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 29, 2012

The Purpose of the Note

Some have insisted the note had no real purpose but was just a fantasy on the part of a bored homicidal maniac. Others have insisted that only an "over the top" Patsy Ramsey could have written it, in a panicked attempt to point suspicion away from her and John. For most it seems to be a meaningless document, intended either as a fantasy or as an incoherent effort to muddy the waters and throw investigators off the scent. I, on the other hand, see it as very purposeful indeed, formulated as part of a methodically thought out plan. I'll demonstrate by taking us through it one segment at a time.


Mr. Ramsey,
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed, and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter. 
 I find it significant that the note is addressed specifically to John Ramsey, not to "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey," as in the fragment known as the "practice note." By referring to John's business, the writer emphasizes that John is his intended reader. As we'll see as we continue, this is a persistent theme.
You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attaché to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. 
Only John Ramsey would have been in a position to withdraw over $100,000 from his account. This is significant. Assuming the police had not been called so early, it would have been John's responsibility to raise the ransom, not Patsy's.

As should be clear by now, the plan hidden in the note could only have been devised by John. The note gives Patsy no role at all to play, so if we want to assume she wrote it on her own to stage a phoney kidnapping, and an innocent John forced her to make the call against her will, then how do we understand what it could have done for her? What sort of plan could she have had in mind? I'll be filling in more of the blanks as I proceed.

Note that the call is to come "tomorrow." Some have speculated that the writer was referring to that particular morning, which for him might have been tomorrow, if he'd written the note prior to midnight. This also seems to have been the thinking of the police, since they were clearly expecting a call that morning, between 8 and 10 AM. They were wrong. Obviously the call was to come the following morning. Otherwise, how could John have possibly raised the ransom money and how could he arrange to be "well rested" prior to the call? "Tomorrow," very clearly, meant tomorrow.
If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter.
Very interesting. This would have given John considerably leeway, since there would be no need to wait till the following morning. If he immediately headed for the bank and got the ransom money on the 26th, then the "kidnappers" might call at any time -- any time of his choosing. How could he have faked the call? I think I know. Be patient.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in anyway marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement counter-measures and tactics. You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities. 
 This part of the note is intended for Patsy. It's designed to frighten her to the point that she will agree to go along with the "kidnappers" request and not call the police. Why she called them anyhow is anybody's guess. From the sound of her voice on the 911 recording, she was out of her mind with panic and fear and simply wanted help as soon as possible. If she had not made the call, as was obviously the intention of the note writer, everything could have proceeded according to the plan clearly outlined in the note.

Don't try to grow a brain, John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us, John. Use that good, southern common sense of yours. It's up to you now, John! Victory. S.B.T.C. 
Much has been made of the content of this portion of the note, especially the "grow a brain" bit, taken from a popular Clint Eastwood movie. Since the phrase "good, southern common sense" was often used by Patsy, that's often assumed to be some sort of giveaway that Patsy wrote it. As though she'd be stupid enough to quote herself under such circumstances. Much has been also made of "S.B.T.C." as though this were some sort of game of Clue and the writer was offering us one. This sort of thing sent investigators off on all sorts of tangents, wasting their time when they could have been reconstructing the plan behind the note as a whole.

What this passage tells me is that John was eager to convince his readers (initially Patsy, but also very possibly some of their friends, to whom he was planning to show the note, so they could function as witnesses to its contents) that everything was going to be up to him ("It's up to you now, John"), that responsibility for dealing with the "kidnappers" had to be in his hands and his alone, which would make it easy for him to demand that Patsy and Burke leave with friends, so he could deal with the situation on his own.

Now let me fill in some of the blanks by reproducing a response I just wrote to a perceptive reader who asked the following questions:
If the plan was to move JBs body, and that plan was ruined by PR's 911 call that was not supposed to be made, how do you imagine the body was going to be moved and where would it be dumped.

Also how was the ransom going to be handled? It would look bad if the call never came, yet it would be dangerous to fake the call. JR wouldn't be able to place the call because he'd have to be home at the appointed time for the call.
My response:
Good questions. There is always the possibility that John hadn't thought his plan through completely. After all, he must have been in a real panic that night. So maybe there is no good answer for your questions that would correspond to his actual thinking at the time. We can't read his mind.

Nevertheless, it IS possible to formulate a plan that could work, and I have a feeling this is what John could have had in mind:

Convince Patsy to take Burke and go to stay with friends, so they would be safe while he dealt with the kidnappers. Then drive the car to the bank to collect the ransom. This would be the trickiest part, because the bank manager could get suspicious. But there would be no harm in informing him about the kidnapping and asking for his cooperation. Police could be called at this time as well, if necessary. He could insist that they NOT go to the house, for fear of alerting the "kidnappers."

He could then find a remote phone booth and call his home from there. This would represent the kidnapper's call. Assuming he had an answering machine, the machine would pick up the call to record the "message." Of course there wouldn't be any, but the call would now be registered in the phone companies records.

He would then return home and move the body from the basement to the trunk of the car. Since the garage is attached to the house no one would see him do this. That night he would dump the body in some remote wooded area, and later claim he was delivering the ransom -- and the note also, as requested by "the kidnappers." He'd tell the police that the kidnappers took the ransom and the note and left without returning JonBenet. Later her dead body would be found in that same area.

Pretty good plan, no?
And very obviously, a plan that only John could have carried out. If Patsy hadn't called 911, then John would have been able to implement it, or at least give it a shot. It was by no means perfect and certainly could have failed. On the other hand, the plan implied by the note would have done nothing at all for Patsy and I see nothing in it that could have helped her, assuming she is the one who wrote it. I see no basis for such an assumption. The only one who might have benefited from this note was John Ramsey. Clearly, he is the one who wrote it.

117 comments:

  1. It certainly is possible that JR had not planned very far ahead. Almost 16 years later we tend to want a complete theory of the case and every detail filled in. It's hard to remember that JR might have gotten no further than hiding the body and writing the RN.

    I'd think the body has to be moved before the police are brought in. At the point they get involved, if JR has already picked up the $, they might assign an undercover team to follow JR. Can't have that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure his plan didn't include police involvement. Maybe he hoped he could convince the bank manager to keep the cops out of it by showing him the threats in the note. But you're right, once the police are involved that definitely would complicate things for John.

      Delete
    2. We can just as easily surmise that it was Patsy's plan for John to leave the house to collect the ransom while SHE moved the body outside. He could have told her to call the police even if she protested. I don't know why HE didn't call 911, why Patsy??

      Delete
    3. If Patsy were the guilty party and John innocent, then arranging for him to leave the house to collect the ransom so she could dump the body would have been a terrible plan. For one thing someone could easily have spotted her car as it would have been daylight. She could not have claimed she was delivering the ransom to the kidnappers, since John would not have collected the money yet. But what other explanation could she provide?

      Also, to make the plan stick she would have to somehow fake the "kidnapper's" phone call. I don't see how that would have been possible for her -- but I've explained above how John could have done it very easily.

      And if an innocent John wanted the 911 call made he would not have relied on his hysterical wife to make that call. He'd have made it himself.

      Delete
    4. John was giving himself options. He wasn't a dumb guy.

      Option one involves the illusion of a successful exchange of money for JB. All he needs to do is put her in the car. He doesn't need to hide her or really even take her out of the car. The exchange happens and he recovers her corpse which he then takes to the hospital or police station.

      Option two sees him secreting her body and maintaining the illusion that he was duped. He produced the cash and the kidnappers produced nothing.

      Option three doesn't even require him loading her up in the car. He can claim the body was delivered to his residence while he was out dropping the cash.

      Option four is a probable fail safe. He senses the jig is up. He finds himself with $118,000 in cash, a plane prepped and ready to go, a full day headstart, and a ransom note that describes a rather long and torturous money drop scenario. "Be well rested" and the like.

      That scenario seems very likely to me, personally.

      All in all, not a bad plan.

      Delete
  2. Clearly the purpose of the note is to buy time to deal with the body. Just as clearly, "tomorrow" means the 27th. The "kidnapper" if there really were one (and we know there wasn't) would realize that the note wouldn't be found until the morning of the 26th. So tomorrow is the 27th, which give JR that much time to do something with the body.

    Also leaving the body in the wine cellar makes no sense if the "intruder" was supposed to have killed JB in the house. The intruder would have left her in whatever spot he'd killed her and then would have left the house. So her body must have been hidden so that PR would think she'd been kidnapped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! When she blew his plan by calling 911 he must have felt his number was up for sure. The DA seems to have blown it by allowing himself to be intimidated. With the body in the house and the discovery that the note had been written on a Ramsey family notepad, it should have been open and shut. John should have been sitting in jail from day one instead of being allowed to investigate his own case and hire his own handwriting "experts."

      Delete
    2. An even better question is why would an intruder leave the body at all? It would be far safer for the killer to take JonBenet and dump her somewhere later to ensure that no trace of him is left on the body.

      Delete
    3. another reason "tomorrow" has to mean the 27th...."if we moniter you getting the money early..." (from RN). How could john possibly have picked up the money any earlier than the morning of the 26th, the very morning the note was found? I don't think most banks are open before 8 am, and its not as if he could have withdrawn 118k from an ATM

      Delete
    4. Exactly. "Tomorrow" definitely meant tomorrow. And a real kidnapper would have had no reason to give John and Patsy so much time to think about whether or not to get the authorities involved, not to mention find the body hidden in the basement.

      Delete
    5. who syas he didnt have 118k in a safe in the house? why did he HAVE to go to the bank?

      Delete
    6. No such stash was ever found in a house that was thoroughly searched. Besides, the bank visit would have been part of his alibi if he'd been able to carry out his original plan.

      Delete
    7. I'd like to focus on the RN line about "bringing an adequate size attache to the bank." I have read commentary on this odd phrasing that interprets it as sign of a "feminine slant" to the writing, i.e., PR offering wifely advice. I have a different thought: Could the attache reference (which comes off as odd) be an excuse for John taking the body out in, say, a large duffel bag? If Patsy and Burke went to stay with friends, such a bag could be explained away as the method of transport for the "money," in the event that JR was seen by a neighbor.

      Delete
    8. The Ramsey's garage was attached to the house so John could have placed the body in the trunk of his car without anyone seeing him. No need for a duffel bag or attache.

      Delete
    9. The size of the attache would not have been that big. The amount of the money and the denominations in which it was requested would likely have fit in a regular attache case. In banks, especially when dealing with large amounts of cash there are "straps" of 100 bills and "bricks" of ten straps. So the 20s would not have even made up a whole brick which equals $20,000. The 100s would have been only a single brick. A regular attache could easily have heard two whole bricks with room to spare.

