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.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Just The Facts, Ma'am

The JonBenet Ramsey case is both intriguing and extremely deceptive. On the surface it seems incredibly convoluted and complex. And in fact, if our intention is to recreate exactly what happened on that fateful night, we will indeed be faced with an almost intractable dilemma. On the other hand, if our intention is simply to solve it, i.e. point our finger at the murderer, the case is remarkably simple. All that's necessary is to pay attention to what we know, i.e., the facts -- and, for the moment at least, not let ourselves get distracted by all the rest, i.e., what the various principals in the case may or may not have reported; what the various "experts" and profilers have asserted; the many opinions offered by all and sundry regarding the personalities, quirks and foibles of Patsy, John, Burke and any number of the many others who have, to their misfortune, gotten caught up in the Ramsey web.



Fact: early on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, a 911 call was placed by Patsy Ramsey, reporting that her daughter, JonBenet, was missing and that a ransom note had been found.

Fact: 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. A policeman checked to be sure and confirmed that indeed all the doors were locked. Upon checking the rest of the house, including a suspicious looking basement window, they concluded that "there were no signs of forced entry." Indeed, while the window contained a broken pane, none of the considerable dust and grime on the window frame showed any sign of a disturbance. Moreover, there was an undisturbed spider web on the grate leading into the window well, and police found no sign of footprints in the light coating of snow in the adjoining yard.

Fact: the ransom note, addressed to John, warned him that his daughter would be beheaded if the police were called. The note also instructed him to withdraw $118,000 from his bank account and to expect a call "tomorrow" between 8 and 10 am.

Fact: a few hours after the police arrived, John Ramsey suddenly shouted and appeared carrying the body of his daughter. He claimed he had found her in a small basement room, near the suspiciously broken window. Earlier that morning, however, his friend Fleet White, had looked into that room and claimed to have seen nothing unusual.

Fact: upon close examination, it was determined that the ransom note had been written on paper from one of Patsy's own notepads. The ink was consistent with ink from one of Patsy's Sharpie pens. It was further determined that there was no sign of an intruder having been present inside the home, nothing from outside could be found, nor was there anything missing.

We can stop right here. We already have enough information to tell us who committed the crime. In the following post, for the benefit of those unable to add 2 plus 2, I'll solve it.  But, of course, that won't be nearly enough. Because, as I know from bitter experience as a regular participant in many of the old JonBenet Internet forums, hardly anyone following the case is willing to accept a conclusion based solely on the most obvious and indisputable facts. In my view, they've been distracted or even, very possibly, deliberately misled, by a whole range of smoke and mirrors tossed up in this case, partly by the culprit, but also due to the very odd and in fact bizarre nature of the investigation itself. So solving the case will only be the beginning. During the course of this blog, I'll be laying out more of the details and explaining some of my theories regarding what happened and why.

155 comments:

  1. I agree. The handwriting exemplar found in book entitled SEX, LIES AND HANDWRITING was a 100% match! I always thought this was an inside job!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WRONG NO WAY DID THE FAMILY DO THIS - LOOK AT THE AUTOPSY NO WAY. HOW about a homeless couple, Bold Home Invasions, Abducting talented blonde girls in the night from their homes? BRIAN DAVID MITCHELL and WANDA BARZEE - abducted Elizabeth Smart. GOOGLE IT - its a stronger case to e made. He has not given DNA yet, awaiting appeals to run out.

      Delete
    2. FFS. There is no way the family is not involved.

      Delete
    3. I really hate to disappoint you, but, if you'd do research you'd find out that it was a 4 to 4.5 chance out of 5 that it was NOT Patsy's handwriting. Not one expert said it was hers. You could match it more than Patsy. Her handwriting wasn't even close. The experts said that you don't actually look for similarities. They explained what you look for in handwriting, but I don't remember what they said. I'll have to watch it again. Also, Dr. Michael Doberson, who is a chief medical examiner, said that he could testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the marks on her face were caused by a stun gun. The Ramsey's wouldn't need to use a stun gun on her.

      That's the problem with you Ramsey-haters. You heard the lies (PROVEN TO BE LIES, admitted under oath) that were told by the BPD at the beginning, you made up your mind, but you haven't bothered to do anymore research for up-to-date news. There's a whole list of lies that were told by the BPD. Also one of the investigators found 200 (TWO HUNDRED) pieces of evidence that were ignored by the BPD because it pointed AWAY from the Ramsey's. Another thing is that the BPD got the DNA results back within 2 weeks of testing. However, they didn't show it to the DA for 7 (SEVEN months) The list goes on and on and on. They are the reason why this case was never solved. You can think what you want, but at least keep up to date with the news! And, you put your trust and faith in them??? WOW!!

      Delete
    4. You're right. "The Ramseys" weren't involved in JonBenet's murder and the subsequent cover up.
      Only John was.
      And if you have read this blog in it's entirety, you'd know there is really no other logical scenario.
      I say this as someone who came here eighteen months ago as a STAUNCH believer that an intruder was responsible......in fact, I didn't believe that anyone could convince me otherwise.
      Within three hours of being on this site, I knew John Ramsey killed his daughter. It was not something I wanted to accept, but when looking at the note (The note really seals it for me), the crime scene, his actions afterwards......his guilt is so blatantly obvious, I am kind of embarrassed I defended him for as long as I did.

      Delete
  2. 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
  3. loook at the Caylee Anthony Case. Entire family coverup and
    an elaborate frame job by an ex-cop....

    ReplyDelete
  4. both cases have abuse coverups. Both cases have wives that helped coverup the abuse. Anthony case was two victims..Mother and granddaughter.....Grandmother knew and is still
    covering for the abuser. Happens a lot

    ReplyDelete
  5. my opinion is Patsy adored her daughter but covered the abuse due to their economic status.
    Imagine her husband going down as a pedophile
    the elite powerful businessman who has such power and has given numerous donations to political powers at be? Come on, this case isn't
    that hard. It's quite obvious that poor child died during an attack by a pervert. No evidence
    that there was a stranger Why else would a child die in her own home.

    Did police check burke's writing> They may have made their son write the note. Just sayin

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is corruption written all over this case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Minor quibble - JR didn't "find" the body a few hours after the 911 call. It was about 7 hours later. Doesn't really make a lot of difference, but for people not familiar with the case it makes it seem like everything happened in a few hours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke claims he expected that he was going to the White's home to be reuinited with his sister, who had been found. He said that when he arrived he was told JonBenet was in heaven. Her body was not found for several more hours. So how did they know she was dead?

      Delete
  8. If Patsy Ramsey was not involved in the murder, and simply found the ransom note when she got up that morning, I do not think she would have called so many of her friends immediately after making the 911 call. If she truly believed JB was kidnapped, she would not risk her daughter's life by filling the house up with people, since the kidnappers were supposedly watching them... She was a drama queen who loved attention, but risking her daughter being "beheaded"... No.

    Patsy helped cover up the murder, and the house was filled with people that morning to deliberately contaminate the crime scene as much as possible. The way she threw herself on top of JB's body, also makes me suspicious.... John had already touched and carried JB up the stairs, now there would be a good explanation for any hair or traces of her clothes found on the body too. (As far as I know Patsy wore the same clothes that morning as she did the night before -- I think she had not been to bed at all -- and if she was involved in staging JB's body (the blanket seems like a mother's touch)then her clothes may have left fiber traces... problem solved by the dramatic display with a lot of witnesses present...

    I am certain Patsy was well aware that JB was dead that morning, either she was involved in the murder herself or not, or either she wrote the ransom note or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If Patsy Ramsey was not involved in the murder, and simply found the ransom note when she got up that morning, I do not think she would have called so many of her friends immediately after making the 911 call."

      Excellent point. That's not something I would have done, that's for sure. I don't have an easy answer, because I can't read Patsy's mind, but surely calling in some friends can hardly be seen as evidence she was trying to cover up the murder of her daughter. This is why I feel it important to concentrate only on the most important facts of the case and not let ourselves get distracted by secondary issues.

      Once someone decides Patsy "has to be guilty," then everything she does becomes suspicious to that person, and that's simply not fair. Patsy may not have been the clearest thinking person in the world nor the most responsible in her actions, but that doesn't make her a criminal.

      As I see it, there is no way she'd have called the police if she had written the note or was involved in a coverup. Inviting friends to contaminate the crime scene would not have compensated for handing the police a patently phoney "kidnap" note with her handwriting all over it.

      Delete
    2. Look at the facts.... And the important fact is that all the people in the house led to a contaminated crime scene....

