unless a judge says yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
It's like, why would you be that you know, well,
you know, I mean I was assuming it was because
they did it. They knew that people were speculating based
on little information, and so they're they're just like, you're
not going to get that information, so give it up.
There's everyone assumed that, yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
I mean, I don't think maybe you know, maybe there
were people going like, I don't believe it, but the
general from what I could gather, the general consensus was okay, well.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, And this is why conspiracy theories exist, because people
have actual examples of a conspiracy. In a sense. This
is that right, it's a it's a cover up of
us in a sense. Now, it's possible that the prosecut
did have an understandable, reasonable reason to not follow the
recommendation of the grand jury. But the problem is is
(09:08):
if it was legitimate and it was solid, because that's
one possibility if he were to come out and say that, Okay,
here are the findings. This is what the grand jury
and they recommended to charge it. And I but when
I and my team look at all the evidence, we
don't agree with the grand jury's findings because we know
how things actually work in trials. And we tried to
(09:32):
explain that to grand jury, but you never know, sometimes
people just you know, they were they had a different take.
But we you know, took we thought long and hard
about this, but it would really be a waste of
energy and money and time and would unnecessarily drag a
lot of people through the mud. And we are one
hundred percent sure that this is not going to result
(09:54):
in a in a conviction, and so we're we're gonna
go back to the drawing board, really and we're going
to continue investigating. But if that was the case, if
he said something like that with that stern face that
he practiced in the mirror in the morning, then people
wouldn't have accepted that. So there's a chance that he
knew he had to essentially deceive the public, or he's
(10:18):
fucking shady as shit and he's trying to cover something up.
It's both possible.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Now he has come out because he's no longer the
DA or what, but he's come out in interviews and
stuff and stated basically what you just said, which is, look,
I stand by my decision. I don't think we could
have gotten a conviction.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Blah blah.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
You know it makes sense. But on the other side,
it's like, damn it. But there's no other credible suspects
at this point, and these people with all the access
to the evidence felt that at the very least child abuse.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Was happening and so, but given all the other things,
you could see a tainted grand jury about the child
beauty pageant thing. The grand jury is a jury of
the community. Look at the community in terms of the
way that they're talking about this case. Could we imagine
(11:09):
it being oddly voting? Could we imagine a grand jury
being mistaken? Could we imagine the average group of people,
Now we would say, well, but they're coached on how
to think in these situations, how to listen with an
open mind and look at the data, not based on
gut feeling. They are given supposedly a lot more information
(11:31):
than we have, but we don't know that they might
have been given less information than we have actually, because
back then they might not have known everything. So could
we imagine a grand jury being wrong? Yeah? Could we
imagine a grand jury being right to recommend an innintment
because they're not saying guilt, they're just saying there's enough.
It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. Right, it's just like,
is there enough reason it's not a trial. Yeah, it's
(11:55):
just all over the board. We will never know because
this guy did a essentially all right, let's take a break,
we get back more stuff. What do you say, let's
do it all right, back for the break, take it away, Birtle, Yeah,
all right.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
So do you remember our favorite housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh yea.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
So she wrote a book that.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
She never finished, she never published, and it was called
Death of an Innocent It was her accusing Patsy. And
there's a lot of details here now just her word,
but there's a lot of details early, Like I think
in the first chapter, in one of the early chapters
you were asking, we were talking about how, unlike the
Menendez brothers case, we didn't have all these accounts of
(12:38):
like oh I saw the father hitting Jean Benet, or
oh the way that the mother yelled at her at
that one pageant you know, that said there was one
person that did have these kinds of accounts, and that
is the housekeeper. You brought up a good point. Was
she always going to bring up these accounts or did
she only bring these up because Patsy started throwing shade
(13:00):
her way?
