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), 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.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Odds and Ends

As I've made clear from the start, the heart of the case can be found in just a few uncontested facts. Aside from these facts, outlined in my first two posts, almost everything else has been deemed "inconclusive." Nevertheless, a great many people following the case, both professional and amateur, have set great store by some of this evidence, which from their standpoint is especially important. To make my position as clear as possible, I'd like now to go over some of these "odds and ends," which I have to admit I've neglected thus far. It should be remembered, however, that when we focus too strongly on trying to understand the meaning of this type of evidence, the case, as I see it, can very quickly turn into a morass, so we need to proceed with caution. Nevertheless, each item can tell us something significant, if we are willing to place it in perspective.

The Pineapple

Traces of recently digested pineapple were found in JonBenet's intestine and a bowl of pineapple was found on the kitchen table the morning after the crime. The bowl revealed fingerprints of both Patsy and Burke. Both John and Patsy denied any knowledge of JonBenet eating pineapple on Christmas day or evening (Burke was apparently never asked). To many this means the Ramseys were lying, because their testimony is contradicted by the evidence. It also suggests that Patsy and Burke may have been with JonBenet when she ate the pineapple, and that Patsy is unwilling to admit that.

The fingerprints strike me as inconclusive because it's hard to imagine that Patsy's prints would not have been on dishes she had washed or put away and Burke could have been helping her or could have handled the bowl on some earlier date. JonBenet's prints might not have been on the bowl simply because her hands were clean at the time. If John and Patsy both were involved with the murder of their daughter, then it's hard to imagine why they would have wanted to lie about the pineapple. If they had fed her pineapple, they'd have had nothing to lose by saying so. On the other hand, if one is innocent and the other guilty, if one fed her pineapple and the other knew nothing about it, then it would be necessary for the guilty party to deny any knowledge of that. In this sense the pineapple evidence does seem to tell us something, but not what most people want to hear, since the consensus is that both Ramsey adults were conspiring in a coverup

The Fibers

Several unsourced fibers were found at the scene, including dog hairs. To Ramsey defenders this represented clear evidence of an intruder, while skeptics pointed to the many visitors to the Ramsey home in the last few days. Some of these people may well have been dog owners. Clearly this sort of evidence is inconclusive if not totally meaningless, but the BPD was forced to waste much precious time investigating it.

Fibers consistent with those from Patsy's red sweater were found at the crime scene, entwined with the "garotte" cord and on the sticky side of the duct tape pressed against the victim's face. Similar fibers were found in the paint tote from which the stick for the "garotte" was taken. For many this is proof positive that Patsy must have constructed the garotte and placed the tape on her victim's face. There are many reasons to doubt such a conclusion. For one thing, it would be difficult to understand what motive Patsy could have had in attacking her daughter in such a bizarre manner. For this reason, it's been assumed that she would have done this as part of a coverup, to construct a vicious, pedophile intruder. Yet the note she is assumed to have written constructed a kidnapper, not a pedophile. So there would have been no need to go to such lengths and attack the body of her daughter in such a vicious manner simply as part of a staging attempt. This has been explained on the basis of Patsy's tendency to "go overboard." But there is a huge difference between going overboard on a pageant costume and going overboard to simulate strangulation with a "garotte."

As far as the fibers are concerned, Patsy was undoubtedly in intimate contact with her daughter prior to the attack and it stands to reason that her fibers would have been all over JonBenet. Thus it would seem far more likely that the fibers got onto the cord, the tape and the paint tote through transfer from the body and/or clothing of the victim. If John had attacked her, he could have transferred Patsy's fibers as well, since they were husband and wife and could be expected to have been in close contact the previous day.

Fibers from the shirt John Ramsey was wearing that night were found in the crotch of the victim. This evidence is much harder to explain, as JonBenet was found wearing panties. From John's interview of 2000, with Michael Kane and Bruce Levin:

7     Q.     (By Mr. Levin) I've got some
 8   questions, Mr. Ramsey, that deal with fiber
 9   evidence, and this is probably going to be
10   questions that your lawyer is going to advise
11   you not to answer, but I would like to pose
12   them to you.
13            MR. WOOD:  Is this what we
14   discussed yesterday with Patsy?
15            MR. LEVIN:  Different fibers
16   associated directly with --
17            MR. WOOD:  I think the position
18   is, to save some time, if you want to
19   question Mr. Ramsey about test results, that
20   it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to
21   see the result ourselves before we answer
22   questions so that we are not dealing with
23   speculation and hypotheticals that are not
24   supported by the facts as you might represent
25   them. . .
[Wood goes on in this vein for a very long time . . .]