      Delete
    10. Is there any indication that the suitcase that was in the basement was going to be used to transport JB's body out of the house?

      Delete
  3. Off topic, but did Patsy sleep like a rock? Did she and John sleep in the same room that night? Why wasn't she aware of the fact that her husband was roaming the house?

    When I was toiling over the meaning of SBTC, one of the ideas I had was Sex Before The Cruise. I don't really think that's what it stands for, but it would have been a very good reason for John to molest JonBenet since they wouldn't have much time alone during it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sure, if Patsy had awakened and discovered John and JonBenet together, or John hovering over JonBenet's body, everything would have turned out very differently. She might have called 911 -- or she might have been murdered as well. As it happened, she didn't wake up. Or she did wake up, noticed John wasn't beside her, assumed he was in the bathroom and went back to sleep. My wife used to do that all the time, since I, like most men of a "certain age," often get out of bed to urinate.

    They were about to go out of town to visit family, so your point is well taken. It's also possible he decided he had to silence her that night because she was threatening to "discuss" things with her sister.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is interesting to me that in their own book, while each discusses what they recall, Patsy says, she woke up to the shower running, she was confused because it was still dark, then it hit her that John was in the shower and she needed to wake up too and get the family ready for their trip. So according to his own wife John was up and showering even before the alarm went off.

      Delete
  5. I don't think PR harmed JB at all. But I'm still not convinced JR was in it alone. I still don't think BR can be ruled out. Kolar feels it was BR who inflicted the head wound, and right now, I do tend to agree with him, though I certainly don't dismiss your theory. JR did some very odd things, that is for sure. I still believe BR is on the enhanced 911 tape, but even if he is, it does not rule JR out as the killer of JB. Why would PR call 911 when the note specifically said not to? I know she told the 911 operator she didn't read it through, yet she knew how it was signed and she couldn't have read that upside down from five feet away with the note on the floor where JR and PR say it was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recently completed Kolar's book and must admit his focus on Burke puzzles me. Sure the child may have had problems, but there is no evidence associating him with the crime and no reason to assume he was sexually mature enough to have molested his sister. It's also very doubtful he could have inflicted the head blow. If the two of them had fought, there'd be signs of that but there aren't.

      I recently wrote Kolar and asked him why why he paid so little attention to the possibility that John might have killed her. When considering sexual molestation, a grown man seems a far more likely suspect than a 9 year old boy. And this particular 9 year old was hardly overdeveloped for his age.

      Whether Patsy read the entire note or not is very hard to say because clearly the two of them eventually put together a story that to me does not ring true and is in fact inconsistent with Patsy's version, in the A&E documentary. I very much doubt their story about John reading the note on the floor while she called 911. According to her version he was upstairs and she went downstairs to make the call. She could have had the note with her and could have checked the end to see if there was a signature.

      Delete
    2. There was something *wrong* with this family. Evidence of past molestation on the victim? That is very disturbing and warranted a separate investigation into child abuse from the child welfare people. The boy should have been interviewed! If the evidence on JBR is true, why wouldn't we consider that the boy might have been abused too? Of course he would have problems! Poor kid... Molestation, incest, and child abuse does not happen in a vacuum. Every member of the family is affected in some way by that crime and the emotional scars and deceit that goes along with it.
      I never followed this case before. I didn't know that there was an indication of past/healed abuse.
      Excellent blog/insight. Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, and why invite lots of family & friends over to clog the streets with their many cars after the randsom note said not to alert police/anyone to the kidnap crime.
      They didn't care the cops showed up in police card and a circus of famly/friends were there.
      I'd be terrified for police to show up en mass if kidnappers were watching.
      No one asked burke if he played jumping in/out basement windows while playing-

      Delete
  6. Hello,

    The Ransom Note:

    Question: Is it a "fact" or "fiction" that the amount of the "ransom" was the same amount as JR's Christmas bonus ?

    - What kidnapper would ask for a ransom of $118,000 ? Makes NO sense, IMO.

    A kidnapper would ask for $1,000,000 or $500,000 -- something like that, IMO.

    This ransom note never made sense -- especially all the added BS comments about "fat cat" "southern common sense" etc. ... which leads to John's "frame of mind" when he wrote the note.

    So what are your thoughts on WHY John added all that unnecessary bull to the RN ? Of course, he did it to confuse and put the focus elsewhere ...

    Oh, and he sure wanted to get out of Boulder fast when he was making plans immediately to head for Atlanta !

    Obviously, he did not want to "stick around" to find out WHO killed his daughter -- and that's because he KNEW !

    Have a nice day.

    MizzMarple

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I recall, the ransom amount was close to the amount of John's bonus, yes. Why would he have chosen that amount? From the tone of the note, which is very hostile, I would assume John was trying to construct a kidnapper with a grudge, someone who'd worked for him and had access to information of that kind. So the $118,000 could have been intended as a kind of taunt, telling John "Yes, I know some things about you." Same with the other BS you mention.

      It's also a convenient amount for a staged kidnapping in which you might never see your ransom money again. If John had been able to carry out the plan I think he had in mind, then he would have had to say goodbye to the ransom cash, he'd probably have burned it or buried it somewhere. So by selecting the amount of his bonus he'd ensure that he wouldn't have actually lost anything from his considerable savings -- only his bonus, no big deal. If the "kidnapper" had demanded a million instead, then John would have had to destroy a million bucks of his own hard earned money -- NOT so easy to part with.

      As for the call to his pilot, that's an amazing bit of business that's VERY incriminating. He said he had a meeting in Atlanta he had to attend -- but the original plan was to fly to Charleroi that morning. Clearly he was lying.

      Delete
    2. very good point about the ransom amount. a bonus is just "extra" money anyway, not dipping into his own income. And yes, the amount was almost exactly the same, off only by about $117

      Delete
  7. 'As for the call to his pilot, that's an amazing bit of business that's VERY incriminating. He said he had a meeting in Atlanta he had to attend -- but the original plan was to fly to Charleroi that morning. Clearly he was lying.' YES of course he was lying. And NO, stop trying to parse every phrase and inference from a fake ransom note, albeit composed over a few hours with several attempts, during an individual's immersion in abject terror and loss. It's absolutely absurd and vacuous. These incoherent conclusions are preposterous - preposterous because they involve a dead child and her surviving family. I believed in the whole evil paedophile ring for so long then the simple truth hit me.
    Take one point from above - John's call to his pilot. 'VERY' incriminating apparently. How so? If his son had accidentally perpetrated the murder and the advice Patsy's paediatrician had given during their early morning phonecall was to get Burke the hell out of there asap, then naturally JR would have summoned up a charter flight post-haste. And then lied about the motivation. Now, I may be wrong about the Burke angle but it is just one, off the top of my head, reasons why John's request was anything BUT incriminating. I am sure there are more. Hell, they all may be as guilty as sin but the illogical conclusions and inferences that people draw are, well to be honest, irritating. Stop being so lazy and sensationalist! Think deeper for God's sake. You might be right but think it through....there is a dead child and a surviving family. One or all of them deserve far more thorough enquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The enquiries have been unending, one more "thorough" than the next. So when will it end? Where will it end? I think I'm being pretty thorough, and if you have a problem with some specific point I've made then by all means call me on it. You refer to only one specific issue in the above point and I'll be happy to respond. Sure, it's understandable that John might have been fearful for the safety and sanity of Burke and Patsy as well. But that is NOT what he told the officer. He told the officer he had a business meeting to attend that couldn't be postponed. This is an out and out lie. So you're saying his lie was somehow justified because he was only looking out for his son? Sorry, but a lie is a lie and yes it is incriminating.

      For more on Burke see my latest post.

      Delete
    2. completely ridiculous that any business meeting would be more important than the death of his youngest child, whose body he had JUST discovered. Aside from the fact that he said on a Barbara Walters interview that the police had asked to vacate the house and the family "just wanted to go home". No mention of this meeting that was so important even the death of his daughter did not warrant its cancellation or JR being absent. So yes, it is incriminating.

      Delete
  8. Oh and further to the terrible distress John must have been in following Patsy's unplanned 911 call...what IF prior to that she had called her paediatrician, having to wait a few hours until an almost decent time, and he had informed her that she wasn't culpable nor was Burke legally indictable SO she then, momentarily relieved by the assurance, phoned the police, altering the half-baked cover-up at the last minute and introduce legitimate authority onto the scene? May not be true but it is as possible as the John did-it solution and equally as valid ergo neither can be stated as irrefutable fact!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No this is NOT as possible as the scenario I've proposed. If the "half-baked coverup" had been altered or abandoned, there would no longer have been any need for the note. In fact the note would have become a liability.

      Delete
  9. The note does not end with "S.B.T.C." It ends with "S.B.T.C" because there is no period after the big C.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The note writer did not write "If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter. " The note writer wrote "If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier [delivery- scribbled out] pick-up of your daug hter. "
    I believe it is erroneous of you to analyze the content of the note by presenting a cleaned-up version.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. My error. Now please explain how that would alter my analysis. Thank you.

      Delete
  11. Have you ever read A Mother Gone Bad by Dr. Andrew G. Hodges?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was an original member of the early groups discussing the Jonbenet case -- the Joshua 7 forum to be exact, and posted under the name, Scully. I have never wavered from my opinion that it was an inside job and that John Ramsey represented to me the individual that was most responsible for Jonbenets murder, and I think Patsy assisted in the coverup. She wrote the note while John dictated but she did add her own personal touches after running it by John first. I can't even imagine their panic that morning which is one reason Patsy's first attempt at the letter had to be aborted. I think the $118.000 idea came from John and Patsy added all of the other goofy things like "put it in an attache". The letter was amateurish at best and almost comical in it's attempt to sound threatening and to make it appear as if it had come from a dangerous group of terrorists. LOL As far as the DNA is concerned, I think it is pure artifact. Did the detectives visit the factory where the underwear was produced to see how the workers handled the goods? I think the DNA came from an old lady making $7 a hour who handled or assisted in the packaging of the underwear and this is one reason why the DNA will never be identified. I won't go step by step through the rest of the evidence. It was an inside job and because the crime scene wasn't protected, John Ramsey made certain that he contaminated it. I stumbled upon an interview with Linda Arndt yesterday after years of not being involved or reading a single word about this case, and you know what? I believed her every word. She almost described John Ramsey as being a "menacing" presence that day. Go back and have a look at the video on YouTube. Yes, her eyes are a little weird but her story is absolutely compelling and comes from the perspective of the only eyewitness to the Ramsey's behavior that morning besides family and friends.
    behavior before Jonbenet's body was found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And who else was present who knew John Ramsey's character? Why, Fleet White, of course. Now, why would Fleet White point his own finger at his best friend? Hmmmm. Well, because he was there the whole the day and he knows his friend. There are things that Fleet knows about that day that we will never be privy to.