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Hard to know, meaning that there was an implication at
the very least that it's possible that she or her
husband or someone killed John Binney Ramsey and so, and
she might feel compelled consciously or unconsciously to say it's
not me, it's another. In fact, it's Patsy because she's
implying it's me that kind of because.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
The day of, with the interviews with the cops day of,
the only person that Patsy like pointed at was not
saying like I think it was her, but like well
kind of in a way, saying that the housekeeper had
access to the house, knows the house had asked to
borrow money. So you know, when I ran and cops
ask you, do you know anyone who might have kidnapped
(13:42):
your daughter? So I mean, what are you supposed to
not mention things that you think might be You could.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Say it from both ways.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
There's something else that John Ramsey said to Detective Linda
Arndt when he brought the body up, And this isn't
like something that she said in an interview years later.
This all written in her official report. When he came up,
he said, this has to be an inside job. No
one would know about that room. This has to be
(14:09):
an inside job. John Ramsey said that now is he
right wrong?
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Who knows?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
But he said it, And that to me raises a
couple of interesting thoughts because if it was him, if
he's the one who did it, that's some three dimensional
chess he's playing. Yeah, like it's got to be an
What does an inside job mean?
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Well, it is I think him saying, this has to
be someone that knows the family has been in the house,
like a housekeeper, well, like a friend or and it's
just someone that knows, Like so, how would they know
that there was that nook or something? But you know,
so either John is actually really honest, less it was
like a secret door or something like in Dungeons of Dragons.
It's you know, not strange.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
It is hard to find, and it was good. But still,
you know, he saw.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
We saw the video. It didn't look that hard to find, right,
it wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Sometimes you're right. Sometimes they make it sound like there
was this labor underneath.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Yeah, it was just at the end of a hall
and it was a concrete room that was and there
was like a little nook behind so you know, you
could see someone. So if anything, it just points away
from the father for him to say something like that.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
That's true, you could see it from that perspective, or.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
He's trying to throw people off the scent, you know.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
I could see it again, like everything in this case,
because on the one hand, if he was actually totally
in the dark at that point of the story, but
he was maybe starting to have inklings, he might be like,
this has to be someone in the inside.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Because right, and he says that to the cop.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
On the other hand, you're right that he could be
doing a double double de ceu or something.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
The other thing is if he didn't do it, for
him to hypothesize at that point, if he didn't do it,
he's traumatized. He just found the body. You know, he's
not a genius, he's not a re he's not an investigator.
He doesn't know. He's just randomly saying something based on
he's like, you know, trying to figure out who did
(15:59):
this to my child. For him to just say somebody,
that's not an indicator of anything really, right, So yeah, but.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
It is intriguing. Okay, So back to our housekeeper. So
here's some of the specific things she wrote that are
in my mind interesting, you know.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
She says, first of all that she recognizes Patsy's voice and.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
Handwriting in the note.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Now you could say whatever, but you know, she she
points to certain use of words the use of the
accents over the e because she was always very particular
with John Beney's spelling and always.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Making sure the accent the thing. Okay maybe, but if.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Other people, I don't know, it's just because of the
attache thing, you like, you know, it's kind of interesting.
But she points that out, and she says that she
also sound.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Like she could hear her voice. Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Another thing is that Patsy had asked her or like, Basically,
Patsy had confided that she did not enjoy having sexual relations,
especially oral sex with John. Okay, So Patsy had asked
her for advice in this regard and asked her if
she had any suggestions. She wanted to enjoy sex with John,
(17:08):
but she couldn't bring herself to do it. So what's
the implication the implication and she says that Patsy appeared desperate.
So the implication is that their relationship is not going
well right at least not sexually. Let's say sexually, they
might be having some problems, okay.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
And what's the implication from that? Is this back to like, well,
if he's sexually frustrated.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
No, because she's not accusing John. She's accusing Patsy. So
she's saying that she was getting desperate in her relationship,
that she was frustrated about her child. She accuses or
she says that on a daily basis, John Benet was
soiling the bed and this is one of the biggest
ones she accuses Patsy of. She says that essentially that
(17:55):
every time or a lot of times, when she would
wet the bed, Patsy would take her into the bathroom
and that she would hear yelling and cries. Okay, so
she is basically implying that there's some sort of potential
child abuse going on related to the wet bedding.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, wet bedding, wet bedding. Yeah, that's what I would
That's something I would say. So I don't know the rate,
but from my memory and anecdotal experience of the kids
that are chronically urinating during their sleep or in bed,
I'm going to take a guess and say that only
a minority are found to traumatized and abused, and that's
(18:33):
at least the attributal factor to their wedding the bed.
