ash was new to computers when ashlover enticed her into participating in a discussion group (which explains the numerous asides to various readers whose comments she failed to preserve) in these three separate entries. She has no idea how she came upon the conversation but was not the slightest bit tempted to pick up where it left off when the matter briefly resurfaced nearly seven years later:
WHERE I'M COMING FROM Sun 3 19 00
In the first place, I'm a writer. I write. In the second,I'm a psychologist. I'm interested in what behavior,including criminal, reveals about personalities and mindsets. Though I am fascinated by the law and avidly followa number of cases in the media, the essay I wrote about the 20-20 interview was primarily a psychologist's reaction shaded by all I've seen and heard in the 3+ years since the murder occurred. I do know the evidence pretty much as well as any of the chatters. I know about the stun gun, no stun gun controversy; about the "Santa dude" and his creepy, playwright wife; about the bedwetting (cause of the crime or effect of sexual abuse?); about Patsy's (or is it Pasty's) bout with ovarian cancer; about the duct tape, dna in the panties, cobwebbed window, ad infinitum. Exculpatory, inculpatory; I am familiar with those terms and can define them. None of which figured much in my "take" on the Ramseys' (that's s apostrophe, term paper writer; PLEASE get a proofreader before you turn it in) performance the other night. I'm a writer, see, with a background in psychology. I wrote an editorial I didn't know what to do with until my boyfriend suggested posting it in a chat room.
It's just an opinion piece based on no particular evidence, exculpatory or inculpatory (which pretty much cancel each other out) but on my impression of the big picture as I see it. It's the same opinion I've held throughout the melodrama, unaccounted for boot prints notwithstanding. But I will say this to those who found the Ramseys sympathetic on 20-20: they framed the case to suit their agenda. For every point in their favor they took pains to emphasize, there is at least one damning, incriminating, annoying little tidbit to further the suspicion against them.
And now that I've seen the first interview with Katie (by the way, for anyone who, like me, is not a morning person, you can catch all five installments in their entirety on the Brian Williams MSNBC show): again, I'm struck with the talking points. Again, the calculated attempt-to-sound-casual mention of wearing the same clothes as the night before (at least Katie, unlike Barbara, clarified why so much has been made of that detail), as well as the deliberately offhand description of not being aware of the time (what issue is that designed to dispense with?). Of course neither of these observations proves anything. What I'm saying is, guilty or innocent, this couple is one hell of a well-rehearsed pr campaign.
Finally, to the person who discounted demeanor, I say on the contrary; in the context of an interview, demeanor is EVERYTHING.
But remember, I'm a psychologist, not a prosecutor.
Tues 3 21 00 LET'S TALK LOGIC
Much has been made in this chat room of where various pieces of evidence point. To the parents or to an outsider? So I'd like to consider one of the issues in the context of the family situation: the stun gun. While the Ramseys have seized upon this with the seemingly reasonable question, why would anyone BUT an intruder need to use one, I answer that rhetorical question with the following: in order to prevent attracting the attention of JonBenet's mother or brother.
Keep in mind: the background to the marriage. Mr. Ramsey's second, to a younger woman, a beauty contest winner whom he has reportedly described as his Jackie Kennedy. But getting older, perhaps less desirable to him, definitely incapacitated, or physically limited, by her serious disease. And the little girl. A possible victim of systematic sexual abuse. Old enough to begin protesting. She would require silencing or subduing before whatever ritual her abuser performed on her could proceed. Nevertheless they are discovered. Oh my God. Why is there a cord around her neck? Get that thing off of her. Instead it tightens. Oh my God. She's not breathing. Is she dead? Call an ambulance. No, it's too late. She is dead. Now what do we do? Call the authorities. And tell them what? How do we explain this scene?
They can't, not in its original form. So they take the time necessary to create another scene.
