Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

A Scenario

Here's what I think could have happened. It's important to understand that this is only a theory, and that my claim to have solved the case is not based on any theory, but on the facts, as outlined in the first two blog posts. The theory is simply an attempt to speculate regarding what could have happened and why, and what various pieces of evidence might mean.



If John Ramsey killed his daughter, it seems unlikely he could have premeditated this act at any time prior to the night of Dec.  25th.  If he had had time to plan, he would in all likelihood have written the note surreptitiously on a computer at his place of business and printed it there.  The fact that the note is handwritten tells us he had no choice but to write it in his house, on the night of the murder.  

The motive might well have been fear of exposure, resulting from some sort of incestuous relationship.  At some time prior to midnight, after Patsy had fallen asleep, he may have lured her to an out of the way spot where they could be alone together.  During that time, she might have had her pineapple snack.  While they were alone together, she might have said something which led him to believe she intended to expose him.  They were going to visit family the next day and JonBenet would then have had ample opportunity to tell other family members about some of the things she and her father had been doing.  It is then that he might have decided he had “no choice” but to kill her.  And conceived a plan for getting away with murder.

He could have initially struck her over the head to knock her out, making sure she would not suffer.   Maybe he thought he’d killed her then.  The simplest thing to do next would be just to get the body in the trunk of the car, drive to some secluded spot and dump it.  He could then claim she’d been taken from the house by some pervert, molested and killed.  But this would entail too many risks.  Patsy might awaken to the sound of the car and the garage door opening.  Neighbors might spot him driving away in the middle of the night.

He devised a more complex and sophisticated plan.   Going to his computer, he sketched out a “ransom note” which would have several functions: 1.  it would discourage Patsy from turning the house upside down looking for her missing daughter in the morning; 2.  it would discourage Patsy from calling the police, for fear the kidnappers, claiming to be “monitoring” the house, would “behead” JonBenet; 3.  it would give him an excuse to get Patsy and Burke out of the house, since the note was addressed to him and he was the logical one to deal with the kidnappers.   

After the note was discovered by Patsy, friends could be called in, to bear witness to the content of the note, that it was addressed to him, that the kidnappers wrote that they would be calling tomorrow, giving John plenty of time to do what he had to do.  Those friends would then take Patsy and Burke to safety, while John was left to “raise the ransom and get it to the kidnappers.”  What he really would be doing would be dumping the body and all the evidence, and destroying the ransom note, later claiming the kidnappers had insisted on getting it back. If his car had been spotted along the way, he could have claimed he'd been delivering the ransom, at the location designated by the kidnappers.

When the note was complete, John either traced or copied it from the computer screen, in order to disguise his handwriting.  To be extra sure, he included a variety of odd details and tried very hard not to let his letters slant to the left, as they usually did.  He only needed to fool Patsy and their friends.  If his plan had worked, the authorities would never have gotten their hands on the note and would have had to rely only on what the friends could recall.


After writing the note, John could have returned to JonBenet’s body, only to discover that she was still breathing.  To be sure she was dead, he might have strangled her.  Then, thinking that possibly his prints might be recoverable from her throat (I don’t think they would be, but he might have thought so), he could have concocted the “garrotte” idea.  If it looked as though she’d been strangled with this device, perhaps the investigators wouldn’t think to look for prints on her throat.  As with the notepad and pen, he made sure to use nothing that would point to him when he fashioned the garrotte.  Patsy’s things were handy and those are what he used.

His plan would have involved getting the body and all the evidence out of the house after Patsy and Burke had left with friends.  In the meantime, it was necessary to hide the body in the house, along with everything else he would need in order to create the appropriate “crime scene” at the site where everything was eventually to be dumped.  The little basement room was a logical choice.  He would have placed the body on the floor, covering it carefully with the blankets so it could not be seen.  

During this phase he might also have done some staging at the basement window we've heard so much about. It's possible he broke the window that night (though he would later claim to have broken it earlier, possibly after realizing the police were getting suspicious that the breakin was staged).

That morning, Patsy arose according to plan and found the note.  John would have worked hard to convince her it was too dangerous to call the police.  But a 911 call was placed anyhow.  Possibly Patsy was a bit frightened by John, or too upset to think clearly.  In any case, as we know, she made the call.  There are reports that two calls were made, the first an abrupt hangup.  Perhaps Patsy tried to call and John stopped her.  Then, when he realized the police would be able to trace it, he let her make the second call.