But of kids that are sexually abused, their rate of
wedding the bed are higher than kids that aren't being
sexually abused, you know, so people will say, oh, wedding
the bed, well, that means that she's likely to be abused.
If that's all you heard, was wedding the bed, that
(18:54):
would not be my assumption. It would raise a bit
of a yellow flag about abuse. But again I don't
know the exact rate, but from my memory, most kids
that are wedding the bed are just wedding the bed.
The fact that you have a parent in the early
nineties who doesn't know how to handle this situation isn't
surprising to me. That you have a mom that is
(19:17):
complicated and not helpful in the way that she approaches
her daughter about this, and that the daughter would cry
even if the mom was taking her aside. And you know,
because one of the strategies with kids is to tell
them to get up at night, or make sure they
don't drink water, or make sure they go to the
bathroom before they go to bed, you know, various different techniques.
Plus we don't know what those conversations were. You have
(19:39):
the housekeeper who is overhearing. It also seems like the
housekeepers trying to make a point, so there could be
some motivated remembering you know, it could be legitimate statements.
She's not necessarily lying, but she could be spinning it
even in her own mind. She could be purposely spinning it.
She could even be spinning it to be nicer than
it actually was. But yeah, is there a flag there
(20:02):
of ongoing abuse? Yeah, but it's not. Again, most situations,
especially where you have a housekeeper that that that is
that close, where the mom is literally asking for blowjob advice,
then there would be overt indications the house unless you're
going to tell me otherwise. The housekeeper would say, I
(20:24):
saw Patsy smack her across the face, I saw her
spanking her. Repeat, I saw bruises, I saw her smacking
you know. Now, can it be that you would hide that? Yeah,
but it's it's not typical. No, totally.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
And no, that's not in her book or her thing.
She and to your point, it could be that like
one time Patsy did yell and Joe Jumbnne started crying,
but that was it, you know, Like, but she does
claim that she heard this all the time, that that
her you know, the way she puts it is that
her way to discipline her, to take her in the bathroom,
(21:01):
and she would hear the screams and the cries.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Yeah, but that's a far cry from a blow to
the head that would have killed her and then a
massive sadistic cover up of strangling her and throwing her
like that's such a leap from you know, basically, based
on what you're telling me that she reports, I would
assume that abuse in terms of the classic presentation, isn't there. Now,
(21:28):
I want to be clear that I'm not saying abuse
didn't happen, but if we're looking at positive evidence of
something happening, it's not there. Could it be there? All
sorts of things could have been there. We just don't
know that a lot of things happened behind closed doors.
Could have happened behind the scenes. It could have been
a one time event where she hit pushed her down
the stairs, you know. Dah da da da. I'm not
saying it didn't have I'm just saying there's no evidence
(21:49):
that it did.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
She specifically talks about the following. One of the ways
in which Patsy Ramsey would communicate with me was through
handwritten notes, which she would leave for me with instructions
for various duties around the house that needed my attention.
In the fourteen month period that I worked for the Ramses,
I was left several dozen handwritten notes by Patsy Ramsey.
(22:12):
I am quite familiar with her handwriting, and I believe
I can recognize it with very little difficulty. I told
the grand jury that since leaving the employee of the Ramses,
I had had occasion to see a copy of the
Ramsom note.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Da Da Da Da da.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
It was heartbreaking for me to admit that the high
end writing in the ransom note looked very much like
the handwriting Patsy used in the notes she wrote to me.