But originally it was an accident, I firmly believe. NOT premeditated, term paper writer, and certainly not revenge for wetting the bed. But a lesser crime has been committed, deliberately, by one of the perpetrators, while the other is too humiliated, frantic, and devastated to take responsible action. One persuades the other that nothing they do after the fact can save JonBenet; all they can do is save themselves and their remaining child. Thus forms an uneasy alliance.
A myriad of clues, some of which fit and some which may not. In any crime investigation there are always clues which, as Schiller points out, cannot be dated and may or may not be extraneous. Successful prosecutions (read: unaffluent defendants getting what they deserve) rarely account for every last shred of evidence.
As far as I'm concerned, my scenario makes almost too much sense. If this case were fiction, the obvious conclusion would have to be wrong.
Returning to demeanor, I've no doubt that the Ramseys were, and remain, grief-stricken and shocked. The display of these emotions in their interviews is genuine and real. And at least some of the information - about some of their actions the morning of December 26th, about the peripheral players they reportedly try to implicate in their book - may be accurate and valid as well, if much of their argument strikes me as patently disingenuous (a legal term meaning full of crap). Which reminds me of an observation I once heard on some legal program: the best lies are always laced with the truth.
And to the person who echoed my lament, poor Burke: yes, isn't that the saddest aspect of the whole tragedy. His younger sister is named for both of her parents - with an older half-brother named John they still managed to concoct this tribute to themselves - while he, Patsy's firstborn (who was disappointed in having a boy, who was praying for a girl to carry on the beauty pageant tradition?) is just Burke.
Isn't the psychology perspective a fun way to analyze this case?
I watched the Ramsey interview last night, and like anyone who's following the case even casually, I already knew the gist of what they'd say.
They chose Barbara Walters and, next week, Katie Couric, who will spread her interview with them over all five mornings of the Today Show. 20-20, which usually covers three or four stories per episode, devoted the entire hour to the Ramseys. There's no surprise they went for these relatively light-weight, kindly, female journalists, just as there's little suspense to the whole sordid affair, and as far as I'm concerned, virtually no mystery.
But there's a lot of intrigue to their behavior, by which I refer not to the beauty pageant angle ( JonBenet wasn't provocative; only a sick-minded observer would perceive her that way, asserted Mrs. Ramsey) but what they have said subsequent to the murder. In particular, how they describe themselves: "insulted" and "outraged." "I am insulted that anyone would suspect John or me of such a hideous crime," Mrs. Ramsey declared in a three-year-old clip that has been replayed ad nauseum, and paraphrased this again last night. Well, Marc Klaas wasn't insulted. Other ultimately exonerated parents of murdered children in recent high profile cases haven't been outraged. As grief-stricken, shocked, and savvy as the Ramseys, other parents have been motivated by the determination to eliminate themselves as the likely culprit as quickly and thoroughly as possible, and have acted accordingly.
The Ramseys will never get in trouble for what I think, nor will I. So I'm going to say it. I think I know who killed their daughter, and I think I know who did what afterward. I think I know what happened, how it happened, why it happened, and even that I understand some of the finer points, like why this couple - while others are often split apart by lesser trauma - remains tightly aligned, as opposed to the morning of the event, when they were mutually distant.
Meanwhile, their book has just been released and I'm not going to read it. Besides being loathe to fund their innocence campaign, I know it would only outrage me and I've already met my quota of outrage per this one case, among many outrageous others. But I probably will catch some of their interview with Katie, if only to see whether Mrs. Ramsey repeats at least two of last night's talking points: first, that she has indeed submitted to police questioning; and second, that she "threw on" the same clothes the morning of the 26th that she had worn the night before. How revealing.
For those who still find this story some great whodunnit, consider this. The Ramseys are very religious. Mrs. Ramsey in particular is a devout Christian. She is quite a bit younger than Mr. Ramsey and, whether or not she should outlive him, with the threat of hell very much on her conscience, she is likely to make quite a death bed confession. For those who believe the obvious is just too, well, obvious, simply outlive her and your curiosity should be well satisfied.
Poor Burke.