      Completely irrational behaviour to call all those friends if she really believed JR was in danger. And even if Patsy was out of her mind and not thinking clearly, John would have prevented those phone calls if he also belived JB was in danger. Someone has refered to him as the "ice man", I can't remember who.... But that is the way I see him too. This man would not have allowed a hysterical Patsy to risk JB's life if she was kidnapped. No way.

      They both knew JB was dead at that point. I am still convinced the friends were called to the house in order to contaminate the scene.

      Delete
    3. Do you know them? Ice-man? Wow. I would have called friends to have them search Boulder for her while we were doing what the police told us to do. As they did. Fleet didnt go into that room earlier because it was stuck, even the cop didnt bother to try more... Admittedly.

      Delete
  9. "Completely irrational behaviour to call all those friends if she really believed JR was in danger."

    I agree. Even worse was calling 911 without making sure uniformed police wouldn't be arriving at the door. If the house had actually been under surveillance, the "kidnappers" would have seen the friends and the cops and possibly beheaded JonBenet, as promised. Patsy's actions that morning were irrational and probably irresponsible. And also self indulgent, since getting support from friends apparently was more important to her than going along with the "kidnapper's" demands.

    Yet I must insist. If she and John had concocted a plan to stage a phoney kidnapping that plan could ONLY have worked if the body had been removed from the house prior to calling the police.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Though the little girl does appear to have been previous sexually assaulted, I think the killing was unrelated to that, in that it had been a long day and PR, not having been very well either, was very tired, knowing also she had to get up early.

    Little Jonbenet eventually goes to bed but wets it, and messes her bottoms. She shouts for, or goes to, her mother, who takes her back to her room and notices the wet bed and the need to change it, (very tiresome indeed), takes off Jonbenet's dirty bottoms which are thrown down by the bed (where the chocolates are?), and starts to clean her up, feeling at the time extremely tired and very angry. This leads to her being less than gentle and catching the child down below with her fingernail, which results in the terrible scream which is heard by the next door neighbour, (at approx 1AM). This then leads to the grabbing of the throat of the child to shut her up, and the pushing back of her head against the wall resulting in the large fracture. Instant cover up needed, and in steps JR to help.

    She was thought to be dead, that is the tragedy, but it was the cover up that led to it some time later, and the rest is history.

    The little boy heard but is not telling, pretending to have been asleep.

    I am interested in all the theories, and I hope this case can eventually be solved, and this was merely one that I think may have happened, but if it turns out PR had short nails then obviously it is completely wrong.

    Sorry about spelling of Jonbenet's name, but can't do capital b's on this computer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your theory is interesting, and for all anyone knows bedwetting might have been a factor, though I strongly doubt it. The problem is that there are literally thousands of scenarios of this sort that could be proposed, but if there isn't any evidence to back them up, they aren't much help. I remember that on some forums there were long debates over whether or not certain sheets were wet, as though confirmation of JonBenet's bedwetting would be confirmation that she was killed over a bedwetting incident.

      What this told me is that people were literally turning their brains inside out trying to find some motive for a loving mother suddenly turning on her daughter and killing her -- while ignoring the far more likely suspect, the father -- and the possibility of child molestation, which as we know is very real. But of course John was "ruled out," so all suspicion turned on the least likely person.

      Delete
    2. Let me tell you something about child molesters, they get progressively more sexual as the child ages and you better learn early not to fight if you want to survive. Seems to me Jon Benet was fighting him.

      abuse survivor

      Delete
    3. I think JonBenet would have been old enough to change her own wet underwear and find a dry pair on her own. That isn't something to bother her Mom about right then.

      Delete
    4. She was a bedwetter. Nobody has suggested she was defecating in her bed, or that her feces could have been the source of contamination of the chocolate box. If (as implied) Burke had a fascination with playing with feces, and was smearing it on bathroom walls, in the tub, and in her bedding, it seems like THAT (and not abuse) could be the cause of her frequent UTIs.

      Delete
  11. JBR's body was found at 1:05pm. At 1:30pm JR was on the phone with the pilot ordering the private jet to be ready to take family to Atlanta. The police, overhearing the call, advised JR not to leave town.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I posted the above info about timeline of the body's discovery and JR on the phone. Did he explain in the book why he wanted to stick to their plan of flying to Atlanta even when their daughter was found murdered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point! As with so many of John's explanations, his excuse, as I recall, was that he was confused and distraught. As I see it, at that point he very likely concluded the game was up and if he didn't do something drastic, he was headed straight for the chair. Looks to me like that call was a kind of Hail Mary pass, a desperate attempt to get out of Dodge before the cops saw through his bluff. He must have been totally amazed when he realized they had NO clue. They've been clueless ever since.

      Delete
    2. I have not read the ransom note in its entirety until now (the new book had me revisit the mystery.) Many of the "expert" analysis point to Patsy based on handwriting comparison and the caring or motherly expressions of certain sentences. Or that her journalism degree trained her to use indentation when starting a paragraph etc. I think the latter argument is particularly weak, as basic writing rules are taught in middle and high school.

      I didn't think Patsy wrote the note or perhaps she co-wrote it. It strikes me that the note was written by a man. Then I came across an article (this blog? I can't find it now) that shares my opinion.

      From my recollection of the article and my own thoughts, here are some of the phrases or words that Patsy was not likely to use:

      Any deviation of my instructions
      monitor (instead of watch)
      execution of your daughter
      beheaded
      scanned for electronic devices
      Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics
      marked or tampered with

      Those statements read like a manual. Very mechanical.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I completely agree. I think the article you refer to was on this blog, though I too am not sure where to find it. Yet very early on in the case (after John had been "ruled out"), "experts" were claiming the note was written by a woman. Once a certain mindset gets established it's very difficult to change it and the Ramsey case is a perfect example.

      There is in fact NO evidence pointing to Patsy as either the killer or the note writer, yet most following the case are convinced she did both. Why? Because clearly there was no intruder AND John was "ruled out." I think I was the only one to even consider the possibility that this decision could have been a mistake. Apparently law enforcement never makes mistakes. (sheesh)

      Delete
    4. I believe the handwriting expert couldn't rule out Patsy completely and noticed the unusual phrasing "and hence" in both the ransom note and in a previous Christmas letter she wrote. Also I can't imagine John being so verbose.

      Delete
    5. The original plan was a family vacation to Michigan and when JonBenet was found murdered the trip was cancelled and then he wanted to go to Atlanta where their family was and bury JonBenet.

      Delete
    6. I have seen "and hence" used a lot since it was pointed out as "unusual". And believe it or not, I heard a maintenance man in my building say that a chair he was moving smelled like a dead mouse had crawled up in it (for non-CA followers this one is re: "dead squirrels climbing into her engine".
      Just because you don';t say or hear it often doesn't mean it isn't said.
      And "deviation FROM instructions" sounds more "technical" than "deviation OF instructions".

      Delete
    7. I use the term "and hence" quite often, I don't find it an unusual phrase at all. At any rate, if Patsy did indeed use the term regularly, perhaps John picked it up from her. It's certainly not unusual for people living under the same roof to speak in a similar manner and use the same phrases.

      Delete
  13. What mother wouldnt throw herself on her daughter
    especially if she saw she was dead,,,,

    That is irrelevent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. It also explains how Patsy's fibers got transferred to the "garotte" and possibly also the tape, doesn't it? (Not that this would have been necessary since Patsy's fibers could have gotten onto JonBenet when she was tucked into bed and transferred from her to the crime scene.) But Patsy's "fans" want to have it both ways: suspicious that her fibers were found at the scene AND suspicious that Patsy threw herself on JonBenet so the presence of her fibers could be "explained." People's minds have been working in overdrive on this case, and as a result some very bizarre notions are now widely accepted.

      Delete
  14. Why would parents whose child was missing, on finding a ransom note saying she would be beheaded if they contacted the authorities and must remain silent to await further instructions, then go on to immediately, not only contact the police, but contact just about everybody else in town they could get to come round to their house that morning. Why did they not take the note seriously? Weren't they worried whoever had taken her would carry out the threat? Apparently not. Surely, that alone would set the police looking at the parents.

    Also, when there was a 'long' piercing scream heard coming from the Ramsey house at approx 1AM, which was loud enough to wake the next door neighbour, why did the Ramseys sleep on, with not even the young boy getting out of bed to go and alert the parents. Were they all taking double doses of sleeping pills? Yet another reason for the police to suspect the parents.