By way of example, her a's are very distinctive. She
would use accents over words like jean, bonnet and attache.
She would often use initializing of words in combination. And
then she gives a few more examples. So from her perspective,
(22:48):
just as someone that I allegedly saw her handwriting a lot,
She's like, yeah, that's her. Yes, says I am convinced
that Patsy killed and then covered up the death of
her daughter. And then she goes on to as essentially
talking to Patsy, says, if I were speaking to Patsy,
I would say you were spent and exhausted, weren't you
The holidays do that to people. At the party on
(23:08):
December you appeared a little out of sorts. It's just
that I'm going to skip a few things because there's
a lot. If it was five in the afternoon and
I was on my way out the door, leaving you
without help.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
That makes sense why you would be stressed.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
So it's okay if you dipped deeply into the barringer chardonnay.
So she's accusing her of like drinking alcohol, your favorite wine.
You loved John Beney, but she was a handful wedding
the bed night after night.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
She was driving you crazy. You were wary that night.
John was no help because.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Also she claims that John was barely ever around. He
did nothing around the house.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
This kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
He swallowed a couple of melatonin capsules and fell deeply
asleep that night.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
Da da da.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
He wouldn't have heard a canon go off. Okay, So
then here goes John Beney. Weent the bed again that night,
didn't she. She woke up told you, and you took
her into the bathroom. It was the same destination you
always took John Benay when it was time to punish
for bed wedding. You forget that I saw you take
her there so many times before, shutting the door tightly
(24:07):
behind you, so her screams could not be heard except
this time. There was an accident, wasn't there? And then
then she proceeds to explain that she thinks that there
was an accident and that she felt she had to
cover it up. So, of course this is not evidence.
It's just that it is. Well, it is a kind
of evidence. It is there is someone that lived that
spent a lot of time in their house around them,
(24:30):
claiming she had witnessed frequent of these bathroom discipline sessions
that led to screams or something like that.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
That is, that is what she's claiming. So she literally
said she heard John Benet's screaming in the bathroom, Yeah,
on multiple occasions. Okay, well then there's that she.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Could just like you said, she could be making it
up or she heard it once and then she's like,
oh my god, she's who knows. But the claim, and
she made this claim according to her to the Grandeur,
is that she would hear this happen.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
She would hear it. Jombati's screaming in the bathroom. Yeah, okay, yeah,
and you know the cops. The cops theory was that
this is basically what happened.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
He didn't go as far as like make it for
sure that it was bed wedding, but he said that's
what could have happened.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
No. Yeah, on the so, I've been on the record
that I'm fifty to fifty and of the fifty percent
that the parents did it or one of the parents
did it, this would be one of the possible narratives
that could have resulted in an accidental child abuse killing
of the child, and then a very weird cover up
(25:33):
that either the father knew about or didn't know about.
So yeah, yeah, it's a possible. It's definitely a possibility
of the possibilities, This is definitely a possibility, but without evidence. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
So in the end, the the cop theory that we
heard from the guy who quit and protests right was
that it was basically this that Patsy flew into fit
of rage accidentally or maybe not so excillently, but either way,
like John Mane, suffered a nearly deadly blow to the
(26:06):
head and then the cover everything else was cover. I
also personally as I've mentioned before, found a lot of
very odd things and inconsistent things with John's statements and
things about what the window and the broken window. But
it's hard to know if that was him covering for
his own crime, or him covering for Patsy, or him
(26:26):
covering for Burke, or Patsy and him both covering.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
For Burke, right, because that's the other version of the story,
or the two of them covering for misremembering earlier and
making statements that were documented that if they're innocent and
they forgot, you know, like about the pineapple in the
you know, fit of all the trauma that's happening in
the moment, they're like, we didn't give her pineapple last night,
And then the next day they're like, oh shit, we
(26:51):
did give her pineapple. Right, But if we say it
was us, is that going to throw at all of
our memory into questions? So we just have it's not
a big deal. We'll just say that, Yeah, we'll just
continue to say it wasn't us the pineap and will
tell Burke don't talk about the pineapple. Right. They just
proceed with that, and they don't really realize that thirty
years later people are going to be, you.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Know, and that's possible. Now, I will tell you what
I think. A lot of folks, probably including myself, lean
in the direction of a Burke accident of some sort
and the parents covering maybe, is that the indictment from
the grand jury suggested that the parents place their daughter
(27:33):
in a situation that posed a threat to her life
and then assisted and concealing the crime and protecting the killer.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Right right. The bat being outside the house is not
necessarily something because if you're playing with your bat outside
and it just gets left outside and then it snows later.