The 911 call totally blew John’s plan and he may, that morning, have felt it was only a matter of time before the body was found hidden under blankets in that room, making it clear there was never any kidnapping and also that the body had been deliberately hidden, something no intruder would bother to do.  Meanwhile, his friend Fleet White had already checked the basement room and, since the body was carefully concealed, noticed nothing amiss.  Later that day, when officer Arndt suggested that John and his friends search the house, he jumped at the chance, went directly to the basement, opened the door, quickly removed the blankets, screamed and only then, as White noticed, turned on the lights.  Later it was reported that John had said the body had been “right out in the open.”

After the body had been discovered, John realized it would look very bad for him if Patsy were to tell the police how he had fought so hard to convince her NOT to call them.   He offered to talk to the police himself, since he would by then have worked out a story to tell, but refused to allow Patsy to be interrogated, claiming she was too upset.  His actions at this point are, to me, especially revealing.  If he and Patsy were in on this together, they would have been able to get their story straight and would have had no trouble “cooperating fully” with the police.  If she had done this on her own, she would also have had a story prepared and would have WANTED to “cooperate fully” in order to dispel suspicion.  As I see it, the only reason John wanted Patsy left alone is the fear she might talk about what transpired between them prior to the 911 call (and possibly one or two other things she might know that could be very damaging).  It is this, in my opinion, that led to the long long delay before John and the lawyers finally consented to separate interviews.

I think it possible that Patsy may have sincerely believed, or wanted to believe, her daughter was killed by an intruder.  After all, John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note. Also, since John had become her principal defender, she may have let herself be persuaded to go along with some “white lies” about what he might have said or done, since the truth might tend to make him look bad, even though he was in her eyes totally “innocent.” 


62 comments:

  1. Patsy killed JonBenet deliberately. No one else was involved. There was no staging for police. Everything that was done was done by Patsy for Patsy as part of a psychotic fantasy revolving around an imagined relationship with a supernatural being, the fear of judgment by that God and the fear of death. What people mistakingly take as staging for police had symbolic meaning known only to Patsy. This includes the ransom note. There were two aspects to what was done to the body: the ligatures were suspension devices, the body was posed and viewed and then taken down, placed in the small room, wrapped and the duct tape applied to set the kidnapping scene up in Patsy's mind. The ransom note is full of the ideas that swirled in Patsy's mind that night and plagued her for many years.

    The goal was not to kill JonBenet but to make an Angel out of her.

    Patsy herself said after the funeral "JonBenet is in Heaven with God awaiting her mother's arrival and it won't be long." Patsy put JonBenet in that heaven to complete the fantasy and in her mind assure her life after death.

    As the dedication in DOI says:

    Wherever we go ...
    Whatever we do ...
    [We're gonna go through it together ...]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a certifiable whack job!

      Delete
  2. Hate to be the fly in the ointment, but the "John did it" theory (in fact, ALL of the RDI theories) fails to account for the foreign DNA.

    I'm not a scientist, but since the DNA on Jonbenet's panties and leggings matched the presence of foreign DNA seems unlikely to be a result of lab contamination.

    That said, the Ramsey's sure staged the heck out of that crime scene, didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're not a scientist...or a detective....or very intelligent.

      Delete
    2. Sex crime done by her own father
      Nobody else. But she accidentally died when he played the choke game that perverts do. I guess no one wants to accept that a rich white man and not a criminal off street can do this.
      Sorry but it happens. He had an incestuous relationship with his older daughter too. Read the book "perfect murder perfect town". Very well done

      Delete
  3. The DNA is artifact DNA as are the DNA samples found at the crime scene which belong to 5 other males and one female. But then, perhaps you think there were 6 intruders?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, imo the "foreign" DNA is definitely an artefact. And yes, according to Kolar's book, as I understand it, 6 different samples of DNA were found, from 6 different people. Miniscule DNA traces of this sort are meaningful only if a match can be found. Without a match, they are simply meaningless bits of detritus, of the sort that could be found at any crime scene or in fact anywhere at all. I'll be writing more about the so-called "DNA evidence" soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Getting rid of the RN leaves nothing to show authorities, thus nothing to back up the story. And there is still the risk that PR realizes that the note was written on their pad, which is "odd" for a small foreign faction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I see it, getting rid of the ransom note must have been part of John's plan, because if he wrote it, as I feel sure he did, then his handwriting was all over it. Whether you're an intruder or an insider, this is NOT the sort of evidence you'd want the authorities to have. (Of course he'd have had no idea he'd be "ruled out" by the "experts" -- quite a break!)