    The note, the tape, the room the child was found in,(that few people even knew existed), the clean blanket that had been taken from the dryer to wrap the child in, all pointing directly to the Ramseys. Come on, what abductor or intruder is going to spend so long in that place, going through the laundry, and writing notes? All very suspicious for the Ramseys.

    It is very difficult not to look at the Ramseys as the main suspects. As for the scream, surely an intruder would have been out of that house in an instant after that, thinking the parents would be on their way to search the house. The intruder would not be taking time to look for tape to put over the child's mouth to silence her, and continue with all the rest that was done.

    It still comes back to the family as the main suspects, and no way does a tiny bit of DNA which could have come from anyone, including the person who made the pants, exonerate them.

    Some of the phrases used in the note do indicate a man involved, yet there is no reason this was not a joint effort of both man and woman. The only thing that would put me off being completely convinced it was the Ramseys who wrote it, is that there is something very silly, almost juvenile, about it, like there had been some contribution from a person younger than the parents, or someone lacking in reality with a theatrical element about them, which points away from JR being completely in charge of the composition. What I really mean to say is that it seems hardly adult, and a nonsense flight of fancy with 'foreign faction' and all. Yet maybe someone very clever was writing it with deliberately creating that impression in mind, (that sounds more like JR), and it has worked, since supporters of the Ramseys are convinced they certainly did not write it, and it was the elusive intruder who did it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything you've written makes sense. But assuming the parents were in on it together doesn't make any more sense. Because if they were in on it together there is no reason for them to call the police before getting the body out of the house and dumping it in some remote spot. And the ransom note would have given them the perfect excuse to do just that, claiming they were simply delivering the ransom.

      There are aspects of any crime and indeed many episodes in normal life that are difficult to explain in retrospect.

      If we try to account for everything we know about this case, or think we know, then it becomes a true morass. And if we can't get past such a morass then a cold-blooded killer will never be brought to justice. Which is why I have chosen to concentrate only on the most fundamental facts and not let myself get distracted by secondary issues. There is NO theory that could possibly take into account every single odd thing about this case, trust me.

      Delete
    2. I think after a Christmas party, only a few hours left to travel the next day, a wife or a husband alone does not have enough time and enough privacy at home to create a cover up. If only one of them were involved the truth would be out. If they were involved they must have covered for each other for different crimes, that is why I think the most logical explanation is that one abused and the other killed her.

      I read an interesting analysis of the ransom note here
      http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
      "The sentence "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them" is not very aggressive language. This would indicate that a woman wrote this note. Other statements in the ransom note such as "I advise you to be rested" also show a feminine touch.

      Saying that JonBenet will be "beheaded" in line #22 is very unusual. In the United States, we generally do not talk about beheading people. This was put in the note to make it look like a "foreign faction" was behind this kidnapping."

      Delete
    3. I'll repeat what I've written many times: if both were in it together, there would have been no 911 call while the body of the victim was still in the house. That's basic. Speculating as to whether one or two people would be needed to stage a phoney intruder attack is not basic, it's speculation. And we have no shortage of that, on all sides of the fence. The notion that certain phrases in the note tell us a woman wrote it is also speculation. There are certainly as many or more phrases suggesting a male writer. The bottom line? If Patsy wrote the note, she would not have called 911. It's really that simple.

      Delete
    4. Why? If John were the killer and hoped to get the body out of the house before the police were called, he might be able to deceive Patsy, saying that he was going to pick up the money from the bank while actually dumping JonBenet's body. But if Patsy were the writer and the killer, she probably would have NO way to get the body out of the house unnoticed. So the purpose of the note would simply be to suggest a "kidnapping gone wrong" and focus attention on John and his business. Problem with John as the note writer/killer is that he made basically NO effort to keep Patsy from calling.

      Delete
    5. But under the circumstances created by the early 911 call, the note does NOT suggest a kidnapping gone wrong. It suggests a STAGED kidnapping gone wrong. Which is why the police initially focused so strongly on the Ramseys. If you want to believe they intended for the police to see this as a kidnapping gone wrong you have to ask yourself what it is that could have gone wrong with this kidnapping that would have 1. caused the kidnapper not only to abandon his plan but ALSO take the time and trouble to redress his victim, wrap her body in a blanket, and hide her in the most remote spot in the house; and 2. leave his ransom note anyhow, after it had become pointless and could be used as evidence against him.

      If the kidnapping had gone wrong, the kidnapper would simply have left the body where it lay and made a run for it.

      As for whether or not John made an effort to keep Patsy from calling the police, we have no way of knowing what actually happened that AM, prior to the 911 call. All we have is the testimony of the two principal suspects, which can hardly be expected to be reliable. If you'll read the third post on this blog you'll see my reasons for doubting their "official" version of what happened.


      Delete
    6. JR and PR's bedroom was on the THIRD floor and the scream probably came from the basement-- Lou Smit's experiment proved the scream was heard from the neighbor's house but not on the third floor ( he had someone stand in the basement scream and the people on the third floor could not hear it but the people at the neighbors did )

      Delete
    7. I think disobeying the ransom letter was their whole story and point of the ransom note.
      what was going to happen f they panicked and told everybody?? jb would die....
      I agree forwhat ever reason the 911 call was made prematurely.
      which brings me to patsy and john united.?

      Delete
    8. If you thought someone you knew had taken your child, maybe you would invite everyone you know over, thinking the person who doesn't show up is the one holding her.

      Delete
    9. Your theory, Kim, means that John and Patsy Ramsey were going to try and convince LE that the kidnapper was holding JB in their very own basement whilst monitoring their movements that morning, then struck JB when he realized police had been called......then he hung around in the basement for another 45 mins - 2 hours before garroting her.
      I don't think you give them nearly enough credit.....no one is quite that stupid. If this was their plan, they would have been SURE to have removed JB's body from the house before calling the police, don't you think? A kidnapping involves a person actually being abducted.....

      Delete
    10. DocG- "I'll repeat what I've written many times: if both were in it together, there would have been no 911 call while the body of the victim was still in the house. That's basic. Speculating as to whether one or two people would be needed to stage a phoney intruder attack is not basic, it's speculation. And we have no shortage of that, on all sides of the fence. The notion that certain phrases in the note tell us a woman wrote it is also speculation. There are certainly as many or more phrases suggesting a male writer. The bottom line? If Patsy wrote the note, she would not have called 911. It's really that simple." yet your Only speculating that she wouldn't of called 911, she could of decided That she did want her daughters body ditched somewhere and wanted a proper burial.. From listening to that 911 call, she is not being honest atall, from the get go she nearly asks for an Ambulance, But instead corrects herself. she says " Hi we need an am...notices she nearly slips up and continues to panic even more and says Police!! WE have a kidnapping..

      Delete
    11. I always found it strange that Patsy made the 911 call. In my home, in similar circumstances, my wife would have come to me and said, "our daughter is missing from her bed, there is a ransom note for $118,000, and if we call the police, they will behead her. I would have called 911 and said right off, the note says if we contact the police they will kill her and they are watching our house. That's what I think any normal person would have done. Why did Patsy take that upon herself?

      Delete
  15. We really don't know that the scream came from the house, and in fact, we don't know there really was a scream. I've forgotten the name of the3 witness who claims to have heard the scream (later recanted) but just because she thinks it came from the Ramsey house doesn't mean it really did. It was X-mas night, lots of people would be drinking, so it could easily been a drunken woman. The scream may or may not have been in response to danger. It may have been one of surprise, or it may simply be because the screamer fell down, or maybe nearly got hit by a car? Could be dozens of explanations for the scream. The reason I point this out is because a lot of theories of the case include the scream, and include specific actions that were taken as a response to the scream. A typical example is the blow to the head was meant to silence JB. IMO a blow to the head is an unlikely response to a scream. As mentioned above, every detail of the case doesn't have to get worked into the theory. It's a prescription for driving yourself crazy, and everything can't be incorporated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Agreed. If you try to account for every detail in this case, every single thing that's been reported or inferred, then, in the words Dante plastered on the Gate of Hell: "Abandon hope." I keep coming back to certain basic facts, as outlined in my first post. These we know for sure. Most of the rest is, in the immortal words of Alex Hunter: "inconclusive." Fortunately, the basic facts are more than sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Surely the only way this can be assiduously explained is an accident followed by a bizarre staging to protect someone in the house. All this talk of pre-meditated planning to contaminate the crime scene and deliberate obfuscation is patently ridiculous. Burke did it by accident. No one knew it wasn't a fatal blow. Terror and anguish prevailed. Patsy writes ransom note while the man of the house enacts an atrocity upon his daughter to stage an intruder murder. That must have taken the superhuman fortitude that only an unimaginable tragedy can produce. Patsy throws herself on the body of her daughter...because this is the first time she has seen the body and it is a natural venting of visceral grief directed towards a tangible object. Then the media and the internet take over...is not an appreciation of the 'why' more fruitful than these tortuous, self-indulgent and exotic suppositions as to the 'how'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Burke killed JonBenet, either intentionally or by accident, that could easily have been reported as an accident and that would have been that. What you are forgetting is the vaginal trauma, both acute and chronic, which is impossible to see as staging. And strongly suggests an attack by a mature male. For more on this aspect of the case, see my latest post.