Because of the botched investigation, I'm guessing they couldn't date
the bat, you know, someone might have just grabbed it
(28:04):
or something without like taking a picture. But it is
a possible narrative that Burke used the bat, hit her
over the head, and maybe even they thought she was dead, yeah,
and then they decided to try to make it look
like she was strangled, but then in the process might
have actually well, the coroner said that she would have
died from the from the head injury anyway or anyway.
(28:27):
So yeah, I mean, again, no evidence, it's just a story.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Well, no evidence that you and I have seen anyways, yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah, right, the grand jury might have seen it, but
I don't know. I'm just going to take a guess
and say that by this point there might have been
so of the possible things that happened. Yeah, any one
of the family members could have been the one to
accidentally injure her, and anyone I mean aside from Burke
doing the cover up, although given how weird the cover
(28:56):
up was. Yeah, but it would point towards the being
at least one of them because of the of the note.
You know, is that possible? Yeah, you know that. Unfortunately,
these sort of things do happen. Yeah. And also, and
you can see the parents thinking that they're being altruistic
because they're like, well, what's done is done. We have
to save our childs, you know, as an accident, and
(29:17):
so they feel totally out. They're not psychopathic, they're not
pathological liars, and they're dedicated to making sure that the
arrow was appointed at them because they love their son,
you know. Ye, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
So it is to me that one always felt like
it explains some things. It doesn't explain everything, but explain
somethings like because I kept thinking, okay, if John was
the abuser and Patsy knows this, and even in interviews,
because there's there's this interview where they ask her and
she goes like, if I thought that that was the case,
I wouldn't be doing this interview. Okay, fine, But she
(29:53):
could just be saying but, and she could be a
victim herself, she could be scared. Who knows, But that
even in the police interviews, like I saw a lot
of footage where I just like, doesn't seem to me.
It doesn't mean it can't be. But so I always
doubted that John actually was both the abbus around the
killer because Patsy.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
I just felt like, why would Patsy go along with it?
But who knows?
Speaker 2 (30:14):
And then also that Patsy flew into a fitter rage
killed her and stuff. The only way that one worked
for me was if John actually kind of didn't know.
But then he was so weird with so many of
the other little details about the window, So I'm like, hmm.
And then John is still after all these years, actively
working with investigators to try to find the killer. It's
kind of like the OJ thing, but OJ wasn't really
(30:36):
doing that. He said he was doing that, where John
seems to still be doing that. So I'm like, and
Patsy's dead.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
So if he were to admit that it was Patsy,
then one he would have committed a crime. Yeah, yeah,
And two they would absolutely now wonder about him.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Because because crime is past the statute alone.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
But but he will not murder, right, No, not murder.
But if he wasn't the murderer, if he was just
an accessory, that's yeah. But you know he has all
the reasons in the world. So it's not evidence.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Yeah, no, I know, it's none of this is hard.
It's just kind of when I think through it. You know,
I'm like, if I'm putting, you know, my bets. If
I'm putting my bets, I'm gonna allocate a hundred bucks, right, Okay.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
Wait, no, I think a better way to look at
it is you have a hundred bucks. How much money
would you bet on anything? Because if you're very sure,
you put a hundred bucks.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
If you're not, you know the little spread can I
a little bit? Okay, So I'm going to put ten
bucks on John. I'm going to put and then she
helps cover it up, Patsy helps cover it up.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Who writes the note?