      Delete
    2. Hi Scully. I remember you. Nice to see you posting here.

      Yes, it looks very much like John is our perp. But Patsy's role remains difficult for many to assess. I can't see her taking such a huge risk to cover for John. These two were never Romeo and Juliet, I doubt very much that either would go out of his or her way to protect a spouse that had just killed a beloved child. If Patsy knew what John had done, she'd have leveled him -- and had no problem calling the cops on him for sure.

      What tells me that Patsy has to be an innocent dupe in this whole matter is the 911 phone call, which would NOT have been made if the two of them were in on it together. See my post titled "The Crux" for details.

      Patsy had to have made that call in all innocence, with no knowledge that the ransom note was staging. It had to have been written by John, for John, to give him a reason to NOT call the cops, and dump the body while claiming he was delivering the ransom.

      Contrary to popular opinion, the writing on the note looks nothing like Patsy's hand. The "experts" who decided she wrote it were for the most part working with totally inadequate samples and were in fact incompetent, as I've demonstrated on this blog.

      Delete
    3. 'and Patsy added all of the other goofy things like "put it in an attache".'

      Only that's not what was written on the note - "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attaché to the bank."

      How big would an adequate size attaché be, exactly?

      I have no idea - but I bet it would have been big enough to do more than haul cash.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps the attaché would have to had been just big enough to be able to transport a small body out of the house with the guise that it would be used to deliver the ransom.

      I thought that I read somewhere that there was DNA consistent with the body found inside of a suitcase (attaché) and that someone had reported that the body was not initially observed when the wine cellar was checked earlier in the morning.

      Could the body have already been placed in the suitcase ready to be used as an attaché but the plan had to be aborted when the police asked that the entire house be searched... could the crime scene area have then quickly been staged after the fact? Did anyone accompany John to the basement when the body was found?


      Delete
    5. There was a lot of confusion over the location of the body, because Fleet White looked into the wine cellar early that morning and didn't notice anything unusual. However, he could not find the light switch, so he may have missed the body, especially if it was hidden in a corner, under a blanket, which I suspect it was.

      A Samsonite suitcase was found under the broken basement window, but there was no evidence that it had ever contained JBR's body. I very much doubt that her body could have been squeezed into it in any case, since those suitcases are made of very hard, inflexible material.

      I don't see any reason to relate the "attaché" of the note to anything in the crime scene. Not sure why that word was used, but I don't see any special significance behind it.

      Fleet White accompanied John into the basement, but John opened the door to the wine cellar first. According to White, he cried out before turning on the light, which White found suspicious.

      Delete
    6. I don't know if JBR's body could have fit in the suitcase under the window either, but that is an excellent point about why that line ("make sure to bring an adequate size attaché..")may have been included. it needed to be an adequate size, possibly, to carry the body of a 6 yr old girl...which would, presumably, also be adequate size to carry $118,000 in $20s and $100. no clue what "adequate size" would be for either task, but this is as good an explanation as I have seen for that part of the note. (why on earth would any kidnapper care how john would carry the money for the bank, or even think to include that it in the note?)

      Delete
    7. Sorry, but I can't imagine John carrying a suitcase containing his daughter's body into a bank. In any case there was no need to hide her body in a suitcase because the garage was attached to the house and he could easily have moved it into the trunk of his car without being seen. And for him to carry out his plan it would have been necessary to get Patsy and Burke out of the house as soon as possible.

      Delete
    8. The line about the attache seems obviously intentional, and the purpose of the line was so that John could carry JBR's body out of the house in the suitcase and dispose of it on the way to the bank. That way it wouldn't look suspicious if anyone saw him with a suitcase on his way to get the ransom.

      Delete
    9. I don't think the attache or duffle bag would be carried into the bank with the body. Of course not. But a case or bag would prevent the body from shedding hair inside the trunk of the car or other bodily fluids. I am reminded of the Casey Anthony case. There was evidence of her dead child in the trunk of her car, to include the odor.

      Delete
  13. The purpose of the ransom note (or at least one of the purposes) is to explain JBR’s disappearance. (A disappearance that was intended but ultimately didn’t happen)

    Supposing a plan such as outlined on this blog, where the body would be dumped somewhere outside the home, the “kidnapping” would be reported after the body is taken care of. So the RN explains why the child is missing. She’s been kidnapped.

    Later, the body may be found, and her death can always be blamed on the kidnappers, because kidnappers often kill their victim to prevent identification.

    On the various forums where the JB case is discussed, we often see the theory, put forth by RDIs, that the RN explains the dead body in the basement. But does it explain a body?

    To explain a dead body, as opposed to a disappearance, the note has to be taken at face value (e.g. it’s an IDI case) or it has to be assumed that the reader would take it at face value.

    If the intended readers are the police is it likely they’d take it at face value? Is it likely they’d believe it was the work of an intruder?

    Neither ST or JK take it at face value. IOWs they do not accept the “explanation”. They both think the RN is fake and was written in an attempt to stage the crime scene.

    LS did accept the “explanation”, or at least claimed to. The fundamental difference here is that ST/JK are RDI, where LS is IDI.

    So, for RDI theorists to claim that the RN explains the body is to accept the basic premise of IDI – that it appears a bogeyman came in the house at night and killed JB, or at least that it “should” look that way to those discovering both the body and RN.

    This particular version of RDI holds that RDI people are too smart to fall for the note, but the police are just dumb enough to believe it.

    As tempting as it is to describe BPD as the Keystone Kops, we must give them more credit than this. The RN doesn’t explain the body because it doesn’t fool anyone (except possibly LS). The situation looks for all the world like what every RDI thinks it looks like – One (or more) of the Rs killed JB and wrote a fake RN to cover up the crime. Far from “explaining” the body, it clues us in that it’s a “family affair”. If RDI are smart enough to see this, so too are the police.

    So, imo, the RN isn’t meant to explain a dead body in the house because if it’s not believable to us (RDIs) it’s not believable to the police and therefore fails to explain the body.

    Obviously then the RN is meant to explain why the girl has gone missing. It really only makes sense as an explanation for her disappearance which is a further clue to us that there must have been, at some point, a plan to dispose of the body.

    If one is RDI then there is a basic inconsistency with RDI theory and the notion that the RN explains the body. It amounts to accepting that IDI is plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well thought out. Excellent!

    To any RDI, the ransom note is OBVIOUSLY fake. For the simple reason that a ransom note plus a body in the house makes no sense. However, if you insist that Patsy wrote the note, then you have to ask yourself why she'd write a note that was inevitably going to be seen as obviously fake, for that very same reason.

    "And hence": PDI is self contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, PDI is self-contradictory.

    But I think we can say all versions of RDI which hold that the RN explains JB's death are self-contradictory.

    If the RN serves to explain why she's dead, one may as well accept intruder theory. That one does not (if one is RDI) should strongly suggest that most others will not, including the police.

    IOWs the RN doesn't make sense as an explanation for her death unless IDI makes sense (and the whole kidnapping gone wrong bit) which of course it doesn't.

    It's important that the note only makes sense as an explanation for her disappearance, not her death. This tells us there had to be a plan to dump the body, which strongly suggests PR/JR are not in it together........

    It's the self-contradictory thinking of many RDIs that bugs me. The insistence, in some RDI circles, that there was no plan to dump the body is very obviously wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "It's important that the note only makes sense as an explanation for her disappearance, not her death."

    Excellent point! And since there was no disappearance the note explains nothing. So why bother writing it, why take the huge risk of handing it over to the authorities if it's not only pointless but also highly suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Excellent point! And since there was no disappearance the note explains nothing. So why bother writing it, why take the huge risk of handing it over to the authorities if it's not only pointless but also highly suspicious."

    Precisely.

    The usual answer on the forums would be that it's less suspicious than no note at all, but that's not really true. If they (he/she) were trying to stage an intruder scenario then either no note, or a revenge note, or rambling disconnected "psycho" note would be in order.

    The RN is just that, a Ransom Note. It's not a unibomber manifesto, it's not a revenge note. The crime scene is not staged as a sex predator scene. Everything is hidden in the WC.

    Obviously the plan was to stage a kidnapping and that is only believable if the body is missing.

    Those who insist there was no plan to dump the body are either desperately trying to preserve their own theory - one which depends on the RN "explaining" the death, or they simply have failed to think the matter through completely.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you for your insightful blog. This entry has cleared up a lot of questions I've had over the years about this case. Like many people, I've always been one to believe that John or Patsy killed JonBenet and they both covered up the crime. But with both the Ramseys in on it, it just never quite fit. John being the sole perpetrator and stager makes it all fit. I don't think it would be hard for him to fool Patsy over the years as she always struck me as a woman in great denial about many things (the continued sexual abuse of JonBenet for one) and her CNN interview in 1997 she clearly was full of pills and drugged to the hilt. So I'm sure lots of things got past her. I always had a hard time believing Patsy could be involved in the cover up and not accidentally slip up to police or confide in someone. But her not knowing makes a lot of sense and I could see her trusting her husband completely. Also, a few things in the RN always bugged me. It always struck me as odd that the RN specifically stated for John to bring a very large attache case. So if his intent upon writing the RN was to buy time to move the body, then this instruction would allow for him to carry around a very large attache bag (i think he planned to use the suitcase that was found in the room with JBR) the day after the crime. I think he planned on hiding JBR body in it to dispose of the body. If anyone happened to see him with an unusually large bag or suitcase he could just say it was the money as instructed per the kidnappers. So I think he planned on lining the suitcase wiht plastic, then hide her body in it and take the body to a wooded area to dispose of her body (and maybe the plastic too). Then from there , go to the bank and withdraw the money. Then when he got home the note specifically stated to put the money in brown paper bag..I think this was also so the money didn't potentially have any DNA from the body on it. That's why he instructed himself to change the money from the attache to a brown paper bag so no crime scene transference. And then of course the plan was the kidnappers would never call and then he could call the police and it would appear the kidnappers got spooked or were lying and killed JBR and never made the phone call. I don't think he ever planned on burning the money or anything as there was no point and that would just leave more evidence somewhere. But, yes, it does sound like Patsy foiled his plan by panicking and calling 911 immediately. I can see her personality type doing something like that as most mothers would. Too bad that didn't end up being his undoing. Would have been a little poetic justice for Patsy to unknowingly land her husband in prison. If only...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I think you've got the essentials down pretty well. My only quibble is with your theory that the "attache" case was intended to hold JonBenet's body. I don't see any need for that because the body could easily have been hidden in the car trunk. Also, I think the plan would have been to dump the body AFTER picking up the ransom cash from the bank. That way, if his car had been spotted on the way to dumping the body, or his tire tracks had been identified, he could claim he was there to deliver the ransom -- but the "kidnappers" never showed.