Q.     (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22   our belief based on forensic evidence that
23   there are hairs that are associated, that the
24   source is the collared black shirt that you
25   sent us that are found in your daughter's
 1   underpants, and I wondered if you --
 2     A.     Bullshit.  I don't believe that.
 3   I don't buy it.  If you are trying to
 4   disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
 5     Q.     Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
 6   disgrace --
 7     A.     Well, I don't believe it.  I
 8   think you are.  That's disgusting.
 9            MR. WOOD:  I think you --
10            MR. LEVIN:  I am not.
11            MR. WOOD:  Yes, you are. 
12            MR. LEVIN:  And the follow-up
13   question would be --
14            MR. WOOD:  Posing the question in
15   light of what I said to you yesterday is
16   nothing more than an attempt to make a
17   record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18   disgusting fashion points what you might
19   consider to be some finger of blame at this
20   man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21   be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22            You knew we weren't going to
23   answer the question.  Why don't you just
24   give us the report, and we'll put it out
25   there for someone to look at and tell us
 1   what it says and see how fair and accurate
 2   you have been.

Wood is not a very effective lawyer, and his irate response, coupled with that of John, cannot be ignored. Normally it wouldn't be difficult to explain away such fibers, because they too could have been transferred via the victim, in a perfectly innocent manner. It is John's response, seconded by his lawyer, who had been informed ahead of time of the nature of this evidence, that suggests guilt. Clearly neither of them even wanted to consider that evidence. Perhaps Wood already knew what happened.

Fingerprints on the Note 

Much has been made of the fact that neither Patsy nor John's prints were found on the ransom note. It's hard to say what that might mean, but of course for RDI's (those convinced the Ramseys Did It) it apparently holds great significance and has been discussed ad nausea on the forums. Presumably whoever wrote the note had gloves on. But the Ramseys had no gloves on that morning, so why wouldn't their prints be all over the note since they said they read it. Well witnesses were there who saw them handling it, so it's hard to understand what all the fuss is about. Prints don't always get transferred, especially if one's hands are clean. If the writer of the note washed his hands carefully his prints wouldn't have gotten onto it either. And there would have been no reason for Patsy or John to avoid handling the note since their prints could have gotten onto it in all innocence, after it had been discovered.

The Maglite

A "Maglite" flashlight was found on the kitchen table when the police arrived. It is often thought to have been the murder weapon, and with good reason. The blow to JonBenet's head was devastating, but there was no blood from her scalp. This is consistent with her being struck with a blunt weapon very much like a Maglite, with its hard rubber head.

The Ramseys owned a similar flashlight, but at first they insisted the Maglite on the table wasn't the same as theirs, because it was darker. As it turned out the photo they saw was of the instrument after it had been dusted for prints, so it had a dark film over it. An especially strange aspect of this item was the fact that it had been thoroughly wiped clean of prints. Even the batteries had been wiped clean. It's hard to imagine why an intruder would not have simply taken the Maglite with him rather than bother cleaning his prints off of it. In any case, this was another example of an item from the home being used in the crime. Nothing from outside was ever found.

The Notepad, the Pen, the Paintbrush Handle

As it turns out, the notepad that the "ransom"  note was written on came from a notepad Patsy had regularly used. The pen was from a container close to the pad. Also the handle of the "garotte" was fashioned from the handle of one of Patsy's paintbrushes. These associations led to one of the most incredibly naive assumptions I've ever seen on the part of law enforcement investigators. Tossing aside everything we know about human psychology, they jumped to the following very odd conclusion: since all these things belonged to Patsy, that must mean she is the one who wrote the note and constructed the "garotte." I admit that when I first read about this line of thinking I blushed, because it was hard to believe anyone with any degree of training or sophistication could arrive at so fatuous a conclusion. Why would anyone committing such a crime want to use items that might point to herself? If anything this evidence tells us Patsy was not likely to have been involved. But they already had their sights on her, so anything that might reinforce their predetermined conclusions was fair game.

Patsy's Outfit

Similarly naive conclusions were drawn on the basis of Patys's wearing the same outfit as the day before on the morning the note was found. To those already suspicious of her, this suggested that she must have been up all night. Again, on the basis of the most elementary knowledge of human nature one would expect someone up all night staging a crime to shower and change before calling the police. Patsy's actions are those of an innocent person and by no stretch of the imagination suggest someone whose intention is to deceive. A deceptive person would have made sure, as John made sure, to shower and change.