      Delete
    2. The problem with the whole "somebody whacked her on the head and then covered it up theory" is that the way to cover up an accident is to stage an *accident* -- not some incredibly exotic "garroting" complete with 2.5 page ransom letter. That's the kind of stuff you do to cover up a murder. And certainly an insane response to an accident involving two children.

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

      Delete
    4. Sorry, I had to reword my original post slightly...

      Throwing JB down the stairs or some similar staged accident would have covered up a whack over the head with a flashlight, and there would have been no need to check for any sexual abuse going on. So if it were a simple case of an accidental killing by either of the parents (or Burke), going to the extent of staging a sexual assault and garroting was absolutely pointless and would only invite closer scrutiny of the case. This was no simple accident gone awry. It was a sex-related killing, whether accidental or not.

      Delete
    5. Burke hit her during a fight... John persuaded Patsy to cover it up as it would reveal she had been abused for sometime, maybe by Burke aswel. She needed to protect her Son, she helped do the Note, she never went to bed that Night atall. She called the police Knowing what John was doing, he was covering up Burkes Tracks and making it look like a bodged kiddnapping. whole time on the phone she knew her daughter were dieing if not already dead.. hence the panic in her voice, This explains everything that past abuse the reason why burke is in the frame, it puts him there at the time after admitting he went down after everyone was in bed to play with toys, he went down with the flashlight. so it explains the blow to the head came from the flashlight, It all fits this way cant you see it

      Delete
  18. it was DA alex hunter who called john ice man.

    ReplyDelete
  19. i dont believe patsy killed jb by accident over bed wetting. it seems premeditated to me, and coupled with the prior sex abuse the pieces fall into place. jb was being abused on a regular basis by a close family member, who i believe is john ramsay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that bed wetting wasn't a factor. But if it was premeditated, the note would not have been written by hand. I think John had been abusing her, yes -- and something she said that night must have convinced him she was going to "tell" on him, so he must have felt compelled to prevent her from doing that -- at all costs.

      Delete
  20. How do we know that the kidnapper didnt use a key ...and had access to the notepad and pen like linda hoffman pugh..the ramseys could of been stitched up...another intresting fact is the small amount of money asked for in the ransom note..doesnt seem like a professional kidnapping to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A kidnapper with a key doesn't explain the situation at the basement window, where we see clear evidence of staging. Nor does it explain John's obvious lies about breaking that window earlier. Nor is it easy to explain why someone who entered with a key would bother to then lock the door behind him as he left. While Hoffman Pugh had access to the notepad and pen, she was thoroughly investigated and has never been mentioned as either a suspect or "person of interest."

      Delete
    2. I tell you, there is a very happy old woman (LHP) laughing at us for undermining her.

      Delete
  21. So, was the actual crime scene JonBenet's bedroom? Was that where she was sexually assaulted, hit on the head and redressed? Then, was she removed to the basement when she was garroted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since fibers from the cord used for the "garotte" were found in her bed, it seems likely that her bedroom was in fact the crime scene, yes. On the other hand, the paintbrush used for the "garotte" had been stored in the basement. Only the murderer knows for sure what happened -- and he's probably worked very hard to forget.

      Delete
    2. What was the autopsy findings on when the hit on the head occurred? Before or after the garroting? Has that even been determined?

      Delete
    3. The general consensus is that the strangulation occurred any time between 45 minutes and 2 hours after the blow to the head.
      An awfully long time for an "intruder" to remain at the scene of the crime before deciding to "finish off" his victim.....

      Delete
  22. I think Patsy was covering for Burke. Here is a possible scenario: Patsy stays up to get ready for trip knowing she can sleep during the plane ride. John helps Burke put his toy together while Jonbenet is indeed sleeping. John retires while Patsy finishes packing. Burke helps himself to tea and pineapple. Jonbenet awakens, goes downstairs to find her brother eating pineapple. She "steals" a slice of her favorite fruit from his bowl and taunts him about it. He grabs her by the shirt twisting it, leaving bruise marks on and around her neck. She claws at her shirt leaving scratch marks on her neck, kicks him and he releases her. She then sobs "I'm telling mom!" He grabs the flashlight from the kitchen counter and hits her when she turns to leave. Thinking he has only knocked her out and that she will come to later, he continues with his play and his meal. After about 45 minutes of inactivity on Jonbenet's part, he becomes concerned. Especially if her body started gasping for breath and making hiccupping sounds. (this is terrible to be writing about) He then calls for his mother to come downstairs. When Patsy takes one look at Jonbenet, she screams. That is the ear piercing scream the neighbors heard. Patsy's beloved daughter is obviously dying or she perceives her to be dead already. Patsy is beside herself knowing that if she calls the authorities, her only remaining child will be taken from her. After all, she has known for some time that he has bullied Jonbenet and treated her abusively. She had even made known her suspicions to John, but he dismissed them as needless concern on her part. (That would account for the personal, degrading comments to John in the ransom note.) So what is left to do now? I find this difficult to imagine, but I think maybe Patsy staged the crime to cover for Burke. Thinking that her daughter was already dead, she assists Burke in fashioning a garrote and he tightens it around his sister's neck in order to cover the tell tale bruises of their earlier confrontation. ( Patsy's only alternative would be to dump the body in the cold and that was even more deplorable than fashioning the garrote in order to cover the abuse.) And the insertion of the stick into the vaginal vault was done to cover the prior abuse that she had suspected Burke of inflicting on his sibling. This is awful to speculate, and God forgive me for being so suspicious and judgmental, but it is a very real possibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your take on this case seems pretty close to that of Kolar, who also sees Burke as the one most likely to have killed JonBenet. To me such a scenario is beyond bizarre, and for several reasons. See, for example: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-four.html

      Delete
    2. It sounds like a plausible account. Kids "play doctor" too not realizing what sexual stuff really even is at that age. They do however know that boys and girls are different "down there". Or Jon Benet could have done that to herself ( kids often do that too just to experiment with their bodies they may put a foreign object there.) Ask any pediatrician. And bubble bath that kids use can also cause irritation there. That may not even be related to the murder.

      Delete
    3. Could be but I am not sure a 9 year old could tie the knot found on the garrote....unless they all spent time boating. I personally believe John Ramsey had been molesting JonBenet for the last year or so of her life. He got up in the middle of the night and did what he would always do to his daughter: molested her. JonBenet may have said she was going to tell mommy what daddy has been doing. That may have triggered panic. He took her to the basement where he hit her with something and when she didn't die, he broke the paintbrush and made a garrote to kill her with. John hid her body and then wrote the ransom note. Patsy wakes up and finds the note. JonBenet is still hidden in the basement. Hours later John goes down into the basement and find JonBenet (which is actually him taking her out of a closet or suitcase) and then screams that he found her. Could have happened. Don't know.

      Delete
    4. no way
      don't believe the mother thought burke bullied jon benet.
      the golf club incident proved that. her sweet little babycakes was just playing hes just a sweetie that was jon benets fault she walked into his swing.
      ive seen the video and transcript of patsy describing that and clearly burke is her favourite.