      Which is why I think calling in their friends was probably John's idea, something he probably suggested to Patsy prior to her making the 911 call. I think the plan was to show their friends the ransom note and call their attention to certain details John would have wanted them to recall, so they could report this to the police.

      I agree there was a risk Patsy might get suspicious, which is why he kept her away from the police for such a long time. Of course, once Patsy learned he'd been "ruled out" all her suspicions would have vanished.

      Delete
    2. But wasn't the 911 call made first, then the calling of the friends?

      Delete
    3. Apparently the 911 call came first, yes, but that's not completely clear. According to the case Encyclopedia, "Fleet & Priscilla White and John & Barbara Fernie (friends of family) had been phoned "shortly after the note was found"."

      My guess is that the situation was so confused that no one can recall the sequence of events. Fernie did arrive very early, shortly after the police arrived. And since he'd been awakened from sleep and needed some time to dress and drive himself over there it's possible he was called first.

      In any case, if the plan had been to call friends, then Patsy may simply have followed that plan, regardless of whether it was before or after calling 911.

      Delete
    4. But even if the original plan had been to call friends and then the "kidnappers" ask for the RN back, PR did call police. JR knew this. So why bother suggesting calling friends? The RN can't disappear once police are called.

      Delete
    5. I think he would have suggested calling friends early on, before Patsy called 911. And possibly some friends were called before the police were called, we have no way of knowing that. In any case, Patsy may have decided to call the friends in after she called the cops, based on John's suggestion. This is all speculation of course, we really have no way of knowing what was said or when the decision to call the friends was made.

      Delete
    6. Here we are, several years outside of when this post hit the Internet and i am proof that your blog is still front and center with those of us working to piece this case together all these years later. I have only been actively researching this for a few weeks (I was in jr high when it happened, at that age, everything unrelated to boys or the mall is a flash in the pa) and to be honest, I couldn't tell you where my renewed interest came from. But after days and days (much less..to say the least...than most of you have spent sifting through this case) I kept coming back to the RN. I was firmly rooted in the RDI side, but couldn't for the life of me figure out that damn RN. It all makes so much sense now Doc..so much sense. You should've been a detective doc, you missed your calling.
      Reading your proposal of the way things happened that night is astoundingly right on the money, not a single stretch of the imagination in sight. I believe with almost complete certainty that you effectively described that night minute by minute.

      Delete
  6. JR wouldn't write anything on either an office or home computer. What's he going to do? Leave a copy of the note on his hard drive? Wipe the hard drive clean? That would be a little suspicious, too. If JR wanted JBR dead, he could have hired someone to actually kidnap her. Yes, risky, too, but not nearly as risky as the police finding her dead in her own home with no evidence of a break-in. If JR had staged the entire scene, it wouldn't have been so sloppy. BR is far more likely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR was in the computer business and he would have been aware that a message typed on a computer but not saved would not be recorded on the hard drive. Yes, word processing software can automatically save backups every few minutes, but that "feature" could easily have been turned off. I'm not saying he had to have used a computer, maybe he didn't. But the printing on the note does resemble a computer font, so that's a possibility.

      If John had planned the killing in advance he could have printed a note on a computer printer from his office ahead of time. (Hiring someone would be VERY risky.) My theory is that the decision was made on the spur of the moment, not planned in advance.

      If JR had staged the scene and his plan had gone as planned (i.e., without Patsy calling the cops so early), then it wouldn't have been so sloppy, agreed. But she did call and that was NOT part of the plan so he was forced to improvise.

      The notion that BR "is far more likely" surprises me. Not sure what you mean by that. You're saying BR kiilled JonBenet, wrote the note and engineered the coverup?