  1. What do you make of the teacup with Burke's prints on it found next to the pineapple bowl?

  2. Oh, definitely, it means he killed her. Isn't it obvious?

    Sorry, but that's the sort of thinking I've encountered far too often on the forums. And sometimes even from LE people who should know better.

    There are about a thousand reasons why someone who lives in a house could have his prints on a teacup from that house. NOT evidence. Unless it can be tied to something else that's meaningful, it is meaningless.

    1. Patsy claimed Burke was not awake when all the commotion was occuring. YHou can actually hear him in the background on the 911 call she made. And I think she said something to him, also. Why did she lie about this?

    2. I've heard that recording many times and I've never heard Burke's voice. Thomas made that claim but I doubt it would have held up in court. In any case, Burke later said he was awake but pretended to be asleep. I see no reason for either Patsy or John to lie about Burke's whereabouts that morning. Even if Burke is the one who killed JonBenet, which I find extremely unlikely, they'd have had no reason to lie about when he got up in the morning, it seems to me.

    3. Meaningless??? What is a fresh bowl of pineapple doing on the table at 5:55am and coincidentally an undigested pineapple in a CORONER'S report? This is one of the biggest clues in the case.

    4. The pineapple is certainly important. But the fingerprints on the bowl and glass are not, because they can easily be explained as due to perfectly innocent contact.

  3. Okay, but to go back to the pineapple: do you believe JB ate it on her own, or with her father? These two scenarios fit much better with your theory.

    If she ate it with Burke and/or with Patsy, John would have told them that this TOO was something they had to lie about, which would cast suspicion on him and seems unlikely.

    It's a fact that JB ate pineapple so I'm curious as to your speculations.

    1. If a bowl of pinapple was on the table then was there a can in the garbage? Would someone have to use the can opener (which could have killer's prints) to serve the pinapple in a bowl. Did patsy recollect buying pinapple at the grocery store that week? Is she denying pinapple was from their kitchen?

    2. I can't answer any of these questions because I don't know. To my knowledge that aspect of the investigation has never been revealed to the public, assuming it was done at all. It looks to me as though JonBenet was given a pineapple snack by her father, or else helped herself while with her father in the kitchen. I can say for sure that there is no way she'd have sat down to such a snack with a stranger who'd just broken into their home.

  4. I don't think there'd be any reason to lie if she ate pineapple with Burke or Patsy. Because imo they are both innocent, so I would assume they'd have had no problem reporting it. However, if she'd had pineapple with John after she'd been put to bed, and Patsy knew nothing about it, then I do think John would want to keep that a secret, yes. Because it would mean he'd been the last to be alone with her before she was killed. And that would certainly look suspicious, yes.

  5. Regarding Notepad and Pen and why would Patsy using them for RN (kind of pointing fingers to herself) - please read Kolar explanation about behavior 'repetition'. He explained it very well, provided great examples to teach us why our mind works the way it does under the stress or danger. Working almost 30 years in LE, Kolar saw this happens too many times. He knows what he's talking about.

    1. Yeah, I read what he had to say. It sounded like a rationalization to me. You can always find some "research" to back up a pet theory if you look hard enough. Sorry but I'm not impressed with that sort of thinking. If the note had been written on something not associated with Patsy, then he'd have found "research" demonstrating how criminals tend to avoid using materials that might point to them.

      If we use our common sense we'll see that someone attempting to be deceptive would not have done all the things that so "obviously" point to Patsy. NOTHING used in this crime is associated with John. So that makes him innocent?

    2. With all due respect, and after reading through so much of your blog and your posts on other sites, I wonder if you are having a hard time thinking Patsy was involved with the Ransom Note not just because you have built your theory so strongly upon JR as the one and only perpetrator in this crime, but because you seem to be resistant to allowing for behavioral/psychological aspects having responsibility in the commission of a crime.

      There is no doubt that it takes evidence to bring a crime into a court room. Usually direct evidence is the most effective.

      But there have been cases successfully prosecuted based upon circumstantial evidence, and wouldn't a line of prosecution to be taken down a circumstantial path have to include behavioral and psychological aspects? Else why the importance of the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI, which uses it's techniques to profile criminal behavior and likely suspects of fitting crimes.

      A very well documented idiom, is the completely different aspects of female rationale from those of male rationale. Hence, the title, "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" being created. So, I submit, DocG, you are at a disadvantage in truly understanding how Patsy might have been thinking , or acting, as she might have been writing the Ransom Note.