      Delete
  23. Please see my own intruder theory that I posted under your new intruder theory heading. It's important to stick to the facts but it is equally important to not have a pet theory that forces you to overlook very possible scenarios. I haven't read Kolar's book yet but I still might. Evidently, he thinks Burke did it. That seems absurd to me for too many reasons, not the least of which is that there is almost no precedent for a 9 year old child doing all these complex things involving murder. Even the DA who hired Kolar did not believe his conclusions and called them pure fantasy.
    You are correct in saying that IF there was no intruder then only 3 people could have killed JonBenet and wrote that note. But what you must realize is that just because there is no evidence of an intruder doesn't mean one wasn't there. Police are often baffled at serial murder and abduction cases at how little evidence there is to go on. Some of these offenders are very clever and very persistent. As to how they got in it may be as simple as the person had a key. The Ramseys often gave open houses. Possibly someone swiped one of the keys, evidently there were nearly 20 house keys. Maybe somebody simply jimmied a lock and then locked it again when they left. Many possibilities and I'm still not even convinced about that spider web. For one, spider webs are quite resilient and can stretch quite a bit. Whether the web was broken or not has never been conclusively proven one way or the other. I actually believe it was an intruder who fixated on JonBenet and was determined to get to her. They found a way in, wore gloves and came prepared to abduct her. The killer hid in the basement like I explained in my other post. While waiting they wrote that note on the family notepad possibly to draw attention away from a possible local search. Again, it's quite possible the killer lived in the immediate area and was trying to keep the police from looking too close to home. Thus the term foreign faction. The killer then returned the pad and pen, placed the note on the stairs and proceeded to abduct her quickly by grabbing her and taking her downstairs to his basement hideaway. If done right the parents, who were sleeping on the floor above over 70 ft away, would have heard nothing. Again, something went wrong and he ended up killing her. He then simply crept back up and left the premises. Very spooky but a very plausible possibility.

    Pete

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Please see my own intruder theory that I posted under your new intruder theory heading."

      And please see my response, posted just beneath it.

      I appreciate all the thought you've given to the possibilities you've suggested, but it isn't simply a matter of there being no conclusive intruder evidence. Or just a matter of no forced entry. There is simply no reason for any intruder under any circumstances to have done all the things that were done. As I've explained many times on this blog.

      Your thinking seems reasonable because you are not fully aware of all the evidence, and also because you haven't fully thought through the logic of the case.

      While I don't agree with Kolar regarding either Burke or Patsy, there are many things in his book that should make it clear to any impartial reader that no intruder was present that night. Kolar also reveals many aspects of John's involvement and his testimony that are extremely suspicious. I suggest you read it.

      Delete
    2. Intruder Theory - JonBenet's bedroom balcony

      I for one have not completely shut the intruder theory out, and in fact what about an intruder coming through JBR's very own bedroom balcony door? Here is a photo of the balcony outside her room, it is the 2nd floor shown in this photo:

      http://jameson245_archive.tripod.com/JCs1RS.jpg

      If you had 2 people, one could easily hoist the other one onto that balcony, and get on the balcony. I cannot find anything that talks about the door in JBR's room leading to the balcony and whether it was unlocked or not. JBR could have opened her door to "Santa" if Santa appeared on the balcony knocking for her.

      This program with Bill Kurtis shows the door to the balcony if you cue it at 3:40

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QofH2gBtC6A

      Think about it. If someone knew the layout of the house, an easy way to get to her bedroom would be directly from the balcony. An athletic person could climb it without help. Also notice the window sill on the first floor which could serve as a step, making it much easier to get to that balcony.

      Delete
    3. Well, first of all the balcony door was examined and there was no evidence anyone broke in via that door. Though possibly JonBenet may have let them in, I don't know if that was ever considered.

      The real problem, however, is not how the intruder got in but why any intruder would do all the things this intruder allegedly did, including the writing, while inside the house, of a long ransom note, in his own hand; the failure to actually kidnap his victim; the hiding of the body in the most remote spot in the house; the careful wrapping of the body in a blanket. Etc.

      Delete
    4. " The real problem, however, is not how the intruder got in but why any intruder would do all the things this intruder allegedly did.. "

      Well, John Ramsey would say as he did in an interview, that this person was not thinking logically. The only thing that makes sense to me is that if someone was trying to frame the Ramseys, and for that we might look at Fleet White and maybe an accomplice such as Gary Oliva. Fleet White knew exactly where the Ramseys would be that night, and had the most access to the Ramseys including a house key. And his behavior was reportedly very bizarre after the murder. And it was rumored he was a pedophile like Oliva was.

      Delete
    5. I see no reason why Fleet White would want to write a 2 1/2 page "ransom" note for no reason, or whether Gary Oliva would want to do that either. If Fleet wanted to implicate John he'd have forged his hand, which has never been suggested by anyone. Fleet was thoroughly investigated and obviously there was never any evidence suggesting his involvement.

      Delete
    6. There was snow on the ground outside if I am remembering correctly and officers said there were no footprints on the snow that led to the basement window or any other door/window.

      Delete
    7. Actually it was both snow AND frost -- and yes, no prints were seen. If you want to join the discussion, Kay, I suggest you comment under the most recent blog post so everyone can find what you've written.

      Delete
  24. Supposedly, Gary Oliva's handwriting was very similar to the ransom note. Also, we know about the mysterious Nancy Krebs who claimed to have written the note for some woman who asked her to. Maybe Fleet White got her to write it. Maybe Fleet White actually wanted to extort the money from JR, but the plan went bad when the accomplice went nuts and killed her before he could get her out of the house.

    One thing I will say is that I have never seen a case where so many people have uncannily similar handwriting to a ransom note, and where so many characters in the story look suspicious. At the time of the murder, there were something like 38 pedophiles living in the area near the Ramsey home. We have a Santa Claus who used to frequent adult book stores (Bill McReynolds) and who said odd things following the murder, and whose wife wrote a play about a little girl that was killed, and we have characters like Helgoth, Gigax, and Kenady who were pedophiles and were connected to the Ramseys in some way, we have very suspicious best friends like Fleet White who act very weird following the murder and fail to see the body in the cellar and touch the duct tape and mess with the window and contaminate the scene, we have a son who was disturbed and jealous that his sister got all the attention so he smears feces on the walls, we have another son who didn't live there but whose bedroom was next to JonBenet's and whose suitcase was found under the basement window, a suitcase that had his semen inside it, and who said that he thought the killer should be forgiven; and on and on. This is a case where you couldn't have all the players in it appearing to be more guilty. There are pedophiles running amok and Patsy opens the doors to give a tour to 2,000 neighbors who can case the place if they wanted to.

    It is an unbelievable hair-puller of a case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You figured it out, Anonymous. They all did it! :-)

      Seriously, this case is definitely a hair-puller because of all the possibilities that have been floated over the years. We need to remember, however, that almost all were floated by team Ramsey, as part of a desperate attempt to direct attention away from the family and onto some mythical intruder. All these possibilities are easily discounted because, as I've insisted so many times, NO intruder would have done all that was supposedly done by an intruder that night.

      No sign of forced entry. No footprints found. No fingerprints. Only the tiniest bits and pieces of DNA that could be from all sorts of people JonBenet had had contact with, either direct or indirect, over the last few days before her death. Nothing missing from the house. No sign of anyone tracking moisture or dirt anywhere in the house, including the basement, where none of the invited guests spent any time.

      No reason for a kidnapper to write a note while in the house. No reason for a pedophile to write a ransom note at all. We have a kidnapping with no one actually taken from the house, and a body stored in the basement after having been redressed in a fresh set of oversized panties.

      Sorry but none of this points to an intruder, not a kidnapper, not a pedophile, not a family friend out for revenge, only someone IN the house all the time. Someone with a motive for murder.

      Delete
    2. Isn't it also strange that this crazed intruder, who the Ramseys were convinced was on the loose in Boulder,(Patsy said, in essence, "there's a killer on the loose, keep your babies close to you" ) never did strike again? So this insatiable, pedophile monster was interested ONLY in JBR and no one else...

      Delete
    3. Yes, it is strange. Strange also that John has never expressed any concern that this person so clearly "out to destroy him" might strike again.

      Delete
    4. I don't know about any of what you claimed 9the feces, suitcase semen, etc.), but you said this:

      "One thing I will say is that I have never seen a case where so many people have uncannily similar handwriting to a ransom note, and where so many characters in the story look suspicious."

      ...which leads me to wonder if the ransom note was a collaborative effort by a number of people who were involved in sexually abusing JB. Nothing seems to indicate that the ransom note was written that night. Is there any evidence of that, or is it just an assumption?

      Delete
  25. Did the police ever seize the computers in the home as evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I'm not sure how many there were, but I know that one was a laptop, belonging to John. The investigators searched this laptop for porn but never found any.

      Delete
    2. I heard that they found a wealth of porn on the computers at Access Graphics. What happened to that story? Not true because someone doubted it? Or....?

      Delete
  26. Doc, these are JR's actual words from a 1997 interview (Insane this man isnt in jail)

    And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said he’d go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and that’s really the only window that’s, would let in entrance into he basement. And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass. And I told him that I thought that the break came from when I did that last summer and then, then I went from there into the cellar. Pull on the door, it was latched. I reach up and unlatched it, and then I saw the white blanket, (inaudible).

