Gaslighting
I received a really nice email the other day from a blog follower who provided a link to a very convincing and disturbing article on gaslighting. The article got me thinking about the possible role of gaslighting in the Ramsey case, a topic we haven't considered for some time. As a result I've given this issue some thought lately and decided to once again go over the reasons why I believe John Ramsey very likely gaslighted Patsy into accepting his version of certain key events.
1. While John initially made a point, on national television, of claiming the 911 call was his idea, Patsy offered a very different version when interviewed for the A&E documentary on the case. A third, more detailed, version appears in their book, The Death of Innocence, where John is on his hands and knees studying the "ransom" note, and tells Patsy to call the police. She reaches for a nearby phone and dials 911. This version is totally different from the version Patsy provided to the A&E interviewer: "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." I see no reason why Patsy would have wanted to lie about what happened, yet she apparently accepted John's very different version when the book was being prepared and never challenged it since. Why?
2. John's story about breaking the basement window the previous summer is, as I've demonstrated both here and in my book, almost certainly a fabrication concocted to direct attention away from the much more probable likelihood that he broke it the night of the murder to stage an intruder breakin. Despite all the many reasons to doubt John's story, Patsy backed him up by claiming she swept up all the broken glass after returning from a summer vacation with the children. Listen to what she had to say:
Secondly, the area around the broken window was a royal mess,
not a likely place for the children to play. Patsy seems to have confused this area with Burke's train room, in a different section of the basement. Why?
Third, the "baseball size" hole in the window pane would hardly have produced "a ton of glass everywhere."
So what are we to make of Patsy's story? If she were lying she'd have made sure her story hung together, made sense and was convincing, which is certainly not the case. And she is clearly not telling the truth, as her version of what happened is inconsistent with both Linda's testimony and the facts. When we couple this totally confused story with the inconsistencies surrounding the 911 call, no logical explanation seems possible -- until we consider gaslighting.
When I first broached this possibility some time ago, it was greeted with considerable skepticism, as though I were grasping at straws to counter the many accusations that both Patsy and John were involved in their daughter's murder and lying to cover that up. As I see it, however, Patsy's involvement is totally inconsistent with all the other evidence, and her alleged lies, or most of them, can be explained due to either confusion on her part or confirmation bias based on unfounded assumptions. The "lies" that can't be so easily explained, such as her willingness to accept John's version of the 911 call, or her very confused story about the broken window glass, seem to make no sense -- unless we consider gaslighting.
It's important to realize that 1. Patsy was heavily sedated for weeks after the discovery of JonBenet's body; 2. Patsy had recently undergone chemotherapy, which could also have affected her memory due to what is known as chemo brain; 3. Once John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, and Patsy had not, she was suddenly catapulted into the role of chief suspect. All sorts of "experts" were examining her handwriting with a fine tooth comb and many felt they could prove she'd written it. A leading detective in the case, Steve Thomas, was literally accusing her to her face, convinced she'd "accidentally" clubbed her daughter to death in a rage over bedwetting. Her staunchest supporter throughout the investigation was her "devoted" husband, John, who dismissed all the accusations as ridiculous and hired one of the area's top lawyers to defend her.
All of the above would have made Patsy the perfect candidate for gaslighting. And if, as I feel sure, John Ramsey is the guilty party, he'd have had every reason to manipulate her in any way he could, to make sure they were both "on the same page."
According to the article linked above,
If she'd expressed any doubts regarding this event, John could have convinced her she was suffering from "chemo brain" and could not recall what happened. He would also have stressed the importance of her backing up his story, since the authorities were "out to get them" and it was essential that they present a united front.
While gaslighting might seem an unlikely stretch of your host's imagination, as we learn from this article it is by no means as unusual as one might suppose. For me this is one of the keys to an understanding of this very challenging case.
1. While John initially made a point, on national television, of claiming the 911 call was his idea, Patsy offered a very different version when interviewed for the A&E documentary on the case. A third, more detailed, version appears in their book, The Death of Innocence, where John is on his hands and knees studying the "ransom" note, and tells Patsy to call the police. She reaches for a nearby phone and dials 911. This version is totally different from the version Patsy provided to the A&E interviewer: "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." I see no reason why Patsy would have wanted to lie about what happened, yet she apparently accepted John's very different version when the book was being prepared and never challenged it since. Why?
2. John's story about breaking the basement window the previous summer is, as I've demonstrated both here and in my book, almost certainly a fabrication concocted to direct attention away from the much more probable likelihood that he broke it the night of the murder to stage an intruder breakin. Despite all the many reasons to doubt John's story, Patsy backed him up by claiming she swept up all the broken glass after returning from a summer vacation with the children. Listen to what she had to say:
TT: When did John break that window in the basement?She thinks it was last summer. First sign that something's off. If it happened last summer why couldn't she have been sure? Wasn't that long ago.
PR: He, I don’t know exactly when he did it, but I think it was last summer sometime when we, the kids and I were at the lake.
TT: In Charlevoix."Or whatever"? What does that mean? And why would he have needed her to come back if he'd left the keys inside the house, as he reported in their book?