      Delete
    2. Doc, I also love your blog and couldnt agree more with your theory. The above post from anonymous discusses PR being on pills and I always wondered if JR may have drugged PR the night of the crime? I have read posts where people say PR is wearing the same clothes from the night before and if thats true, maybe she went to bed drugged and literally woke up for the only time the next morning? Just a thought

      Delete
  19. If the murder had been pre-meditated then John would have had an opportunity to drug Patsy -- and Burke -- to make sure they both slept soundly, yes. But I'm not sure if it was pre-meditated or not, that's hard to say. Patsy wore the same outfit, yes, but according to her testimony she took her clothes off before going to bed and then just threw on whatever was handy the next morning. I don't see any reason to doubt her. If she'd been up all night doing all the things she's been suspected of doing, her outfit would have been a mess and she would certainly have changed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I know that you will have to speculate, but do you believe that after PR and BR went to bed, JR got JBR out of her bed to presumably molest her? The reason I ask is because if this is what happened, then didnt JR take a HUGE risk that neither BR or PR would wake up and just catch him in the middle of the unspeakable act? If PR at any point rolls over in bed to see JR not there, or if BR had heard any noise from downstiars I would think someone would have called out for him. I 100% agree with your theory and scenario, but just curious where you think the crime actually took place and if JR had no choice but to "silence" JBR and at that point he would have had to deal with PR or BR waking up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the murder had been premeditated, then John could have arranged to drug Patsy and Burke to make sure they slept soundly. If not, then yes, he would have been taking a huge risk. Of course, many middle aged men often have to get up in the middle of the night to urinate, so if Patsy woke up and noticed he wasn't lying next to her, she'd probably have just rolled over and gone back to sleep. If on the other hand, she got up and went looking for him, then we'd have had two murders on our hands.

      The house was very big, with many rooms, so it's probable that he took JonBenet to a remote room where he could "do his thing" without being overheard.

      Delete
  21. After reading this blog now for several months, I am a firm believer that John Ramsey molested then killed his daughter. But I am still struggling over one thing. If the ransom note's purpose was to allow him time to dispose of the body (and given the amount of time put into that note I would agree with that), then why wouldn't he have prevented Patsy from calling 911? Certainly he would have thought about the possibility of her making that call and would have thought about a way to prevent it. I realize we don't know for sure what happened between the two of them that morning, but I have a hard time accepting that he would have just caved in and let her make that call, destroying his well thought out plan and putting him at risk of being a suspect. If he HAD been able to get rid of the body, the case would have taken a completely different direction. I believe he is a very intelligent, controlling man whose only concern that morning was self-preservation. It just doesn't add up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For all we know he DID try to prevent her. After all, what we think we know comes from them, and they are clearly not trustworthy informants. We have no idea what actually went on between them that morning. But realistically there was no way John could have monitored Patsy's every move all morning. If she wanted to make that call she'd have made it. And so she did.

      Delete
  22. I suppose she could have made the call when John said he went to check on Burke. He might have thought she would at least hold off until they had a moment to talk about the note and what they were going to do, but she probably panicked and just raced to the phone when he was upstairs checking on Burke. I can imagine how frightened and horrified she must have been. And John must have been counting on more time before she reached for the phone.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Doc, im gradually coming round to your theory. Can you help me out here though. If patsy hadn't called the police, and John needed to dispose of the body, what if the police had no leads. No phone call would have come from the kidnappers, therefor the police could have searched his trunk, fibres or something probably would have been found.Would John have taken this risk? and what would be made of a RN with no call.
    Also with the RN, i see your similarities now with the handwriting concerning John, and several interviews he has spoken the odd word from the RN here and there. I havn't heard patsy slip up. And yes i admit i was looking for it from both. But also i read that the "and hence" phrase was known to be written by Patsy so i'm a bit stumped now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good questions. They've been covered here (and in the book) but you might easily have passed over the relevant portions.

      As far as the phone call is concerned, John could have called home from a phone booth, after collecting the ransom from his bank. Since no one would have been home (it would have been necessary to convince Patsy to take Burke to stay with friends, "for their own safety"), the call would have been picked up by his answering machine, so a record of that call would have been registered with the phone company.

      JonBenet's body was wrapped in a blanket, so if John placed her in the trunk of his car no fibers from her clothing or blood or any other evidence from her body could have been transferred. Of course there would have been fibers from the blanket, which means he'd have had to get rid of it. Nothing suspicious about some blanket fibers in your trunk, right?

      The "and hence" was from their annual Christmas message. It's been assumed that this was written by Patsy but in fact it was written by the two of them jointly. So it could just as well have originated with John.

      Delete
  24. Thanks for clearing that up DocG

    ReplyDelete
  25. Your theory makes sense-because it is the easiest theory of this case there is! What you fail to consider Sir are the facts that Patsy could NEVER be ruled out in writing the ransom note??? FACT--and this was true on BOTH sides of this case until the day she died.
    Another thing about your theory-you say that if they were both in on it, they wouldn't call 911. And, Patsy did this with no knowledge?? Do you remember what time this 911 call was made? At the last possible second that the Ranseys could possibly have made it? Just another ironic fact of this case. Remember, they were flying out at 7am. So, this makes perfect sense that this "kidnapping" 911 call was made. Unfortunately, for the Ramseys, the cops were coming (Arndt) to listen in on the phone call that John intended on being the next day. The friends coming over and John "finding" JonBenet were all part of "undoing" thus coverup. I believe the Ramseys figured they were going to get caught. They had those friends and Pastor come to help high priced lawyers get them out of it AFTER the fact. The Garrote and the ligatures were obviously phony-(the arm ligatures were 15" apart) THE ONLY THING that needs to be figured out is how "both" of these injuries-occurred and by whom? I believe it was either Patsy or Burke who did this accidentally. They woke up the "problem solving" for a living CEO John Ramsey, and he did the best he could thinking they would get caught. When they didn 't--he literally by fact--tried to catch the next plane out of town. The coverup and reasonable doubt and trying to flee sound a lot like a thing that DOMINATED the news at the time-- the OJ Simpson murders. Remember, placing a blanket over the victim (Nicole) was a HUGE part of the defense strategy. John Ramsey knew what he was doing. ALL OF THE RAMSEYS know what happened to JonBenet. The question is: will one if them fold? If not, noone will ever be convicted. And, there STILL is not even a hint of an "intruder" that callously murdered and tortured and molested a little girl. Maybe his life of crime ended after this crime??

    ReplyDelete
  26. The 911 call need not have been made at that time. The threats in the note gave them the perfect excuse NOT to call the police. And they could easily have cancelled their trip, claiming someone was ill. If they changed their minds because they didn't want to dump the body after all, they would not have reported a kidnapping and would have destroyed the note, since the ONLY possible purpose of the note was to stage a kidnapping.

    John went AWOL for over an hour when Arndt was at the house and he could have done some staging at that time, including tying her hands and adding the duct tape.

    The 911 call and John finding JonBenet could not possibly have been part of some coverup. What exactly was being covered up? The note was written to stage a kidnapping, NOT an assault by an intruder who for some odd reason then chose to cover the body with a blanket and store it in that basement room.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You seem to know a lot about this case. I do too. And, I start this by saying that I do not believe there was an intruder in that house doing all these ridiculous things-so I believe it was someone in the house. Let me go over some weird FACTS from that morning with you. The Ramseys were flying out at 7am to re-unite with John's family for a 2nd Christmas and it was a big deal. So, if they did what you suggested and just "cancelled the trip" what would they do the next day?? Say that JonBenet got kidnapped so we will have to cancel again? How would this look to the family or anyone in law enforcement afterwards? They were LOCKED into going on this trip.

    You said John went AWOL...and on the Larry King interview from 2007, John (who does so much stuttering and stammering, and squirming when describing what happened that morning) inadvertently says that he found the body at 11:00am?? Linda Arndt said it was found at 1:00pm?? John obviously was doing something during that hour he was reportedly missing. I believe helping more with the suitcase staging and definitely the Ligatures and duct tape as you suggest. But I don't believe that like your theory suggests that Patsy was NOT in on it with him? Remember Officer French said that both Parents acted weirdly, especially Patsy who was peering at him through open fingers at 6am? Her fingerprints were found on the pen in the container that she normally kept pens found away from her pad that the ransom note was written on, her handwriting NEVER could be ruled out? Her and Burke's fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl. I think the pineapple is the very key to the case. How would anyone not in the family have gave JonBenet some pineapple? Everyone who analyzed the ransom note thought Patsy was involved. If John somehow wrote that ransom note (maybe copying Patsy's handwriting from her notepad perhaps could get me there??) then this case would be easy to figure out. But, with this ransom note, and the seemingly DOUBLE MURDERING of JonBenet it is the one thing that makes this case so hard to figure out. I would like to believe your theory, but the FACTS really don't point to this??

    This ransom note is what makes this case so hard to figure out? I believe (the following is my conjecture and not facts) this ransom note was a way to mislead obviously. It was done in such a way that the Ramseys probably thought they would be caught. Bad initial police work and a skeleton crew working over the Christmas holiday got John Ramsey and patsy out of the noose. He was able to buy time to TRY to stage things (I also believe the garroting was a staged act--after the deadly skull fracture that would've killed JonBenet) After they were free-- They got separate lawyers so if they did get caught, they could create a chicken or egg theory on who killed JonBenet, or they could have just rolled on the other. I believe that either Patsy OR Burke could have killed her accidentally, and John who worked coincidentally at problem solving, did his best to cover it up. He seems to have done a pretty good job, because UNBELIEVABLY through Grand Jury indictments, sure indication of fleeing and uncooperation, not giving interviews unless they met their lawyers demands. etc.this case is still not solved!! I don't care who's theory is right or wrong. I want justice for this innocent little girl. It's ridiculous, and it's about time this case gets re-opened!!! I appreciate all your efforts to do just that!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Steev. But it looks to me like you're making some unwarranted assumptions.

      "So, if they did what you suggested and just "cancelled the trip" what would they do the next day??"

      The answer seems obvious. If they cancel due to sickness the assumption is that the sick person will be sick for several days, at least. Why assume otherwise?

      "How would this look to the family or anyone in law enforcement afterwards? They were LOCKED into going on this trip."

      I don't know how many different ways I can explain what to me seems obvious. The warnings in the note gave them the perfect excuse to delay their trip and delay calling the police. If the police later asked them why they didn't call 911 right away, they would have pointed to the warnings in the note. Same with postponing their trip. They were by no means locked into taking that trip. The kidnapping of their daughter and the need to pay the ransom would certainly have taken precedence.