Speaker 2 (31:39):
No, No, John's the whole he's the whole thing. He
fakes her handwriting. Patsy's in the dark.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Why would he take her handwrite.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Because he wants to plausible deniability because she's not guilty,
so they're not going to be able.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
To tie her to it. But why not emulate just
because he doesn't have other samples of handwriting.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
But he's got her handwriting. That's why it's only ten bucks. Okay,
I'm putting forty bucks on Patsy. Forty bucks, I'm putting
fifty bucks on Brick.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
Really wow, But I have no data. No, And here's
the here's the bottom line. Wait, so, according to this
thought experiment, even though you're not confident, you're willing to
waste all hundred of your dollars, just one hundred bucks.
But you know what I mean, I know what you mean. Yeah, yeah,
I mean, so you're not you're not using.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
I got thirty on Patsy and forty on on Brick
and I'll keep a little bit of the money.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
But still like that, you're very confident.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
I am very okay, yes, I am very confident that
it was an inside job.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
And you're very confident that one and you're pretty sure
one or sevenved you're well, you're pretty sure that Patsy
was involved somehow, Yeah, and why. Ultimately it comes for me,
it comes down to this. Number one.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I'm gonna not trust, but I'm gonna put some weight
on the grand juris and indictments.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Okay, number one. Number two I think that sound by
the way, Yeah, number two.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
When I look at the evidence we've talked about, I
can't reasonably point the finger at a specific intruder that
we looked at. So if it is an intruder, it's
still some mystery intruder. And the story I told the
kind of the nice or the charitable version, but the
full version goes something like the intruder who knows them
(33:27):
but not well enough to where he can be really connected,
breaks in without leaving any trace of anything. Waits figures
out that there's this one hundred eighteen thousand dollars, writes
this very specific note, never intending to really collect the money,
because they really have these sexual appetites. But the sexual
appetites are actually in the scale of things very minor
(33:49):
and very specific, mostly introduced or involving choking and maybe
some irritation of the general area. And then when things
go wrong, or because they just wanted to for the record,
it's them in the head for the records. The autopsy
didn't indicate to me. I mean, I'm not a medical expert.
It didn't sound like minor irritation. It sounded like actual,
(34:10):
very obvious injury.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
But it didn't. And there's no seaman or anything.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
And and then hits over the head at about the
same time, and then escapes again with no trace and
has never found and there's no more leads on any legendment.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
So when I when I do that, I'm like, yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
It doesn't sound as plausible.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
That said, if I had maybe another hundred bucks, I
might bet a little bit on Oliva.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
You know, maybe, yeah, Okay.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
And so but then when I go back to the
evidence and I think about the inconsistencies and the stories
about the window, and then the weirdness of the note
and the fact that it's their path, their thing, that
the handwriting seems to match according to a lot of experts.
One thing that I underplayed, by the way, is the
expert that said that that he was pretty convinced it
was Patsy. The guy who initially wrote to Patsy expressing
(34:55):
his support, but later said that yeah, I'm pretty sure
it was her. He wasn't just some random expert. He
had actually done. He was already famous for doing things
like identifying historical handwritings that no one could figure out,
like all these things, so other murders that he had,
you know, so you know, I play some value on that.
And finally, my final bit is that I believe that
(35:18):
the one person that they tried to frame that also
would have been an inside job or not framed, but
the one person that they pointed to that would have
been an inside job was the housekeeper, and that I
just don't believe that the housekeeper would have needed to
come back so hard and even write a book just
because some some some comments were thrown her away with
(35:40):
zero evidence and the cops weren't even looking at her
as a legitimate s So in the end, I wrap
all that up and I'm like, yeah, I guess if
I'm betting my hundred bucks, I'm betting them on the
ramses distributed and I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Okay, well, let's take a break. The rest of this
episode will be for patrons, and I will make my bets.
What do you say sounds good, so become a patron. 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!