    ----HE says he went down there earlier that morning, but in his previous testimony he NEVER mentions it until that point. He discussed the shower, but cant remember who got BR up, who changed BR, where he read the note, he didnt know if the doors to JBR's or BR's room was open, but he out of nowhere says he went downstairs earlier and saw the windwo broken? SHOULDNT THIS HAVE BEEN THE 1st THING HE TELLS THE COPS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, of course. He should certainly have told them right away about finding that window open. If the intruder had entered or left via that window they could have looked for prints and fibers that might have identified him. But he said nothing about that for months. And he never was able to explain why he secretly closed it. By the time the police finally got around to questioning him the situation had changed and he was probably eager to convince them the "intruder" must have used that window after all. So he reported finding it open. When it suited him.

      Delete
  27. re, ransom note. someone said certain words sound like a male wrote them. certain statements read like a manual. patsy was in charge of marketing manuals for access graphics. she designed them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very much doubt that Patsy was writing tech manuals for computer graphics software. If she "designed" them that probably means she helped with the cover design or something like that. I'm sorry but there is nothing about that note that even suggests Patsy's verbal style. I've heard her speak on a great many interviews and studied her case testimony and she sounds like a typical housewife, NOT the sort of person who regularly used technical jargon.

      Delete
  28. i think the neighbor who heard the scream was called melody stanton. i dont believe she heard anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Melody Stanton. And eventually she testified that she was unsure of exactly what she heard or when she heard it. Could have been a cat wailing. I've heard lots of that sort of thing over the years. It can sound like a child screaming for sure.

      Delete
  29. hi doc. she did design before they were done by software. as you probably know they started the business in there basement in atlanta.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bottom line: if Patsy wrote the note, she would not have been so stupid as to call the police on herself with the body in the house, and hand the note over to the authorities knowing it was written on her own notepad and in her own hand. Whether she had some knowledge of technical vocabulary or not is a secondary issue.

      Delete
    2. I think the key to this case is what Burke knows. Does he know that his mother called 911 without consulting his dad first? Was he pretending to sleep because he heard them arguing about why his mom called 911? Because he was pretending to sleep, tells me they were fighting. Otherwise, why wouldn't he be curious enough to figure out what the commotion is about? Kids are very curious. I know I was. I would have gotten out of bed and ask a lot of questions. We are supposed to believe that Burke just laid in bed? Not unless he was scared about them fighting.

      Delete
  30. I read earlier, that john was overhead on the phone by police, talking about his flight only 25min after he had discovered jonbenets body!, what was patsty doing? Was she distraught as she should be? Or was she also still planning to leave with her husband?, also I have read that the officer said on the ransome note, that the deadline came and went without any reaction, could it be that the Ramsay' s were thinking the note meant the following day

    ReplyDelete
  31. i read earlier that 25 min after john had found jonbenet's body, he was overheard by police sorting out his flight!, i wonder what was patsy thinking at this time, was she still with her little daugthers body, did she or anyone know that same morning john was still planning to go on their trip before he found her, when they thought she had been kidnapped, was in fact patsy at all overheard or seen to be planning the same thing? I also wonder about the deadline on the ransom note, it has been said that the ramsay's showed no sign of anything as the deadline came and went, could it be that they or at least one of them beleived "tomorrow" as being the day after they woke and found the note?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe it's been verified that John did in fact make a call after finding the body to arrange a trip to Atlanta. He claimed he had an important meeting to attend. THAT is extremely suspicious -- looks like a desperate effort to skip town, which means he must have been sure at that point that the jig was up. From all reports Patsy was at that time with her friends and hardly able to function at all.

      As for their reaction to the deadline I don't know of any really reliable witness to their behavior at that point, although there are lots of rumors. I'm not sure what people expect under such circumstances. Would it have looked less suspicious if Patsy or John had said "shucks"?

      Delete
    2. John said on Barbara Walters that the family simply wanted to "go home" to Atlanta...he didn't say anything about an important meeting. What could be more important than the death of his daughter? Wouldn't the parents want to stay close and help with the investigation, or at least be kept informed?

      Delete
    3. John was quoted as saying to a policeman that he had an important business meeting in Atlanta. Which makes no sense since their plans involved heading for Charleroi for a family reunion. I think John must have been desperate at that point and was just winging it. If he were innocent he would certainly not have made plans to fly out of town at that point, no.

      Delete
    4. just another of many inconsistencies. the quote that I referred to was a Barbara walters interview I saw on youtube, which probably came much later than the "important meeting" quote, which is complete nonsense either way. He couldn't have had an important meeting in Atlanta and a vacation in Michigan planned on the same day, and even if he did, I think the murder of one's daughter would be sufficient reason to cancel an important business meeting.
      I know you believe Patsy has nothing to do with it, but she has been quoted as saying sometimes that she read the note first, then went to check on JBR, and other times that she went into JBR's room first, then found then note. Your thoughts?

      Delete
    5. Patsy was a basket case for many days and probably even weeks after the murder, and under heavy sedation during that time. So it's not surprising that she might have been confused regarding the sequence of events that morning.

      Delete
  32. At around 10:00 am, the phone rang and for 30 seconds not a word, the caller hang up and this was noted. Was this the killer? Did the killer hear others in the house?

    Now you know the rest of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I wish that all homeowners would become more
    aware of the very real dangers posed by carbon monoxide poisoning.
    Each year more than twenty people are needlessly killed by this odourless, colourless gas leaking
    from faulty central heating systems and many hundreds more suffer ill
    health because of it.

    Feel free to visit my website; repair boiler leicester (http://www.boilerrepairuk.co.uk/boiler-maintenance-in-leicester)

    ReplyDelete
  34. A question for DocG...I have read your book and your theory makes sense to me, except for one thing. Why would JR suddenly be convinced that JB was suddenly to going to report his abuse to an extended family member on the trip to Michigan? Wouldn't she be far more likely to mention his abuse to Patsy or Burke, living in the same house? Wouldn't he be more concerned about that? I realize this may be an unanswerable question, but your thoughts are appreciated

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. But of course we have no way of knowing what she said or what he was thinking, exactly. It's possible he chose this night simply because it was his last chance to act before they'd be staying with family elsewhere, which would have made things a lot more complicated for him. On the other hand, she might have made some reference to her half sister that worried him. We'll probably never know.

      Delete
  35. John Ramsey called his pilot to arrange for his family to fly to Atlanta, GA shortly after JonBenet's body was found, because someone killed his daughter in Boulder, CO, and he was afraid for the safety of his family. He believed returning to GA would get them out of harms way because the ransom note clearly showed that this was not a random crime. He and his family were specifically targeted by person/persons that killed his innocent 6 year old daughter. There was no business meeting nor was there any mention of John suggesting such a meeting to police in any of the official police reports, depos, or police nterviews. Sounds like a tabloid rumor to me. I'd like to see the actual facts that prove that John actually stated that he needed to attend a meeting. It's only a fact if it is actually proven to be true, and I haven't seen any proof to back up .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what John himself had to say about this phone call, in "Death of Innocence":

      "Patsy and I heard that Mike Archuleta was subpoenaed to testify, and I knew he would clarify one of the urban legends that had been floated by the media, if he were asked. They had reported that I had called Mike early on the morning of December 26, 1996, to arrange a hasty trip to Atlanta. Of course, that wasn't true. I had called Mike to tell him what had happened. (p. 324)"

      That's IT. That's all he has to say on this matter. The so-called "urban legend" never had anything to do with John's first call to Archuletta, in the AM, to cancel the planned trip. It was John's second call, shortly after having discovered the body, that raised suspicions. And was never meaningfully explained. It was THAT call that John allegedly tried to explain on the basis of some urgently needed "business trip." He had the perfect opportunity to clarify his motives in the book. Instead he misdirects the reader toward an earlier phone call and simply ignores the later call, the one that actually needs explaining.

      If it were merely a tabloid rumor, this would have been the place to clear it up. Instead John, as on many other occasions, blows smoke.

      Delete
  36. After reading Steve Thomas' book years ago, my thoughts have always been drawn back to John stating to police that very morning when being questioned that he took a melatonin before going to bed. Why would he make a point of stating that unnecessary information to police? Answer: to make it seem like he would have been deep asleep during the night and not seen or heard anything. That has always stood out to me as suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  37. One thing that baffles me is that when Patty called 911, she reported her daughter missing - kidnapped, and the dispatcher sent a patrol car?