      It is very human for each sex not to be able to completely understand the other. We must simply accept that lacking this ability, we can never presume how another person of the opposite sex might or might not feel, think, or behave. We might, though, based upon sharing a genetic pattern similar through sexual orientation, have a window of insight into how someone of our own sex might react to any given situation. I think that is why you have such a bead upon John's ability to have tightened the ligature enough to strangle JB. You know about a man's heightened ability to become predator/hunter as part of the way he is "wired".

      I firmly believe that Patsy, caught up in the trauma of her daughter's death, could have written that Ransom Note and gone completely through every step she took from the moment she placed the call to 911 until the day she died, and would not have beat herself up for any of the processes she used in writing that note. She had justified everything she did either as she went along during the process or thereafter. As Burke's mother also, the justification, to herself, of her actions is the only thing that allowed her to take her next breath each day.

      I am now convinced John was responsible for the murder of JB by strangulation. You've won me over on that aspect of the crime. In my opinion, JB was in a nearly dead state due to the actions of her brother, Burke, when John became involved and decided to end JB's life. And, I am very convinced Patsy was involved in writing the Ransom Note, but could accept that John also had a part in it's creation.

      In the end, establishing the author of the Ransom Note will not be necessary to prove the guilt of JR, if he is ever brought to trial. But if a jury must consider circumstantial evidence to do so, they must be able to decide that even if it is surmised that Patsy wrote the RN, they must be able to see JR had a hand in it some how, even if it is through his dictation or suggestions to Patsy as she wrote. That will require quite a bit of behavioral profiling, which is not an impossibility.

      Respectfully - MW MM

  6. Thanks, MWMM, for this very thoughtful analysis. I certainly agree that profiling can be useful in a case such as this. However, I don't see it as the primary basis for a prosecution, even on a circumstantial basis. If the evidence points to a particular suspect and that person's lawyer argues that his client couldn't possibly have committed such a horrendous crime, then I would think the prosecutor could call an expert witness in the area of profiling to counter such a defense. Or vice versa. However, I don't know of any prosecution that has ever used profiling as the primary basis, because there is no substitute for hard evidence, even in a circumstantial case.

    Thus, no matter how convinced you might be that Patsy could be capable of such extreme acts of deception, and no matter what sources or experts you might be able to find backing up your claim, that would still tell us nothing about whether she actually performed those actions. And face it, the only evidence that might possibly associate her with any aspect of this crime is inconclusive.

    On the other hand, as I believe I've demonstrated here, the evidence that John lied about breaking the window earlier is in fact conclusive. And I think a good trial lawyer would have little trouble convincing a jury of that. Of course, John's lawyer could then trot out his own profiling "expert" to argue that John wasn't capable of lying. Lots of luck with that. We know he lied to his first wife for two whole years.

    One more thing on the topic of profiling. It's not just a matter of whether some abstract mother in an abstract situation might be capable of such actions, it must also be shown that Patsy herself, specifically, showed any prior signs of such a propensity. And to my knowledge, there have been no such signs either prior to or after the crime. We must also keep in mind that Patsy lived almost in a kind of fishbowl, with a wide range of friends, relatives and activities, and a household staff, so a great many people were in a position to observe her and evaluate her character.

    John, on the other hand, is very much of a mystery man. He was never particularly social, spent a lot of time in his office, and also spend a lot of time abroad, supposedly on various business trips, but to my knowledge hardly anything is known about these activities. And as I mentioned above, he IS known to have lied to his wife for two years about the affair that ultimately ended his marriage.

    Profiling Patsy would present few difficulties, because so much is known about her activities and there are so many witnesses. Profiling John, on the other hand, would be far more difficult.

    1. Hi there. New here. Been interested in the case for years. I was 17 when JB died. Just haunts me.

      The other day I was looking for books to borrow on my mother-in-law's bookshelves and came across DOI. Grabbed it, started to read. It reignited my interest in the case. I decided to google. Discovered Websleuths and more... Been basically doing nothing but read about this case for about a week. Not much at all when compared to the many who've followed it very closely for years, but I'm more or less caught up on the basics, the major theories and players and "plot points," as it were.

      When I started reading DOI I was convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. "Exonerated" and all that. Both of them.

      I guess I based that on my understanding that Patsy was incapable of doing this. You don't appear to be a normal suburban mom one day and garrotte your daughter the next. The escalation just wasn't there. Also, I've been acting professionally since I was 11. I've read every major book on acting, studied every method, rehearsed, performed in plays and film, for 20 or so years. Meryl Streep couldn't have played panic better than that 911 call, and that's with weeks of preparation and several takes. Nothing is harder to fake than astonishment. And hyperventilation to boot. She was not faking that. Call it women's intuition, I don't care what you call it. Patsy didn't do it.