      "Remember Officer French said that both Parents acted weirdly, especially Patsy who was peering at him through open fingers at 6am? Her fingerprints were found on the pen in the container that she normally kept pens found away from her pad that the ransom note was written on, her handwriting NEVER could be ruled out? Her and Burke's fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl."

      Here you are making a whole string of assumptions. Of course you are not alone. Assumptions of this sort are part of the folklore of the case, but that's all they are: assumptions. The observation that Patsy was looking at the officer through open fingers could mean all sorts of things -- or nothing. It got picked up by Steve Thomas and others who were desperate to find anything at all that might make Patsy look guilty. In itself it means nothing, it's just not evidence. If her fingerprints were on the pen, why would that be a sign of guilt? It was a pen she often used routinely in the house so how is that evidence? And yes, she couldn't be ruled out, but if you look at John's exemplars on the displays I've presented here you'll see that John should not have been ruled out either. And as I've already demonstrated, Patsy's and Burke's prints on that bowl could have got there innocently, since they'd been living in the house and we could expect to find their prints on all sorts of household items, why not?

      "I would like to believe your theory, but the FACTS really don't point to this??"

      What facts? All I'm getting from you are opinions and assumptions, not facts.

      Delete
  28. Sir, With all due respect...."You say how many times can you say something that is obvious-that they could have cancelled the trip"....but I may have misjudged how much you know about this case, which frankly, when you make statements like that it puzzles me further?? How could John Ramsey tell his Son or Daughter that they were cancelling the trip? They did not lose a toy? There youngest daughter was dead (and by your theory, the Father alone knew it, by my theory, they BOTH knew it.)Then your excuse was that someone got ill? Well, what were they going to say to the family after they bought this time? That JonBenet was kidnapped? You can't just say things (like your theory that John wrote the note-which doesn't go by any FACT of this case. As a matter of FACT, the FACTS point to John NOT writing the note.) that conveniently fit for you. The FACTS are the Ramseys were leaving at 7am for a big Christmas rendezvous with their family. It really would have looked suspicious had they cancelled the trip. The youngest daughter of the family was DEAD--How would they explain this away? These are facts---not opinion. They couldn't cancel that trip-it would have made them look more suspicious.


    "Remember Officer French said that both Parents acted weirdly, especially Patsy who was peering at him through open fingers at 6am? Her fingerprints were found on the pen in the container that she normally kept pens found away from her pad that the ransom note was written on, her handwriting NEVER could be ruled out? Her and Burke's fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl."

    You tell me one assumption that is made in this statement? It doesn't matter if Patsy was looking through her fingers. THE FACTS are that Officer French reported that the parents were acting strangely (It was him who said about the fingers but that is irrelevant) what is FACT is that the first officer on the scene did not believe the Ramseys and thought they were acting strangely. That is not my assumption or opinion. Same as the pen and the Pineapple Bowl. You conveniently say that these were part of the house they lived in...so where were the other fingerprints?? Where were John's (he lived there) An intruder? (I don't entertain that nonsense) but, the FACTS are that the main person they think wrote the note (Patsy) it was her pad, and her pen, and her fingerprints were found on both. And, another thing, since you want facts---the pineapple was freshly cut from a pineapple. A bowl of freshly cut pineapple was found on the kitchen countertop at 6am? This is a significant clue as the FACTS show that JonBenet had an undigested pineapple in her intestine by the Coroner. Where did it come from? I suppose John coaxed her out of the bed? Cut up a fresh pineapple. Put it in a bowl and somehow wiped all of HIS fingerprints away so that only Patsy and Burke's fingerprints were on it? Just because they lived there doesn't throw out the FACT that Patsy's and Burke's were the only fingerprints found on the Pineapple Bowl. And, same with the pen. Patsy's were found. But according to your theory, John somehow kept his hands off?

    PLEASE write to me by way of ANY FACTS of this case that points to your theory that John wrote this note. I promise you, if you do, this case would be solved in 10 minutes. Your THEORY, does not fit the FACTS of this case. I would do anything to prove that he did write this note, but the FACTS actually point away from him, and toward Patsy. You can't go by some FACTS and not by others. Please point to any fact that John could have wrote this note, did all of the things you say, with no one waking up, and all of the FACTS pointing away from John writing the ransom note? There just are not any. You can say the handwriting experts got it wrong, but those are assumptions and not facts!! I eagerly await your response, because I have read your theory, and quite frankly, it does not fit by FACTS.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ps...Let's go by your theory...If JonBenet was molested and there are John, Burke, and Patsy--than who is the obvious culprit?

    Let's apply that same logic to the PINEAPPLE. JonBenet ate freshly cut pineapple from a real pineapple at some point in the night...so out of John, Patsy, and Burke...who would be the OBVIOUS person that would be cutting a fresh pineapple and putting it in a bowl for the little girl to eat? I think any person in their right mind would say that Patsy had to be doing this? And, by FACT her fingerprints appear on the bowl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The FACTS are the Ramseys were leaving at 7am for a big Christmas rendezvous with their family. It really would have looked suspicious had they cancelled the trip. The youngest daughter of the family was DEAD--How would they explain this away? These are facts---not opinion. They couldn't cancel that trip-it would have made them look more suspicious."

      Yes, it is a fact that a trip had been planned. But everything else you've written is based on assumptions, NOT facts. A trip can always be cancelled. And since most trips are cancelled due to illness, that would have been an adequate excuse, at least at first. Assuming Patsy and John were in it together, then their plan, as implied in the note, would have been to first dump the body, while claiming to be delivering the ransom, and THEN call the police. After the police had been called, they could have explained to both the family and the police that they had felt forced to lie about their reasons for cancelling the trip, because they were afraid JonBenet would be killed (and beheaded!) if they'd contacted the police. Would the police have been suspicious? Certainly. But if all had gone according to the plan outlined in the note, there would have been no evidence implicating them.

      As far as the facts are concerned, yes it is a fact that JonBenet was dead when the 911 call was made, but NOT a fact that both John AND Patsy knew she was dead at the time. That's an assumption, NOT a fact. And no, it is not a fact that if both were involved they would have cancelled their trip -- it's a logical inference. It's also simple common sense. The thinking behind it can be found in many places on this blog and also in my book, so I'm not going over all that again here.

      (continued on my next comment)

      Delete
    2. You say that the facts point to John not writing the note. That isn't true. You are confusing an opinion with a fact. I have challenged that opinion and again I'm not going to go into all that again, since it's been covered very thoroughly in both the blog and the book. There is NO fact that rules John out as the note writer. What IS a fact is that Patsy is the one who called the police, NOT John. And it is a fact that the body of the "kidnap" victim was in the house at the time that call was made. Based on these facts, it is not difficult to conclude, based on both simple logic and common sense, that 1. the Ramseys could not have been in it together and 2. the one who made the call (Patsy) most likely made it in all innocence, sincerely believing her daughter had been kidnapped. Again I'll direct you to the blog and/or the book for very thorough discussions of that call and the logic behind it. See especially the first two posts and/or the Introduction to the book.

      While you do seem to have a good knowledge of the evidence in this case, your understanding is clouded by a tendency to confuse facts, logical inferences, opinions and assumptions with one another.

      As for the parents acting weirdly, yes it does seem to be a fact that something of this sort was reported by at least one policeman. The problem comes when assessing the meaning of that observation. Same with Patsy looking at a policeman through splayed fingers. While some might see such behavior as suspicious, others might well dismiss it as irrelevant. You can't convict someone because something they did might have looked suspicious, sorry.

      As for the prints on the pineapple bowl, as I've already stated, that "evidence" means little because both Patsy and Burke were living the same house where the bowl was found so their prints could easily have gotten onto it prior to the night of the attack. So yes, these prints are apparently a fact, but that doesn't make them relevant as far as the case is concerned. And if you knew anything about fingerprint evidence you would know that fingerprints are very often not found, even on an item known to have been handled. It does seem to be a fact that JonBenet ate out of that bowl, yet where are HER prints? If John's prints aren't on it, that most certainly does NOT tell us he didn't handle it, only that none of his prints were transferred, as is very often the case. There is a huge difference between a fact and what may be inferred from that fact and again you continually confuse the two. Same with the fact that the note was written on Patsy's pad and with her pen. Yes that is a fact, but NO, that does NOT implicate her -- because anyone in the house at that time could have used those items.

      "PLEASE write to me by way of ANY FACTS of this case that points to your theory that John wrote this note."

      See the first two posts on this blog, and/or the introduction to my book.

      "You can say the handwriting experts got it wrong, but those are assumptions and not facts!!"

      Here you are confusing a logical inference with an assumption. Based on the fact that Patsy is the one who called 911, not John, coupled with some other key facts, as presented in the blog and book, it is possible to logically infer that the only person who could have written that note was John. That is NOT an assumption, but a logical inference, based on certain irrefutable facts.

      And once again, returning to the facts associated with the pineapple evidence, the ONLY clear logical inference to be drawn is that both parents could not have been involved. Because if they were, they would have had no reason to lie about feeding JonBenet pineapple. Pineapple is NOT poison, there is nothing intrinsically suspicious about feeding your daughter some pineapple before sending her to bed.

      Delete
  30. I will break this down as you do:
    You say that the facts point to John not writing the note. That isn't true. You are confusing an opinion with a fact. I have challenged that opinion and again I'm not going to go into all that again, since it's been covered very thoroughly in both the blog and the book. There is NO fact that rules John out as the note writer.

    The FBI concluded that 24 of the 26 letters in the alphabet could've been written by Patsy, AGAIN she was NEVER CLEARED to this day!! How can you dare say that John is the writer of this note when if you believe the killer was in the house, the obvious person of the 3 people in the house (which we both agree had to be one of them) is Patsy?

    What IS a fact is that Patsy is the one who called the police, NOT John. And it is a fact that the body of the "kidnap" victim was in the house at the time that call was made. Based on these facts, it is not difficult to conclude, based on both simple logic and common sense, that 1. the Ramseys could not have been in it together and 2. the one who made the call (Patsy) most likely made it in all innocence, sincerely believing her daughter had been kidnapped. Again I'll direct you to the blog and/or the book for very thorough discussions of that call and the logic behind it. See especially the first two posts and/or the Introduction to the book.

    What you are ASSUMING here I think because it doesn't make sense is that Patsy couldn't have made this phone call knowing her child was dead and she thought it was a kidnapping?? WELL WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS RANSOM NOTE WAS FOR--TO DECEIVE!! Especially if you think like I do, that Patsy wrote it.

    Below is something from your blog that obviously ignores the facts of this case altogether...