PR: In Charlevoix and he told me to come back from out of town or whatever and he didn’t have a key and the only way he could get in was to break the window.
TT: Okay. Yeah, right.Another red flag. A broken window in the basement and she can't recall whether she had it fixed? Can't even "remember even trying to remember that"? Obviously she's confused. But why?
PR: The little um, like door, little window to the basement there.
TT: He had to lift the grate out of the way to, to get in there.
PR: Yeah, that’s the one, um hum.
TT: Okay. Any reason why that one wasn’t replaced or the pane wasn’t fixed or anything?
PR: No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that
um, I remember when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass.
TT: Okay.
PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. I mean I picked up every chunk, I mean, because the kids played down there in that back area back there
TT: Um hum.
PR: And I mean I scoured that place when, cause they were always down there. Burke particularly and the boys would go down there and play with cars and things and uh, there was just a ton of glass everywhere.The above is especially revealing. First, as we know, Linda (the housekeeper) later testified that she knew nothing about any broken window and certainly did not help Patsy clean up any glass in the basement. If Patsy were lying, why would she have included Linda in her story, knowing full well that Linda would deny it? And if she were telling the truth, why wouldn't Linda have been willing to corroborate her story? Is there a third possibility?
TT: Okay.
PR: And I cleaned all that up and then she, she vacuumed a couple of times down there.
TT: To get all the glass.
PR: In the fall yeah cause it was just little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.
Secondly, the area around the broken window was a royal mess,
not a likely place for the children to play. Patsy seems to have confused this area with Burke's train room, in a different section of the basement. Why?
Third, the "baseball size" hole in the window pane would hardly have produced "a ton of glass everywhere."
So what are we to make of Patsy's story? If she were lying she'd have made sure her story hung together, made sense and was convincing, which is certainly not the case. And she is clearly not telling the truth, as her version of what happened is inconsistent with both Linda's testimony and the facts. When we couple this totally confused story with the inconsistencies surrounding the 911 call, no logical explanation seems possible -- until we consider gaslighting.
When I first broached this possibility some time ago, it was greeted with considerable skepticism, as though I were grasping at straws to counter the many accusations that both Patsy and John were involved in their daughter's murder and lying to cover that up. As I see it, however, Patsy's involvement is totally inconsistent with all the other evidence, and her alleged lies, or most of them, can be explained due to either confusion on her part or confirmation bias based on unfounded assumptions. The "lies" that can't be so easily explained, such as her willingness to accept John's version of the 911 call, or her very confused story about the broken window glass, seem to make no sense -- unless we consider gaslighting.
It's important to realize that 1. Patsy was heavily sedated for weeks after the discovery of JonBenet's body; 2. Patsy had recently undergone chemotherapy, which could also have affected her memory due to what is known as chemo brain; 3. Once John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, and Patsy had not, she was suddenly catapulted into the role of chief suspect. All sorts of "experts" were examining her handwriting with a fine tooth comb and many felt they could prove she'd written it. A leading detective in the case, Steve Thomas, was literally accusing her to her face, convinced she'd "accidentally" clubbed her daughter to death in a rage over bedwetting. Her staunchest supporter throughout the investigation was her "devoted" husband, John, who dismissed all the accusations as ridiculous and hired one of the area's top lawyers to defend her.
All of the above would have made Patsy the perfect candidate for gaslighting. And if, as I feel sure, John Ramsey is the guilty party, he'd have had every reason to manipulate her in any way he could, to make sure they were both "on the same page."
According to the article linked above,
“Gaslighting” . . . is an insidious form of psychological abuse. It’s an intricate web of lies woven to break down one partner’s sense of self-worth and perception of what is real. . .
Nearly half of all women and men in the U.S. said they’ve been subjected to psychological aggression by an intimate partner, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For the person trying to control the partner through psychological tricks, the goal is often to make that partner feel completely dependent. By instigating this deep self-doubt and playing the role of the only one who knows what’s right, abusers can wear down their partners and gain control.In fact, Patsy, as the principal suspect, was already completely dependent on John, who controlled all the money and hired all the lawyers, which would have made manipulation all that simpler.
The typical signs of gaslighting . . . are when the abusive partner:
Refuses to listen or pretends not to understand
Challenges the partner’s memory or accuses them of being wrong
Changes the subject or suggests the partner is imagining things
Trivializes the feelings of the partner
Pretends to forget what happened or denies that anything happened at allPatsy's unconvincing window story can, as I see it, only be explained if she'd been manipulated (i.e. "gaslighted") into actually believing that these events took place but was not completely clear regarding the details. Since Linda had always assisted her in cleaning up, it would have seemed natural to include her in the story, so in her mind's eye that's how it would have happened. As for the rest, it was probably just improvisation to bolster a story that would have been shrouded in fog.
If she'd expressed any doubts regarding this event, John could have convinced her she was suffering from "chemo brain" and could not recall what happened. He would also have stressed the importance of her backing up his story, since the authorities were "out to get them" and it was essential that they present a united front.
While gaslighting might seem an unlikely stretch of your host's imagination, as we learn from this article it is by no means as unusual as one might suppose. For me this is one of the keys to an understanding of this very challenging case.
No comments have been added yet.