      Delete
  7. I am enjoying your Blog and agree on JB being the killer. I heard not long ago on Web Sleuths radio show a great interview with Cyril Wecht concerning What he felt happened after he did a thorough review of the autopsy reports. He felt that the neck injury came first in an accidental over twisting of the garrote during sexual activity. Then The head injury was postmortem to cover up. I think the strange flashlight is in question as the weapon used on her head. Jon Benet was also showing signs of past digital sexual assault. She had been to the doctor for repeated yeast infections I believe and had a broken hymen as documented in the autopsy. I think for me the question is not if JB did it but was it accidental during a incestuous act or on purpose so she would not tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you're enjoying the blog, birdy.

      Yes, Cyril Wecht's analysis of the autopsy report is important. Wecht isn't just another forensic pathologist, he's probably the most respected in the business and is (or was) regularly called upon to consult on cases all over the world. It's not just that the hymen was broken but that the interior of the vaginal wall showed signs of prior molestation. As a result Wecht became convinced that John must have killed her.

      The exact sequence of events is more difficult to assess. I'm happy to defer to Wecht on this, but there's probably no way we'll ever know for sure exactly what happened.

      Delete
  8. The friends could have been called to get the boy and crying wife out of the house and to create a distraction and audience for what he called drama in his interrogation. I believe he truly thought they would be able to leave the house whether the body was found or not except he realized the cops suspected them early on and weren't going to just let them go. Plus there was a screw up in the note with the uncertainty of which day the faction was going to call. Somebody maybe didn't want to risk being stuck in the house another 24 hours with cops asking questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to be assuming that the 911 call didn't matter and that John was planning to get rid of the body despite the police presence. It's hard to see how he could have done that. The police weren't about to go away, the house would be under surveillance if for no other reason than security. If John had tried to drive away that night with the body in the trunk, that would have looked really suspicious.

      As far as the phone call is concerned, there's no question it was supposed to be made the next day, NOT the AM of the 26th. There was no uncertainty, just the usual BPD blundering.

      Delete
  9. The only thing I can't buy is why Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same outfit the next day. She was up all night. There is no other explanation. I am a dirty grown man and wouldn't wear the same clothes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Patsy had been up all night murdering her daughter, sexually molesting her and strangling her in that filthy basement, she'd have been a mess the next morning and would certainly have showered and changed. The fact that she wore the same outfit and was NOT a mess tell us how unlikely it is that she was involved. John is the one who showered and changed.

      Delete
  10. if john and patsy were in on it together, then john would have told patsy to get changed and take a shower that morning like he did. i never thought of that before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point! And if he were innocent and she were the guilty party, as Steve Thomas claimed in his book, then he'd have noticed if she'd been wearing the same outfit in bed that she'd been wearing the previous day. And he would certainly have asked her why. And if both were in it together, then he would certainly have reminded her NOT to call the police while the body was still in the house. AND they'd have had no problem getting their story straight so they could be interviewed by the police as soon as possible. Also, they'd have had no problem answering questions about the pineapple, since feeding one's daughter some pineapple is hardly against the law.

      Delete
  11. The only way i can see the Ramseys doing it is if Burke had something to do with it and they were covering up for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But "the Ramseys" did NOT do it. The note was written by John, not Patsy. There is no such thing as "the Ramseys" in this case. John wrote the note to cover for John. Read the above post more carefully.

      Delete
  12. you say JR would have dumped the body under the guise of delivering the ransom. but how would he have known where to deliver the ransom if the only record of the kidnappers call was a hangup and no conversation took place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If John called home from a phone booth and his answering machine responded, the only record of that call would have been at the phone company, where only the "metadata" (i.e., the source, destination and time of the call) and not the content would have been recorded. He would then have erased the silent "message" on his machine when he got home. And he would later claim that this call, as referenced in the phone company records, came in fact from the "kidnappers." The authorities would have had no way of knowing what was said or if anything at all was said.

      John could then have claimed that the "kidnappers" instructed him to deliver the "ransom" to somewhere close to the remote location where the body would later be found. That location would have been selected by John, of course, since, of course, there were never any kidnappers.

      Delete
  13. Your theory and explanation are the most logical and complete. (I've read your book, and Thomas', and most of this blog.) You have, in fact, solved the case, sir. well done.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To my mind any theory that John Ramsey might have killed JonBenet is nothing short of absurd. I don't know what facts you have based this theory on Doc. I would be interested to know what they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of the most essential facts are presented in the first two posts of this blog. The scenario I presented here is speculative, but the facts I present in the first two posts are pretty solid, as is the reasoning leading from those facts directly to John and only John.