    December 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    For all we know he DID try to prevent her. After all, what we think we know comes from them, and they are clearly not trustworthy informants. We have no idea what actually went on between them that morning. But realistically there was no way John could have monitored Patsy's every move all morning. If she wanted to make that call she'd have made it. And so she did.

    John was taking a shower at the time this note was found. Obviously, he couldn't be monitoring Patsy if he was taking a shower just out of bed. So, everything written above is a farce.
    Next Patsy "claims" she came down and read up until the part that JonBenet was kidnapped---then ran upstairs. The MOTHER of this child that she adored---DIDN'T EVEN GO INTO HER ROOM!!!! What Mother would not tear the room apart looking for her??? And mind you,this is BEFORE the cops were called. Patsy Ramsey knew her daughter was dead. They didn't even wake up Burke? Why would they not ask the girl's Brother if he saw his Sister or heard anything?? If Patsy was not in on it?? Why would they do these things?
    And EVERY cop NOT "at least one" said the Parents were acting suspiciously. the FBI before it turned to a murder scene, instructed the Boulder police to look at the Parents. All signs pointed to the Parents. Another ironic thing--The Ransom note tells the Ramseys not to even inform a stray dog or she dies, so Patsy calls the cops, two sets of couples, the clergymen...all these people wouldn't disrupt a crime scene that the Ramsey(s) plural knew about would they? That high priced lawyers could get them out of? Throwing a blanket with every house members DNA and a Colorodo Avalanche sweatshirt wouldn't muddy the waters a bit?

    (continued on my next post)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Now...let's just say your theory about John writing the note and torturing and murdering and molesting JonBenet is correct. which it is probably as impossible as an intruder doing this, but for arguments sake, let's say it is true.

    Fact:The Ramseys just got back from a Christmas party from the White's after dropping off gifts at some other friends house. JonBenet was asleep in the car.

    Fact: JonBenet was taken from the car-straight to her bed.

    Fact: John stayed up a little longer to help Burke with a toy he got for Christmas before putting him to bed and taking a melatonin (sleep aid) and going to bed with Patsy.

    So now, John Ramsey has to wake up his daughter that may or may not have wet the bed (the sheets were changed since the last time the housekeeper was there) get her out of bed, go down to the kitchen, put a pair of gloves on as he cut up a fresh pineapple and somehow kept his fingerprints off the very bowl that the pineapple was in, gave JonBenet just a single piece of this pineapple before bringing her down the stairs, A neighbor heard a scream, so nobody in the house did. Then he molested, tortured, murdered, his daughter. Then wrapped her up in a blanket, put her in a dark room in the house, went back upstairs, took 45 minutes (FBI experts reported it had to take this much time to write this note) to write a ransom note in his wife's handwriting, on his wife's pad, a practice note, use pen, again getting no fingerprints on it, returning the pen to the cup that Patsy put pens in that was away from the ransom note, then after all this was done INCREDIBLY with no one in the house hearing anything, or waking up, John cleans up everything involved with the molestation, the cracked skull and the garroting, cleans himself up and then John slips back into bed with the same clothes he went to bed in, and then hopes that when this jig is up, that Patsy is just going to go along with what he says?

    This is almost as preposterous as an intruder doing it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steev, your comments are filled with inaccuracies, assumptions, opinions and preconceptions, based on clear bias directed against Patsy. You are all over the place and I don't have time to respond meaningfully to all the issues you've raised -- literally all of which are already covered in the blog. If you would like to respond to specific points I make in the blog, commenting under the appropriate post, that would make things easier for me and I promise to respond in each case.

      Meanwhile I suggest you do some reading on the topic of "confirmation bias." Look it up on Google.

      Delete
  32. As I thought. Just like a JFK conspiracy theorist. Twist things to fit your impossible theory. But, unlike what you said-- I have no preconceived notions toward Patsy-I just want someone to be charged! I think that much is owed to this little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ps...none of those things I mentioned are not facts--except for when I tried to fit your impossible theory to it. I repeat I have no bias. But as you say--"Just the facts Maam." Your theory doesnt go by facts--not of this case anyway !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The events you characterize at the beginning of your post as facts are not necessarily facts. They are what the Ramseys reported.

      "So now, John Ramsey has to wake up his daughter that may or may not have wet the bed (the sheets were changed since the last time the housekeeper was there) get her out of bed, go down to the kitchen, put a pair of gloves on as he cut up a fresh pineapple and somehow kept his fingerprints off the very bowl that the pineapple was in, gave JonBenet just a single piece of this pineapple before bringing her down the stairs,"

      Well, someone woke her, no? Unless she wasn't asleep as reported. And someone apparently fed her pineapple. So I'm sorry but I don't understand the sarcasm. No need for John to put on gloves. He, like Patsy and Burke, lived in that house so it's expected that his prints might be found on the various items therein. As I mentioned before, just because someone handled some item does not mean his prints will be found on it. So the absence of John's prints on the bowl do not mean he didn't handle it.

      The neighbor who claimed to have heard a scream was later unsure of what she'd heard or when, and was reported in PMPT to have been reluctant to testify to the Grand Jury on what she'd heard.

      I've never claimed John tortured his daughter and see no reason why he'd have wanted to do that, though any theory of what happened during the assault is pure conjecture in any case.

      There is no evidence that John wrote the note in his wife's handwriting. As I've demonstrated on this blog, her handwriting looks nothing like that on the note. The comparisons presented by both myself and Fausto Brugnatelli reveal a much closer similarity between the note and John's exemplars. The consensus among the law enforcement experts was that it was "unlikely" she wrote it, though they could not rule her out.

      I'm not sure whether or not John's prints were on the pen, but that doesn't really matter, as it was an item from his home that he might well have used. And as I mentioned above, the absence of prints does NOT imply contact with any suspects fingers, since prints are often not found even after an item has been handled. According to PMPT, no prints were found on the note, though obviously it had been handled by both Patsy and John.

      If Patsy had been fast asleep as she claimed, then it's not surprising that she didn't wake up. It looks to me like John clubbed JonBenet initially, knocking her out, and then sexually assaulted and strangled her. If he was careful he could have done this very quietly.

      There is no evidence that John climbed back into bed with his clothes on, or that he was in bed at all that night. According to Patsy, he was already in the shower when she awoke. I see nothing preposterous in any of the above.




      Delete
  34. The only spot where I can't bridge the gap to your theory is that you don't have Patsy in your theory at all. I just can't see it?? I believe she could have done NOTHING to JonBenet-- but she knew what was going on when she called 9-11. I'm almost sure of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've put your finger on one of the most problematic aspects of the case: Patsy's role. I can't blame you if you find it difficult to believe she wasn't involved. On the other hand, it's far more difficult to believe the 911 call would have been made when it was if both Patsy and John were conspiring to stage a kidnapping. Rather than scratch our heads helplessly for years, as the Boulder authorities seem to be doing, we can and in fact must come to some decision on this matter. In other words, something has to give.

      Forgive me, but I will once again revert to the wise dictum of Sherlock Holmes: once we have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

      To me it's impossible that John and Patsy would agree to call in the police as part of a plan to stage a kidnapping, knowing full well that the body of their victim is in the house, waiting to be discovered. Once that body is found, then it becomes clear that there had been no kidnapping, so what would have been the point of all that staging? It's also impossible to believe that Patsy would write a note as part of a plan that involved handing the note over to the police, since that note would have been evidence against her. If in fact she wrote it, and if in fact the evidence that she wrote it is as obvious as generally assumed, then all the note would have accomplished would have been to implicate her in the murder of her daughter. What sort of coverup would THAT have been?

      The only alternative is to conclude that Patsy made the call in complete ignorance of the true meaning of the note, sincerely believing her daughter had been kidnapped. While it's undoubtedly true that she lied about certain details of the case, if we look carefully we see that each lie supports her husband's version of what happened. Thus we are forced to the conclusion, improbable as it might seem, that she was an innocent dupe, manipulated by her sociopath husband into going along with what he (and his lawyers) felt it necessary for her to say. The fact that John was ruled out by the handwriting "experts," a finding challenged by NO ONE in the investigation or even in the media, would have made it easy for him to convince her that only an intruder could have written that note.

      While certain aspects of the scenario I've proposed might seem far fetched to you, I see no alternative, because any scenario that involves John and Patsy conspiring in a coverup breaks down at some point and becomes impossible to accept.

      Delete
  35. I don't understand how you can't see that they could write the ransom note together? It is the "War and Peace" of ransom notes. Not like real crime .

    If the Police would have sealed off tge house, got everyone out. This case may be different. Let's tru to come to an agreement. I personally don't believe that Patsy and John BOTH together knew and tried to stage this and did throughout the night. The only thing they got wrong were pineapple bowl and rificulous ransome note. Lets start there so I at lesst got your main culprit in the scenario. Lets be honest and think of all the reasons (including time) that make it almost impossible for one man to do ?? Work with me ? Besr in mind-I believe the ransone note was meant to deceive. Work w me please-- both of us by facts pkease. Open minds.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Im sorry... I don 't believe they couldn't be in on it together throughout the night ... That last post may have been confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I meant to say that ... I do believe they were in on it together. Lets come to an agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've BEEN working with you, Steev. And I explained my position very thoroughly. Unless you have something new to add, I see no point in continuing.

      Delete
  38. Tell me how John could have done all these things with no one waking up? No one hearing it? And his wife not knowing it--then suddenly going along with this monster that just killed "The most important thing in her life"? Tell me how he could have done this and then SOMEHOW have all the signs pointing to his wife? If any detective, cop, isleuth had that John wrote this note. Case is solved. But, the facts just do not go your way sir. So, you are like so many JFK conspiracy theorist and the like that just are going to stick with your theory though it does not go by any fact of this case. Your ridiculous double space theory, where John would've (in addition to getting his girl out of bed, feeding her pineapple, molesting her, hitting her over the head, garroting her, writing a 45 minute ransom note, hiding her, cleaning up the mess, try to create a staged event, hoping all along no one in the family has seen or woken up, getting back into bed and hoping his wife will go along with the molestation, torture, and murder of his daughter) he now in between all those things, had to type up a phony ransom note to match up the double spacing?? No! You are wrong!!

    I will be waiting eagerly for your book on the plane that disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On any given night, millions of people sleep soundly all through the night. While studies have shown that many do in fact wake up periodically at various times, in the great majority of cases they fall back to sleep again almost immediately -- and have no recollection the next morning of having awakened at all. On any given night, millions of wives wake up to notice that their husbands are not lying next to them in bed. And in most cases they simply assume their husband has gone to the bathroom. They roll over and go back to sleep -- and, once again, in most cases they forget all about it.