    Isn't a kidnapping a federal offense - shouldn't it be the FBI that is sent to a kidnapping with ransom note?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right. Sending a marked police car with uniformed officers was NOT the way to handle a kidnapping. The Boulder BPD had no experience with kidnappings and little if any experience with homicides. And when the FBI offered to help, they were turned down. A great many mistakes were made by law enforcement at every stage of this case. Which is why we're still puzzling over it today.

      Delete
  38. No one seems to have picked up on the fact that Patsy claims to have got up 'sometime after' John did that morning yet she was able to wash (she stated she didn't shower) dress, apply make-up, style her hair, go downstairs, partially read a ransom note, possibly check on Jonbent, scream for John, by which time John was still not ready. John claims to have got up at 5.30, assuming Patsy got up at 5.35, she called 911 at 5.52, that means she did all that in 17 minutes. As a woman I can tell you that it takes me at least 17 minutes to was and dress let alone spend time applying make-up and styling my hair to the standard of grooming that Patsy was known for and go downstairs as well. Most women do not dress and make-up before going downstairs, they go down in their robe, put coffee on/start breakfast, wake the kids up and only then go and spend time on their appearance. So obvious that she had not been to bed, she would never wear the same clothes she had on all day previously

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no reason to accept their version of what happened that morning and I for one happen to be very skeptical. But don't forget, this story emerged only months after the events being described, meaning John and his lawyers would have had lots of time to "work on" Patsy to make sure her story jibed with his.

      My guess is that they both went over that note very carefully and discussed what the best thing to do would be. And I have no doubt that John would have insisted that they NOT call the police at that time. It's possible they argued over that, and then, when John was distracted, Patsy made the call anyhow.

      "So obvious that she had not been to bed, she would never wear the same clothes she had on all day previously"

      Not so obvious to me. If she'd been up all night committing murder, penetrating her daughter's vagina, strangling her with a "garrote," and then disposing of the corpse in that filthy basement room, her outfit would have been a mess and she would certainly have changed.

      Delete
    2. In the UK it wouldn't have mattered how influential or wealthy someone was, law enforcement would definitely have separated John and Patsy and questioned them immediately, therefore avoiding the unbelievable situation where they had 5 months to calm down and get their stories straight. Maybe this was just a situation peculiar to Boulder and how things were done there. It makes me so angry that John, whatever his involvement is walking around having a good life knowing nothing will ever be done. That little girl deserves so much better. God knows what went on in that house, all the dysfunction money can buy evidently!

      Delete
    3. Kidnappings are the FBI's jurisdiction. They stood back for some strange reason and didn't involve themselves in the JBR case right away. Why? Same goes for Lockheed;s security division. A kidnapping of a Lockheed CEO's family member by a 'foreign faction' should have raised loud alarm bells at Lockheed. It didn't. Why not?

      I sincerely believe that this case goes far deeper than just an accidental killing or a botched kidnapping or anything else that's being considered here. The DA's office blocked the BPD from investigating the case properly. Why? Lots of false leads and rumors were introduced by the perpetrators and/or main parties involved. Why? The BPD were not experienced enough to handle such a case. Without the FBI being involved (for whatever reason) it was more likely that a cover-up could take place.

      There is a great deal of evidence from otherwise unrelated cases that there exists an international pedophile ring that involves people at the highest levels of power. These cases have all failed to be investigated properly, due to the manipulation of the media, threats against the witnesses (many carried out), purposeful destruction of evidence, and a lot of foot dragging by the authorities. The FBI in particular have been useless in solving any of them.

      If JonBenet had of lived to talk about her sexual abuses, they would have deemed her to be imagining it all. That's their standard response.

      Delete
  39. DocG, You may be interested to know that a popular British TV soap 'Eastenders' featured a recent storyline where an 11 year old boy, frustrated by the way his older sister's histrionic behaviour and drug-taking had torn the family apart, hits her over the head with a music box, killing he. His mother, saying nothing to the father decides to cover for her only son by removing the body to a nearby park where it was subsequently found and the girl believed to have been killed by a stranger. Later when the father finds out what happened they not only agree to continue to cover for the boy but fearful that he may be damaged by growing up believing he killed his sister they tell him that she did not die from the blow to the head but recovered and was killed later that night by someone else, I may be the only person in the UK obsessed with this case but no one has picked up on similarities with the Jonbenet case with regard to the Burke did it theory.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This case struck me when it happened and it now reminds me of another case which happened in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogne_homicide), where at the end they sentenced the mother to 16 years (she is already out on parole, and had another child immediately after the death of S.). This case presents many similarities: the accusations towards intruders or acquaintances, the denial by the parents who have always said they are innocent, the claims that the parents could have been covered for their other son, rich families obstructing justice etc. At the end, the culprit was the mother, even if I don't think the father is completely innocent and did not know what happened. However, in this case too the mother called a doctor and the police after having killed her son, claiming that an intruder did it. So it could be possible that Patsy killed JB and then wrote the fake ransom note and then even called 911 upon her husband suggestion. I firmly believe that it was either Patsy or John, and the other one helped cover up. Also, there is the chronic sexual abuse: if this is true, how come Patsy did not know? It must have been her abusing JB or her husband. The only mystery is the male DNA found on JB: I read that it cannot be a contamination because it has been found in the blood on her underpants. So it has to be the perpetrator's. Maybe JR or PR were not alone in abusing JBR? What do you think about the DNA? The police said in 2013 that this recent findings clear the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's important to not base your thinking on assumptions, but on evidence, logic and, best of all, facts. And you can't read one case on the basis of others. Every case is different.

      If you continue to read on this blog you will learn what I think happened and who did what imo. I've tried to consistently base my thinking on the facts, wherever possible and to avoid making assumptions. As for the DNA, if you do a search on that term on this blog you'll learn that the DNA found in this case means little and certainly does NOT exonerate John Ramsey. The Ramseys were "cleared" only in the mind of DA Mary Lacy. Most in law enforcement were shocked by her decision to "clear" them. And by the way, no DA is authorized to clear anyone. The case is still open and John Ramsey remains a suspect.

      Delete
    2. Your explanations are logic and that is why I am inclined to think that John did it. I was only pointing out that Patsy killing and calling 911 is illogic but still possible, giving the other case I mentioned, where the mother killed the son and then called a doctor and the Police and everything, and she has always mantained she is innocent. However, as I said, I think you are right in believing John did it. Since I don't know much about the legal system in the USA I thought that the DA saying the family was cleared meant that they were sure the family was innocent. But you now tell me the case is still open. It is a very creepy story. After my comment I also read your posts about the "intruder's" DNA and I agree with you, once again. What I find difficult to believe is that Patsy was unaware of the sexual abuses, since it seems that the thing was going on since a long time before.

      Delete
    3. The sexual abuse might not have been going on that long. We have no way to tell. It's hard for me to believe that Patsy would have wanted to cover for John if she knew about the abuse, because I don't see any reason for her doing that. Of course, after the murder, when everyone was accusing her and John was supporting her, that's a different story. It would have been easy for him to manipulate her then.

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

    ReplyDelete
  42. Many, or really most spouses will cover sexual abuse for each other. Most will support their partners over their kids.
    What isn't common, is for an abuser to kill their own child to keep them quiet. Strangers do this and so do stepparents and live-in boyfriends or girlfriends.
    Can you think a single, similar case? Where a well off father killed only the victim of his sexual abuse and left the other kids who were at home alive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read the title of the above blog post again. My conclusions are based on FACTS, not assumptions. There is, in fact, NO case similar to the Ramsey case.

      Delete
  43. No one has ever explained why the child had a blouse etc on not nightie or pyjamas she had obviously never been to bed ?
    The nightie that was found near her was attached to the blanket out of the tumble dryer .. child still partially dressed from Christmas Day ?

    ReplyDelete
  44. No one has ever explained why the child had a blouse etc on not nightie or pyjamas she had obviously never been to bed ?
    The nightie that was found near her was attached to the blanket out of the tumble dryer .. child still partially dressed from Christmas Day ?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I also am reading James Kolar's book and it is infuriatingly obvious that John, Burke, or most likely Pasty killed JB, and Patsy did an awful job of trying to cover it up. The police were not fooled but couldn't convince a crooked/incompetent DA's office to bring charges.
    A lot of false information was given to the public and media via the Ramsey PR machine. Their lawyers did a great job of letting a killer go free.
    I'm hoping the upcoming CBS series, which seems to include Kolar's perspective, will finally present the true facts. (I suspect Burke's appearance on Dr. Phil is the work once again of the Ramsey PR machine, in an attempt to discredit or counter this program.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Phil is in the habit of sensationalizing fake stories and of deflating real ones. He's a pawn of the media ringmasters.