      Many more facts are presented throughout the blog (and the book), including evidence that John lied about some essential aspects of the case.

      Delete
  15. Here is one of your facts from your first blog: when the police arrived at the Ramsey home, they were informed, by John, that he had checked all the doors affording entry to the house and all were locked.
    How is this proof of or even an indicator against when we know that there were many people who had keys to the house. An intruder only had to get hold of one of those keys and he was in.

    Another fact from your first blog: Earlier that morning, however, his friend Fleet White, had looked into that room and claimed to have seen nothing unusual.
    Again, this is no proof that the body was not there when Fleet looked in earlier that morning. You completely overlook the fact that Fleet White could easily have been lying about having seen nothing unusual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't say any of these in themselves were proof of anything. But they ARE facts. And when we put ALL these facts together it becomes clear that there could not have been an intruder.

      Delete
    2. No it doesn't.

      Delete
  16. But not one of your facts is proof of no intruder. So I don't see how adding together however many 'no proof' facts you have - the sum is still 'no proof'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a matter of stringing all these facts together, but of critically examining the facts and drawing logical inferences based on them. For example: fact -- no sign that any of the considerable layer of dust and grime on the windowsill was disturbed; fact -- an intact spider web was found in the window opening; fact -- another intact spider web was found connecting the window grate to the lawn. Logical inference: no one entered or left the house that night via the broken basement window.

      As far as the intruder theory in general is concerned, the most compelling of all the many relevant facts is the fact that the note was found to have been written on a note pad from the Ramsey home. Logical inference: no one planning a kidnapping in advance would wait until he's within the home of his victim to write a ransom note, hence this was not a pre-planned kidnapping; no one who decided at the last minute to kidnap his victim (or make it seem like she'd been kidnapped) would take the time to hand print such a long, detailed note while in the house, crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" -- such a person would either scribble something very brief or simply phone the Ramseys after he'd left -- thus, since this was neither a pre-planned kidnapping nor a spur of the moment kidnapping, the "intruder" would have to have had some other motive.

      There remains one other possibility: the notepad could have been removed from the Ramsey home in advance, so the intruder could prepare the note ahead of time. He would then have entered the house with the note and the notepad both, carefully replacing the pad from where it originally lay. The only possible motive for doing this would be to implicate either John or Patsy in the murder of their child by making it look like they staged a phoney kidnapping. The problem with this theory is that there is no sign the note was intended as a forgery of either John or Patsy's hand. Such a possibility was never even suggested by any of the "experts" who examined the note. The most qualified experts ruled John out and concluded Patsy was "unlikely." So how does a note that looks like it was written by some third party implicate John and/or Patsy in the murder of their daughter?

      Thus: based on the fact that the note was written on a pad from the house, we can logically infer that there could have been no intruder, since no outside party would have had a reason to either write the note while in the house or remove and then later replace the notepad.

      Of course, a typical defense lawyer will argue that none of this is totally airtight -- there is always room for reasonable doubt, so it might seem. As I see it, however, there is a huge difference between reasonable doubt and just any old doubt. Thus just because one might want to concoct some totally bizarre intruder with some strange motive that no one can imagine, that in itself does not constitute reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is NOT the same as pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it has to be based on reason, not imagination.

      Regardless, even if one might want to invoke "reasonable doubt" under such circumstances, reasonable doubt is not a factor as far as an indictment is concerned. All that's required is probable cause. And as should be clear to anyone following this case and reading this blog, there is more than enough evidence to constitute probable cause. As I write at the end of my book, my goal is not to see John Ramsey tossed into jail for the rest of his life. My goal is to give him his day in court.

      Delete
    2. Doc - I am not interested in the spider web or anything about that window as I'm not even considering it as a point of entry. I've already mentioned this to you in one of my earlier posts and I'm repeating it here - I know there were quite a number of keys given out to Ramsey acquaintances during the time they lived there. I seem to recall this was reported by Schiller in PMPT. An intruder had no need to go through the window if he had obtained one of these keys, which he easily could have. So all this talk about the state of the window is entirely irrelevant. Can't you see that?

      Sorry I haven't read past the first paragraph of your post so this is all I have replied to for the time being

      Delete
    3. The basement window and the spider webs were just an example of what I meant by logical inference from the facts.