      But in your mind, Patsy's sleeping soundly through the night is so unlikely as to be literally unbelievable. On the other hand, what you DO expect us to believe is that this same woman would conspire with the man who had been sexually molesting her daughter and then brutally raped and murdered her, to stage both a kidnapping and a pedophile assault, to the point that she would penetrate her own daughter's vagina with a paintbrush handle and then proceed to construct a "garotte" to strangle her with, topping this descent into madness by writing the "War and Peace of ransom notes," in her own hand, as part of a coverup that included hiding the body of the victim in the basement for some reason, redressing her in panties several sizes too large for some reason, and then calling the police first thing in the morning so they could read and appreciate her masterpiece of a note, discover the body of her daughter hidden away in the basement, thus negating the whole point of the note, and, finally, trace the handwriting of the note to her, since she conveniently never bothered to disguise her handwriting.

      So. All of the above (or some variation of same) seems likely to you. But the possibility that someone might sleep soundly through the night seems so unlikely as to be utterly preposterous.

      Delete
    2. The bottom line on all these "Ramseys did it together" scenarios is that there is no way such a theory would ever stand up in court -- or even get to court, since any judge with half a brain would toss such a case out of court before it even went to trial. All the defense would have to do would be to call attention to the "fact" that "the Ramseys" called 911 first thing in the morning, while the body was lying in the basement. If they had conspired to write a phoney "ransom note" to stage a phoney kidnapping, they would very clearly have NOT called the police at that time. And if the prosecution tried to argue that they had no choice, because they were scheduled to go on a trip to visit family that very same morning, the judge would simply laugh in the prosecutor's face. The case would be dismissed there and then. Which is one very good reason Hunter refused to proceed with an indictment, even after the Grand Jury ruling we've recently learned about. On the basis of your kind of thinking there would be no possibility of putting together a viable case and anyone who tried would be laughed out of court.

      Delete
  39. Did you ever stop to think for a minute that Patsy accidentally killed her daughter?? Then woke up her husband to try and figure it out? That maybe the garotting, the DIGITAL penetration, and the underwear were not part of the staging??

    No. I don't believe that any part of your theory could be correct. Especially since 24 of the 26 letters in the alphabet in the ransom note could have been attributed to Patsy. Your theory does not fit any facts. Patsy not waking up in the night, and then on a random whim deciding to lie and stick by her Husband while all these fingers were pointed directly at her is as inconceivable as an intruder doing it.

    Yes...The D.A. could never prove which one did it (Hunter thought Patsy was involved himself) but, with the skeleton Christmas Police crew...this case got out of hand immediately. If the truth be told....with John "conveniently" finding this body, then throwing a blanket over it, along with the friends that the RAMSEYS CALLED over to destroy this crime scene...the case was over before it started. That is the sad truth.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Did you ever stop to think for a minute that Patsy accidentally killed her daughter?? Then woke up her husband to try and figure it out? That maybe the garotting, the DIGITAL penetration, and the underwear were not part of the staging??"

    If Patsy accidentally killed her daughter, then it could have been reported as what it was: an accident. You don't cover up an accident by making it look like a crime, it works the other way 'round, Steev. And if the garotting and digital penetration were not part of the staging, then how do they fit with the accident scenario? You're saying she was sexually assaulted and strangled by accident?

    As it happens I do NOT consider the digital penetration and the garotting as part of the staging, but as part of the assault. Nor do I consider it likely that either her mother or her 9 year old brother sexually assaulted and strangled JonBenet. This is the sort of thing we see all too often done by sexually mature males, not women and not children.

    So the "accidental death" scenario beloved by so many just won't fly. The poor girl was brutally assaulted sexually and then brutally murdered. No accident, clearly, but an outright assault by someone determined to kill her. And you expect me to believe that after discovering what her husband had done to her daughter, the wife would then agree to conspire with him to cover it up -- to the point of even writing a phoney ransom note on his behalf? Why?

    It's preposterous that she could have slept through the night, but not preposterous that she would have gone along with what her husband had done and gone to such great lengths to help him get away with it? Please . . .

    ReplyDelete
  41. Do you even know what this "sexual assault" was that you make reference too???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Dr. Cyril Wecht's interpretation of the coroner's report, JonBenet's vagina had been penetrated both prior to and during the assault that caused her death, most likely by the insertion of a finger. That sounds like sexual assault to me. It was sufficient to draw blood.

      Delete
    2. You are listening to a guy who NEVER met a conspiracy that he didn't like? Cyril Wecht?!! Why not listen to the coroner-- who by the way--- was there!!!

      I honestly think you need to go over the facts and what the people who were there reported. You are way off.

      Saying that, I do appreciate this blog and all you do to try and re-open this case. It eats at me that no justice was done for this little girl. Sad!

      Delete
    3. According to every version of the case I've ever seen, she was sexually assaulted on the night of the murder. This is not only Wecht's interpretation of what happened, it is the generally agreed upon interpretation, based on very clear evidence of digital penetration of the vagina, drawing blood. You are in denial, Steev.

      Delete
    4. I know she was digitally penetrated. But, that is NOT what you said above! You said she was penetrated by the paintbrush used for the garotte.

      Delete
    5. No, I never said she was penetrated with a paintbrush. You should read more carefully. I was describing one common theory of what happened, and that theory includes penetration with a paintbrush handle. I was demonstrating the absurdity of that theory, NOT subscribing to it.

      Delete
  42. I just don't understand why you think that Patsy wouldn't write a ransom note about a kidnapping when JonBenet was still in the house? NEWSFLASH this random note--2/12 pages long and I repeat again--Patsy was NEVER cleared to this very day of writing that ransom note.

    Going over some other things that you said toward me-- you asked that SOMEONE must have been up with JonBenet to feed her pineapple?? YES and the fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl of the person(s) up with her! It is possible that the Ramsey's didn't cover ALL their tracks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, my point was that Patsy wouldn't call 911 when the body was still in the house, NOT that she wouldn't write a ransom note with the body in the house. Where did you get THAT?

      And yes, Patsy was never cleared of writing the note -- and John was. I freely admit that. But I see it very different from the way you see it. To you it is proof positive Patsy wrote it and John didn't. To me it is THE key blunder that made the case impossible to prosecute. That blunder is in fact the principal reason I started this blog and wrote my book, because for me the entire "mystery" of the case hinges on exactly that issue. If John had been ruled IN, then, as the principal suspect from the beginning, he would certainly have been indicted. How he managed to get himself ruled out I have no idea. But the case makes sense ONLY if John is the one who wrote the note. Any scenario involving Patsy writing it makes no sense, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. As I see it, the FACTS of the case, and the LOGIC based on those facts trumps any of the various opinions and inconclusive bits of evidence anyone might put forward.

      As far as the fingerprints are concerned, one of the symptoms of confirmation bias is the refusal to accept any fact or explanation that might contradict one's preferred theory. You continue to insist on the significance of Patsy's fingerprints even after I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation of how they could have gotten there prior to the night of the crime. The existence of such prints tells us NOTHING about how or when they got there. If they were the prints of some stranger who did not belong in the house, they would be meaningful. Otherwise, very simply, they are NOT. Give it up.

      Delete
  43. The Coroner did not discover the skull fracture until AFTER the obvious Garrote and ligatures. He also did not discover that pineapple. That pineapple is the KEY to this case. It was IMPOSSIBLE for that pineapple to be there??? Why was it??? Now as I said, if this was a canned pineapple, I could see John being with her. But, it was a FRESHLY CUT PINEAPPLE from a pineapple. And, just coincidentally, Patsy and Burke's fingerprints appear on that bowl. Huge clue!!! That pineapple should not be there by the account the Ramsey's gave! The White's did not serve pineapple. So who did??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but I fail to understand why John could not have served her freshly cut pineapple. Patsy's account, as I see it, is due to the fact that she knew nothing about JonBenet being served pineapple. Just as she knew nothing about the true meaning of the note. John's account is simply a lie. We are dealing with two different people, NOT "the Ramseys." No such animal ever existed!

      Delete
    2. Did you ever think for 1 second that it quite possibly was not John who initially either killed or accidentally killed JonBenet? And, I think you use words like "confiemation bias" because you simply will not get off of the fact that John may just have been involved in a cover up? Your main point being, of the 3, who is most likely to have molested JonBenet, but did you ever think for 1 second that this could have been part of an elaborate coverup (such as garrote) to deceive people like you? Which of course was their intention. Another thing, if Patsy came to John and told them she ( or Burke) accidentally killed JonBenet AND HE WAS MOLESTING HER??? Well, then it would have come out anyway!! So now how does it look that John would WILLINGLY cover this up, ESPECIALLY, if JonBenet was already going to die from a skull fracture. This is just 1 of the scenarios that could have EASILY happened that night. I would actually venture to say that the only way that those 2 were not in it together would be if an intruder was there. We both know that didn't happen... Yet your scenario without BOTH Ramseys being involved is almost as ludicrous as an intruder. Sorry, i will have to go back to the facts. Patsy could NEVER be eliminated from writing the phony note, which leads me to believe that not only did she write it, but she had something to do with the death. Otherwise, she wrote the note to cover for John. Or, somehow, she accomplished everything you think John did by herself. The FBI thought she wrote the note. 24 of 26 letters matched Patsy's handwriting. You can't go around FACTS. Discounting any other theory, one that CERTAINLY is not true-- is your theory that John did this all incredibly by himself, and then wrote a ransom note in his wife's handwriting to point the finger at his wife that just beat cancer? Can you see how your theory just does not work? As a famous quote of this case went "You're going down the wrong path buddy."

      Delete
    3. You completely misunderstand, and in fact ignore, my methods. I don't try to figure things out, as you do, based on what I see as the most likely course of events and the most likely suspect(s). In order to avoid confirmation bias of my own, I decided to focus primarily on certain key facts, and by facts in this case I mean facts on which EVERYONE (including you) agrees. And on the basis of those facts, supplemented by very straightforward logical inference, I feel forced to conclude that John and only John was the one who both killed his daughter and staged the kidnapping, including writing the note and breaking the basement window.

      If you want to challenge me, you need to challenge either those facts, or the logic I've used to interpret those facts. Thus if you want to argue that the 911 call was part of a plan by both Patsy and John to stage a kidnapping, then you have to explain how that call functioned as part of that plan -- as opposed to something that destroyed it. To this date I've never seen any explanation that made sense, but by all means feel free to give it a try.

      Every thing else in this case is either inconclusive, based on opinion, or based on the testimony of the two principal suspects, which must of course be taken with a huge grain of salt. You certainly have opinions regarding what happened, and you also see various possibilities that might or might not be relevant, and that's how everyone else seems to have approached this case, and from my perspective, that approach is simply a waste of time. You can argue forever about this or that possibility, but all such possibilities run into a dead end sooner or later. Trust me, I've followed each and every one that's every been proposed and NONE of them wind up making any sense at all. For a summary of that process, I refer you to the final chapter of my book.