      Delete
  46. I also am reading James Kolar's book and it is infuriatingly obvious that John, Burke, or most likely Pasty killed JB, and Patsy did an awful job of trying to cover it up. The police were not fooled but couldn't convince a crooked/incompetent DA's office to bring charges.
    A lot of false information was given to the public and media via the Ramsey PR machine. Their lawyers did a great job of letting a killer go free.
    I'm hoping the upcoming CBS series, which seems to include Kolar's perspective, will finally present the true facts. (I suspect Burke's appearance on Dr. Phil is the work once again of the Ramsey PR machine, in an attempt to discredit or counter this program.)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Why are the crescent moon shape fingernail (scratches) upside down.? If jonbenet done this to her self why are they turned the other way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the autopsy they are not scratches. Apparently she was strangled when unconscious from the head blow. They've been described as petechial hemorrhages.

      Delete
  48. Has there been any other child killings in that area since that happened? If there was a "killer" on the loose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No other incidents remotely similar to JonBenet's murder have ever been reported anywhere at any time.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by "remotely similar"?

      Delete
  49. Why wasn't the family investigated for the sexual abuse. It did not just happen once that night, there was evidence of it being chronic. The murder and the chronic abuse were two different things. Why weren't they investigated for that, especially with another minor child in the home?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question! I think the problem was that there was no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she actually had been molested previously. Or by whom.

      Delete
    2. Certainly the coroner or forensic scientist can tell whether a vagina or anus was scarred recently or not, and give a time range for such scars to have occurred? That would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So why do you say it can't be proven?

      Delete
    3. There was no scarring on JBR and no definitive proof of prior molestation.

      Delete
  50. Investigate prior homeowners of the Ramsey home. The intruder may have been in the 18 to 25 age range and knows the interior of the home substancially. The intruder may have been following Jonbonets' pageantry hobbies. and have been obsessed with the childs demeanor and seen her as his igual as far as maturity is concerned. The reason for acting out the fantasy will not be clear until the DNA conclusively proves perpetrator's ID and his willingness to speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It was the Santa Clause (Bill McReynolds). He shows up at the Today Show shortly after the murder. He's at the funeral and talks about the girl making many people uncomfortable. JonBenet gave him a tour of the house a few days before her murder. His wife wrote a book about a girl being murdered and carried down to the basement. His own daughter was kidnapped years before. He seemed to have an obsession with this girl. He says he's going to pay a secret visit to her. I've always believed it was the Santa Claus and can't believe that there isn't more talk about this. Why not. Just because the police said he was too weak to have carried the girl, I'm not buying it. That little girl was tiny. A psychopath will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He was weird and again, I believe obsessed with JB. I've never believed anyone in that house had anything to do with it. They woke up and their daughter was gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make more sense than anyone I've read. I find McReynolds suspicious as well.

      Delete
    2. Why would an 'intruder' practice and then write a two and a half page ransom note on Patsy's notepaper ?

      Delete
    3. McReynolds was THOROUGHLY investigated and cleared. He also was not capable of carrying the child down stairs because of his poor health.

      Delete
    4. Jonbenet did NOT give him a tour of the home in 1996. That was 1995 when JB gave him the glitter. Santa Bill was recovering from heart surgery in 1996. He looked sick and had to have his wife there to help him at the Christmas party. He wasn't going up and down stairs in 1996 and had limited time. This wasn't his only party that night.

      Delete
  52. I'm sure the Boulder PD already interviewed McReynolds and his alibi probably checked out. Where is this mysterious "intruder?" Probably hanging out with Nicole Simpson's real killer, right?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I have done spirit session on JonBenet..it is on youtube Which is quite revealing, it suggests there was fighting to an End, That Burke and his mother witnessed her Death, Patsey wrote the ransom Note, and is feeling repulsed that she let her die, in this session Jonbenet is heard, you can tell it is her voice and patseys. Please take a look

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spirit sessions are not reliable as they can be demons lying about it all.

      Delete
  54. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The main problem I have with Patsy is that she was not going crazy thinking about this "ransom" I do not care what you say DocG....You are WRONG. ANY parents faced with a missing daughter and a ransom note would be going CRAZY wondering what to do about this ransom....when the call would come....asking police how they will record the call....panicking about calling the police in the 1st place, since PAtsy herself went against the explicit instructions! This is ABSURD....John leaving for a hour or being unaccounted for and the two of them not comforting each other??? Every other time you EVER see them, they are both at each other's sides! It has been reported that they stayed in separate rooms almost the entire time JBR was missing! It is blatantly obvious that THEY BOTH KNEW. The fact that Patsy said "I don't know if it was a he or a she" THAT IS true statement.."he or she?" Who says that days after this horrific murder??? It was BOTH of them and she knows it. Why it happened I do not think we will ever know. WHY? I do not know. They were professed Christians. I have always thought that drugs and alcohol were involved. Too much drinking Christmas night?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I posted this earlier. I read the ransom note over 10 times trying to come up with something to give answers to who wrote it. Something odd was the word I will call you "tomorrow" between 8am and 10am. If the note was written on Xmas day, tomorrow would be the day after Xmas, but if it were written the day after Xmas in the morning, it could be interpreted as 2 days after Xmas. The reason I am making a point of this, is because the Ramseys should have been somewhat confused as to what day was the ransom call going to be made? Unless they wrote the note and knew when the note was written and what tomorrow meant? If I found a note at 6am, I wouldn't know what tomorrow meant?? Would you?

      Delete
    2. The "tomorrow" in the ransom note clearly referred to the following day, i.e., the 27th. There was no way John could have raised the ransom from the bank and be back before 8AM. Banks don't open that early in any case. And no way he could be "rested" before that call either.

      The police just assumed it was the 26th because they failed to read the note carefully and critically. Imo John wrote the note, so he would certainly have known what was what, but he just decided to go along with the police rather than act as though he knew what the note writer intended, which might raise suspicions. As for Patsy, I don't think she read that note carefully enough to figure it out. All that interested her was that her daughter had been kidnapped.

      Delete
  56. Sick sick people leave this family alone and let her rip they didn't do this to their child get a life

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No kidnapper waits to write his ransom note until he is in the house of his victim. The note was clearly written to give the writer a full 24 hours to get rid of all the evidence and dump the body of his victim. Patsy's call spoiled that plan. Sorry, but 2+2 still equals 4.

      Delete
  57. Doc you are wrong and nonsensical. You are letting your confirmation bias now screw you up. Someone took my dog once and left a letter on my car because he was stolen from the car. It had rained and I was having trouble reading the note. I read and reread the note as many times as I could to figure out what it said and where to find my dog...my dog!!! This was HER DAUGHTER. You are sadly mistaken if you think "tomorrow" would be interpreted as the 27th. It would be possibly but the "hope" for your child would cling to that 10am call on the 26th....and then there would be serious conversations about when, what, how....Linda Arnt already said there was NONE of that. Patsy KNEW ...there is not a doubt in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I might be knit picking, but the fact they wouldn't be questioning or getting opinions as to when tomorrow is, is troubling to me. The fact that no call was made on the 26th by 10am should have concerned them. For them to not be concerned or waiting by the phone for the call was very suspicious, at the least. I feel this case will never be solved, but my feeling is one of the parents did indeed kill her.

      Delete
  58. I had a dream about JonBenet last night and I have been known to be psychic. She was wearing a fancy grown up bracelet and it fell off her wrist. I asked her why she was so dressed up and she said " she had a date" I said why are you going on a date (because she was a child) and she said "I have gone on lots of dates" I do not know what the bracelet means but I saw that she has a bracelet on when she died. And the bracelet had the DAY she died too. It bothers me...this dream. What is JonBenet trying to tell me? I really do not know right now.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Aliasapopogy i have a video to show you, im developing my channeling skills and also communicating with the dead through a few apps i have on my pc, it does work, iv done a few sessions on jonbenet, and on my recent one, she mentions being dressed up. also i know there was a few people involved,Burke knows something, here is the link to that session - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8-zffEn_Vs&t=176s

    ReplyDelete
  60. It's late at night. I have no one to chat with this right now and just have to vent. I finally figured out the importance of the $118,000. It's so simple that I can just kick myself that I didn't think of it sooner. I also can't understand why the person who wrote the ransom note would be so stupid to use such a unique number that would point back to them.

    ReplyDelete