      Please do read the rest of the post.

      Delete
    4. Doc -- just because you don't understand the motivation of someone writing a ransom note in the house doesn't mean it didn't happen. *If* an intruder killed JonBenet -- and generally speaking, a non-family member would be far more likely to garotte her, etc. -- that person was clearly disturbed. He may have gone in with the intent of kidnapping her, both for money and to abuse her. He may have planned on calling in the ransom demand, but decided on arrival he had time to write a ransom note. He may have impulsively decided to abuse her in the basement before leaving, as the house was quiet. He may have planned a burglary, and simply caught her there.

      He may have struck her to help knock her out, and keep her quiet. He may have taken her to the basement while figuring out what to do. He may have written the ransom note either to distract the cops and give him more time to leave town, or in an effort to try to collect money from them. He may well have meant "tomorrow" to mean the following morning.

      He may have planned to take the body out of the basement window, to avoid being caught leaving by the main door after killing her in the basement. He may have simply staged that as part of a false kidnapping. After all, he didn't need to have the body in his possession to collect the money. He just needed to have the body hidden. Or, he may have staged the kidnapping simply to delay the investigation, as noted.

      There are literally hundreds of different reasons why an intruder - known or unknown to the Ramseys -- may have intended or staged a kidnapping in the way it was done. It is also possible that the intruder stole something important that only JR would know about, and wouldn't want to admit to.

      But just because there's no obvious or clear explanation doesn't mean that the above didn't happen. At this point, all opinions are largely speculation. There's really no actual evidence pointing to JR (or any Ramsey), aside from the fact the ransom note was apparently written in the house. Which in itself is far from conclusive.

      I'm not saying your theory isn't a plausible one. I'm simply noting that you're eliminating many other plausible theories prematurely. It would be nice if we actually knew what happened, but we don't. We only know there's *some* DNA evidence pointing to an intruder, even if the RDI people (or JDI people) want to ignore it.

      Delete
  17. I have to commend the intelligent, comprehensive, and elementary summary of evidentiary facts outlined here. I wasn't familiar with your website or any of the forums similar to this, which with articles, movies, news reports, etc. probably number in the millions the ways speculated and yet, the question remains....."Who killed JonBenet"? This website absolutely answers that question and uses those factors that have been obvious from the very start. What has made the startling difference to me after linking to the site out of curiousity, and quickly wanting to read every single thread, and I basically have always shared the opinion that this murder was never committed by a intruder, JonBenet was killed by one of the 3 other persons in that home that night. Reasonable Doubt is the smokescreen that filters justice and it protects the Guilty more at. times than the Innocent. This tragic story was a frustrating mix to me of believing any of the 3 might have, could have but DocG and his brilliant and concise rendering of the facts from Day 1 have clearly shown this was John Ramsey, Mastermind, Murderer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Glad to see you get it. Whether John is the murderer is for a jury to decide. But as I see it, there is certainly more than enough probable cause to put him on trial.

      Delete
    2. Not according to the various judges who have heard libel cases in this matter.

      Delete
  18. I just found this site (quite by accident) and appreciate the work you've put into this. I've always felt that JR, and JR alone, was the person who committed this crime. I'm still reading through all the information here. Many things in the RN has always bothered me, but there are a couple of things that I found particularly troublesome. The line "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank." bothers me. What is an adequate size attache for $118,000.00? Would Patsy know? Why would they care what the money was put in at the bank when they later say to put it in a brown paper bag? Could this be a way to remove "item(s)" from the house when he left without Patsy being suspicious?

    Another line that bothers me is "You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." That makes perfect sense if the RN was written by JR. If your scenario is correct, JR's plan was to remove her body from the house before police were notified. Of course this means that later, when she wasn't returned safely, there would be no call forthcoming to notify them where to find their daughter's body as there were no real kidnappers. The only person who would know where to find her would be the killer, so obviously JR could not admit to knowing where the body was.

    Many seem concerned that this was too sloppy for JR to have been the culprit, that he would have typed a RN at work, or hired someone to kidnap and kill her . . . . The assumption here is that he planned to kill his daughter in advance, but I don't believe he had any intention of killing his daughter that night. We can all speculate on motive and scenario, but certainly something went horribly wrong and a child lost her life. The killer had a limited amount of time to devise a plan to cover his butt. Remember, mother was sleeping in bed upstairs and the risk of being discovered could cause anyone to panic and cloud their decision making. Even the most brilliant perpetrators make errors and things don't always go as planned.