      Delete
  44. The pineapple could not obviously be seen when Ramsey found his daughter and brought her upstairs for everyone to see. The Coroner did not disclose the pineapple until he found it in the autopsy... The Ramsey's COULDN'T explain this away, because they couldn't see it at the time of the finding. And, what just so happens to be on the kitchen table when Officer French arrives af 6am? A bowl of freshly cut pineapple!! What are the odds? And, what is a FRESH bowl of pineapple doing there at all??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only repeat what I said before: if the Ramseys were in this together they would have had no reason to lie about serving her pineapple. And if you want to say they were forced to lie because of their story about her being asleep when they came home, then, once again, I must ask: WHY would they have needed to lie about THAT????

      Your take on all this is a classic case of confirmation bias. You conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit your preconceived theory. There IS a rational reason for Patsy's prints to be on that bowl and it amazes me that so many, including yourself, have refused to accept it. This was HER house, she was the housewife, she obviously handled the various utensils in the house, if only to place them in a cupboard. So why wouldn't we expect to find her prints on that bowl or any other utensil in the house?

      Delete
  45. They needed to lie because an officer was there at 6am and asked them what happened... In which they said they took her from the car to the bed! What could they say after the fact-- oh yeah we forgot we woke up JonBenet and had pineapple with her. THEY WERE LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING!! They had to stick to their story. That is why the Pineapple is the buggest clue in this case. Again, what are the odds that JONBENET had an UNDIGESTED piece of pineapple in her intestine and there was a bowl of freshly cut pineapple on the kitchen table at 6am (documented by pictures). PLEASE TELL ME THE ODDS OF THESE 2 THINGS HAPPENING??? Please!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting that I disagree regarding the connection between the coroner's findings and the pineapple on the kitchen table? Why would you think that? It does seem to have been established that JonBenet ate some of that pineapple at some point prior to the attack. And yes that is a significant clue. But if you are going to accuse someone of lying to the police you need to explain why they would have needed to lie. And you also have to consider the FACT that we are dealing with two different people, who may well have had different motives for telling the police what he or she told them.

      So. If the Ramseys were in it together, why couldn't they simply have said: "When we arrived home after the party, JonBenet said she was hungry, so we fed her some pineapple before sending her to bed." Why would they have needed to lie about her being asleep and about her eating some pineapple.

      It is ONLY if one of them secretly took her to the kitchen and fed her pineapple after everyone else had gone to sleep would it have been necessary for THAT PERSON to lie about it. Thus the pineapple evidence makes sense ONLY if they are NOT in it together, just as the 911 call makes sense for the same reason.

      Your interpretation makes NO sense, because it's impossible to see any motive for them lying if they were both involved. You need to pull back from your own bias and see the evidence more objectively. You keep insisting that "they" lied, but this is very far being a fact, it's just the way you see things, because you are convinced ahead of time that "they" were both involved. And when I try to help you understand, you keep insisting over and over again, in the hope, I suppose, that the more you insist the more convincing your take on the case will become. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

      Delete
  46. Officer French said BOTH PARENTS acted SUSPICOUSLY!!! He was THERE!!! 6am. No signs of an intruder! Bowl of pineapple on table with Patsy and Burke's fingerprints??? What was that there for? How did it have fresh pineapple when the Ramseys went to a Christmas party and went to bed? An undigested piece of pinespple in a dead girls intestine, coincidentally a bowl of fresh pinapple with fingerprints of 1 or both suspects on this bowl? It just does not add up. This puts Patsy, Burke, and at least JonBenet up in the night for some reason?? (Bedwetting?? Kids couldnt sleep??) hmmmmmm????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Steev, you can repeat the same things over and over but repeating them doesn't make them so. Especially when you are contradicted by the facts.

      And the various "facts" you cite to support your case aren't facts at all, but opinions.

      Delete
  47. You never try to prove anything. (Mainly because your theory is impossible to prove) but, saying Sorry every single time, and everyone else is wrong is a joke. Tell me please how John did all the things you say, and then painted his wife in the corner because COINCIDENTALLY all the experts said Patsy wrote it.

    You say it is easy to be fooled by this, and most people are? Well, then why is this?? Because this is where LOGICAL thinking leads me and most people. It is you Sir, who has the illogical theory.

    Please explain!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is getting really tiresome, Steev. I don't just say everyone else is wrong and dismiss the ideas of others, as you very unfairly imply. I try hard to explain my thinking and respond patiently to just about every objection and question raised by everyone posting here, including you.

      John did NOT try to implicate his wife. There was no reason for him to do that. And all the experts did NOT say Patsy wrote the note. The consensus among the law enforcement experts (and by the way this did not include anyone from the FBI) is that it was "unlikely" she wrote it. And sure, some "experts" claim to have found a long list of "matching" letters, but that in itself means very little, as there is no reason to believe similar matches could not be found in exemplars from a great many other people. If you go here you'll find links to several blog posts that demonstrate the many problems with just about every so-called "expert" who convinced himself Patsy wrote that note: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/07/premeditated.html?showComment=1398275715658#uds-search-results

      This is by no means a simple straightforward case and you have to be willing to dig into the details to fully understand it, and understand how and why so many have gone so wrong in analyzing it. Slinging ad hominems in the direction of anyone who disagrees with you isn't going to get you anywhere.

      Your request that I "explain" is laughable. What do you think this blog is about? or what my book is about? Just on this one page alone I've explained over and over -- but you don't want to listen. Sorry, but that's your problem. I'm done.

      Delete
  48. Wow, Doc, you are a patient man, trying to use logic on someone who clearly needs his medication adjusted.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The following, by "Mitchell," turned up in my email as a comment on this post, but I don't see it here:

    John was giving himself options. He wasn't a dumb guy.

    Option one involves the illusion of a successful exchange of money for JB. All he needs to do is put her in the car. He doesn't need to hide her or really even take her out of the car. The exchange happens and he recovers her corpse which he then takes to the hospital or police station.

    Option two sees him secreting her body and maintaining the illusion that he was duped. He produced the cash and the kidnappers produced nothing.

    Option three doesn't even require him loading her up in the car. He can claim the body was delivered to his residence while he was out dropping the cash.

    Option four is a probable fail safe. He senses the jig is up. He finds himself with $118,000 in cash, a plane prepped and ready to go, a full day headstart, and a ransom note that describes a rather long and torturous money drop scenario. "Be well rested" and the like.

    That scenario seems very likely to me, personally.

    All in all, not a bad plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting. Thanks, I hadn't thought of some of these possibilities. The first is especially intriguing. That way he wouldn't have to worry about traces of her body being found in the car.

      As for option four, I doubt he'd want to make a run for it like that, but the fact that he'd find himself with all that "ransom" cash on hand is interesting. If he made a run for it, he could have lived off that money for some time.

      Delete
  50. OMG,
    Your theory is totally correct!!!
    That is the only way everything makes sense. Even about the note: I suppose his X-mas bonus was still in the form of a check and not yet deposited in his account. This way he can get the ransom withour withdrawing money and alerting the bank, which would bring in the police. That's it! And the other seemingly crazy points of the note - be well rested, cause it will take time - he needed that as he was not sure where he would dump the body and how much time will it take. He needed leeway. And 'bring an adequate sized attache' - I guess he was considering the suitcase in the basement and was hoping to bring either the body out in it, or at least take some of the evidence out. Maybe he even tried that idea somewhat by attempting to fit the body inside the suitcase, 'and hence' the fibers in it. All details fit - his son's testemony that Patsy was turning lights on and panicing, while John was turning them off and trying to calm her down. Obviously he was trying to convince her not to call the police. It's totally the answer to the whole mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  51. My Theory: 19-22 white male intruder. no vehicle being that nobody witnessed any vehicles out of place and no tire tracks were found. walking distance. knew they were leaving that day or saw them leaving, broke in thru the basement and had hours to scope out the house, write the ransom note and practice note, go thru the ramseys personal papers and found random information such as the $118,000 check. came prepared with gloves, condom, rope, duct tape, maybe flashlight, maybe a taser. left no fingerprints. tried and thought he left no dna but he slipped. left no prints or dna on the duct tape. i also think that the intruder killed himself sometime soon after the murder. where do u learn to tie a "garrote" boyscouts? military? this intruder either lived in proximity of the ramsey house, or my theory is that someone was visiting family near their home for the holidays. 20 years later no match to the unknown male dna profile. suicide. he would have reoffended. and that intruder would have cashed in on the fame if he was still alive. patsy- seemed like a big time pill popper, but not a killer. john- he loved his daughter and his first action when finding her is what a father would do, not a cover up. brother- he was 9 and yes very capable of inflicting the blow, but even though he is strange, by listening to his interviews, he didn't seem to lie at all, and at 9 years old to try to cover that up and never slip would be amazing cuz when i was 9 i was still wiping my boogers on the wall. intruder scoped out the entire house. maybe hid in jonbenets room till everyone went to sleep. i still have more but my major concern is the d.n.a. because that is FACT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds credible, until you get to the ransom note. And yes he might have had time to write it -- but why? What is his motive? Sex? Murder? Kidnapping? Money? No kidnapping took place? So he wrote the note just for fun? A detailed, 2 1/2 page ransom note, carefully crafted, with all i's dotted all t's crossed, absolutely consistent wide spacing from word to word. Sorry but that makes no sense at all. If his intention was kidnapping he'd have brought a note with him. And it would have been printed, not hand written. And if his intention was not kidnapping, then why the note?

      Delete
    2. Also the person who commited suicide was Helgoth. Whose DNA didn't match.

      Delete
  52. Hi Doc
    Thanks for a great blog and some really innovative and to my mind accurate logic. The question I have is that JR had no history of child abuse or being a pedophile, so what kicked it off? And why did PR not ask herself years later, maybe JR did it? If JR was a sick sob pedophile, wouldn't this behavior have come out somewhere else over time (years, say)? Was there anything from his past that could shine some light on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In recent years a great many women have come forward with reports of sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers. In almost all cases there was no known history of abuse on the part of these men and the secret was kept by their daughters over many years. When we add to this the very unusual context, where a six year old was parading around dressed like a prostitute or Las Vegas showgirl, it's not hard to see how her father could have been tempted to cross that line.

      Patsy might well have suspected John at some point, but we must remember that he was ruled out as writer of the note very early on, a verdict that has never been questioned by anyone investigating the case. From Patsy's perspective, if John didn't write the note, and she didn't write it, then it MUST have been written by an intruder. So regardless of any suspicions she may have harbored, she would have had no reason to take any of them seriously. If John didn't write the note he must be innocent, no?

      Delete