    Also, another thing that bothers me is so much is being made of the fact that PR was wearing the same clothes she wore the night before. I can't speak for anyone else, but there are many times that I jump up in the morning and throw on my clothes from the day before, go start my coffee, and then go back to shower before putting on clean clothes. I believe this is what happened in this case.

    As you have said, it's not one thing in particular that points to JR as her killer. Is it possible that BR killed his sister? Absolutely it is possible, but I believe it is highly improbable. People need to look at the totality of the factual and circumstantial evidence that leads back to JR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you say makes sense. We'll probably never learn all the details but there's nothing in what you've written that can be dismissed. I'm glad to learn you see the case more or less as I do.

      Delete
  19. Wow. I stumbled across this post from 2012 after reading kolar's book. I had no interest in the JBR murder until I had watched the Netflix series about Avery and one thing lead to another...

    Having read that book and now this post, you DocG have me firmly on your side. I don't know if you have ever watched the movie "Aliens" but reading your post outlining your scenario was like when Ripley explained how Burke(irony?) was planning on sabotaging the Marine's cryogenic tubes on the way back to cover up his attempts to smuggle the alien embryos through customs.

    Just. Brilliant man!

    I may have missed elsewhere what your thoughts were with regard to the stun gun/train track marks used to inflict those abrasions? How does that work into your scenario? I would really value your thoughts on the matter. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing your positive response, that's really gratifying. As I see it the stun gun was just an act of desperation on the part of a well meaning detective unable to accept the possibility that "the Ramseys" could have committed this crime. He was right. "The Ramseys" did not do it. John Ramsey did it. But there was never any evidence of a stun gun, that was pure speculation. There are many different reasons why those marks could have been made. Probably she slammed into some objects on the floor just after she'd been clubbed. The train tracks might have been those objects, but there are many other possibilities. Kolar may have pointed to the train tracks because he suspects Burke. The bottom line is that neither a stun gun or the train tracks are necessary to explain abrasions that could have been caused in any number of ways.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your response! Those marks were very strange and I suppose she could have fallen on them. I guess we'll never know. I believe those tracks were a damn fine suspect for having caused those marks though!

      So what do you make of JR asking for his golf bag after the murder? Significant? Do you believe he used the golf club as the murder weapon???

      Delete
    3. No I don't see that as significant, because there is no way John could have retrieved the golf bag before it had been thoroughly inspected for evidence. In any case, if she'd been struck with a golf club it would almost certainly have lacerated the scalp, but there was no sign of that. The injuries were purely internal, suggesting a blow with something blunt, such as the Maglite.

      Delete
  20. how could the system let this innocent be murdered and hold no one accountable?????

    ReplyDelete
  21. Last night I saw the A&E thing on the Jon Benet Ramsey case. One thing which was cited by the innocent family side were the faint crescent apparent finger nail marks near the neck ligature which seem to indicate the child was still alive after the killing death blow on the head that swelled the brain, as if they indicate the girls hand was trying to pull off the ligature. In my opinion this coukd me a worried killer attempting to make sure JBR was really dead (they couldn't lay two fingers on the ligature and so used a pinch with the fingers) or the killer moving the body and trying to keep the head up by holding the neck ligature. The marks might show where there was a grasp by the killer.

    For me it goes back to the basics. Why would a killer sex fiend leave a ransom note? Why would a kidnapper leave a dead body there when most people paying a ransom want proof of life? How did the killer know about JRs bonus? Why would a killer do vile sexual things in the house or take the time to write a 2 1/2 page note?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were no nail marks on her neck. The autopsy mentioned petechial hemorrhages. Also there were no skin cells found under her nails. She was alive but unconscious at that point.

      As for the rest, yes you are right.

      Delete
    2. one thing which i thought interesting was that how did the blood not splash with such a hard blow ? Instead it became an internal hemorrhage. Would the killer have known this before striking ? Or was he lucky ?

      Delete
    3. Jon Benet was dead when she was hit on the head. That's why there is no blood splatter in the basement from that horrific wound. The killer spent time hanging and/or torturing her by the garrote around her neck and sexually assaulting her. She was unconscious most likely through all of that and then she died, the killer panicked, and then decided to cover up what did kill her (asphyxiation) by hitting on the head with an object.

      Delete
  22. Replies
    1. From now on, please add your comments under the most recent post or else they might get ignored.

      Delete
  23. In the second paragraph you surmise that had John Ramsey premeditated the murder of his daughter, he might have printed the ransom note on a computer at his place of business and printed it there. Whoa! That would have been a key mistake. It would have been traceable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right. I've rethought my scenario and I now realize that premeditation is possible after all. See my blog post with that title.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  24. Complements to this theory, it makes the most sense and ties all pieces of evidence together. Apologies for writing this response to a very dated thread, but I believe my response fits in best here.

    I would offer up a slight simplification to the scenario described above. I believe this simplification makes the scenario even more plausible:

    JR's first opportunity to leave the house is not to deliver the ransom, it is to go to the bank to get the money. The ransom note specifies that nobody else can be alerted, "not even a stray dog." So it is assumed that no friends can go to the bank to assist, it must be JR. JR's trip to the bank is the perfect opportunity to dispose of the body of JBR. And the ransom note clearly encourages an early trip to the bank - promising an early call to arrange the return JBR.

    The ransom note also goes out of the way to encourage the use of a large attaché to carry the necessary amount of money. JR could use an "attaché" large enough to carry the body of JBR - possibly something as large as the Samsonite suitcase, which could be large enough to fit the body of JBR.

    As planned, JR would drive to the bank alone with the Samsonite suitcase. Instead of leaving the house with the suitcase empty as PR would believe, he would have secretly put JBR's body inside before he left the house in the car. He would then dump the body somewhere secretly before going to the bank.

    Then he would return to the house with the money and wait for the kidnappers to call. But according to JR's plan, the "kidnappers" would never call and the money would never be collected. Perhaps JR would even "disobey" the rules of the ransom note and call the police after his return from the bank. He might do this to "provoke" the kidnappers to not called to collect the ransom.

    This scenario is cleaner, because JR would not need to fabricate a call from the kidnappers. He would also not need to fake a delivery or fake an interaction with the kidnappers.

    The entire point of the ransom letter is to prevent PR from calling the police/friends and to buy JR enough time to dispose of the body undetected. However, the plan is completely turned on its head when PR immediately calls the police first thing in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't believe any of the Ramsey's were involved in Jon Benet's death. Seems to me someone close to them (or someone who had been to Jon Benet's beauty pageants and was enthralled by her) came in through the basement window after the Ramsey's left for the christmas party. While waiting, he wrote the ransom note because he WAS going to kidnap Jon Benet. The Ramsey's came home and he waited until everyone went to bed. Got up to Jon Benet's room (taped her mouth so she could not scream) and brought her to the basement to take her out the window he came in, but realized he couldn't get her through. (The ransom note is left on the stairs) Sexually assaults her and uses the garrote as part of his assault and kills her by mistake. Hits her on her head (lack of blood splatter at the scene makes it appear she was dead when her head was hit) to "cover up" her asphyxiation death (her underwear and pajama bottoms were soaked with urine....being hanged by the neck causes the victim's bladder to empty). She's dead, he covers her with a blanket, and then leaves through the same window he came in.

    It's a theory but it makes sense to me. Patsy's call to 911 is so horrifying. Hard to fake that kind of shock and horror in her voice. I don't believe Burke had the strength or the mental capacity to do everything that was done to Jon Benet. As far as her father goes, he could have done this to her but he just doesn't come across as someone who could be this vicious to anyone....let alone his own child. He's easy to target because of his actions tht morning (putting Jon Benet under the tree), but you know what? We've never been in this position where our child was found dead in our basement, so honestly, people act different under this kind of shock. Patsy was screaming for Lazarus to raise her. Again, not going to happen but that is what her brain was doing....trying to rationalize that Jon Benet really isn't dead. I can't even imagine what they were all feeling. Had to be horrific. :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone entering the house with the intent to kidnap would have prepared his note ahead of time. No reason to wait until inside the house. But as we know the note was written on a notepad from the house. Why?

      There was no trace of smearing or displacement of the considerable layer of dust and grime on the basement window sill. Two intact spider webs were found on and just under the grate. The police concluded, for good reason, that no one passed through that window on the night of the crime.

      Delete