      This comment is long enough, ha! So I'll just say this, which was my original point (I swear I have one) - Patsy, if you recall in the 4/97 interviews, was unaware that John's marriage to Lucinda ended as a result of his infidelity. I've only read the transcript, and I can't speak to her physical reaction, but her reaction on paper seemed redolent of embarrassment, not obfuscation. I could be wrong, but why would she lie about knowing if she already knew? You could tell by their questioning the police already knew. Her admission that she was unaware of his infidelity only made John look deceptive and their marriage weaker: not a good face to put forward when you're trying to appear like a strong and loving family, which was necessary to both their defenses.

      So we now know not only that he lied to his first wife for two years, but that he lied to Patsy about the reason for the dissolution of his first marriage. We know the guy knew how to keep up a long deception.

      Sorry for the long comment - just wanted to add I read for days and days looking for a theory that made sense. Your theory does. Finally. I've read almost this whole blog. And I have to say I agree with you. My hat is off to you, sir.

    2. Thanks. I too have always found Patsy's hysterical 911 call convincing. Many have assumed she was simply acting, so it's good to hear what someone with real acting experience has to say. Hard to see how anyone (other than the devine Meryl) could fake that.

      I wasn't aware that John had lied to Patsy about the breakup of his previous marriage. Very interesting.

    3. from PR interview in April 97.
      ST: Okay. One person that we have not been able to run down, that I certainly want to exhaust in this ting is uh, a woman who Lucinda revealed to us is having had an affair with John that ultimately lead to the dissolution of their marriage. Um, that was some time ago, but, um, I think people have been reluctant to share that with us. Do you know who this person was?
      PR: No, I’m not aware of anything like that.
      ST: Are, are you aware of prior to today, because I had to ask Nedra and Pam and Paulie and uh, if they were aware of this person, while we were in Georgia so we could find her, and make sure she’s not some kook that laid in wait for 20 years. . .
      PR: Um hum.
      ST: . . .um, is today the first time you’ve been made, made aware of this woman?
      PR: I don’t know of any woman with, I don’t know anything about this, no.
      ST: Okay. Are you aware that John had some sort of infidelity according to Lucinda?
      PR: No (Inaudible).
      ST: Okay. So you certainly wouldn’t know this woman’s name then?
      PR: No.
      ST: And you’re not in a position so I’ll ask John if he’ll share that with us. Let’s get off that for a minute

    4. Thanks Tina. There's also a story that as I recall John told. About this woman appearing at Patsy's door after he'd separated from his wife and was courting her. And he was proud of Patsy for handling the situation so cleverly. She might not have realized who this woman was, however, or that she was the reason John broke up with his first wife.

  7. Going back to an earlier point - that most of the objects used -pen, paper, cord purchased by her at McGuckins (sp?) etc. - point to Patsy, do you think maybe JR was setting it up for her to be the prime suspect?

    I'm not suggesting he'd have let her go to prison for murder (maybe, maybe not) but with the police focusing on her she'd more or less have to be cooperative on the version of the story JR preferred.

    1. I've been asked that question before, and my answer has always been no, I don't think he was consciously setting her up. It was simply that he would have wanted to avoid using anything of his own, so he wound up using Patsy's things instead. He also used Burke's knife. Whatever would not point to him.

  8. The pineapple still confuses me. Is it true that JB would have eaten it no more than 2 hours before her death? That means she was up eating it with someone after she was put to bed when the Ramsey's got home from the party. If John gave it to her, why did the bowl have only Burke and Patsy's fingerprints? I would assume at the time John gave her the pineapple he was not planning to kill her, so his prints should be on it.

  9. Can you explain the origin of the cord and the duct tape? I think I missed that part. Thanks.

    1. There were all sorts of gift wrappings lying around in the basement, so the cord probably came from one of them. The duct tape was probably left over by some of the workers who'd been doing various repair and remodeling jobs over the past few days and weeks. People have wondered what happened to the unused string and tape, but it could all have been used during the attack. Or it could have been discarded by John later that morning when Arndt lost track of him.

    2. Can agree about the tape. Speculation by some that Patsy bought the cord earlier to make a 'sling' to carry her paintings in, so it might have been in her paint tray. Also, that type of cord could have easily been used as trim on one of JB's pageant costumes, and might have been in one of the rack trays in the hobby/train room.

  10. JB was given pineapple by her abuser.

    1. Yes, and if John and Patsy were in on it together, they'd have had no reason to deny knowing anything about it. Which tells us that one of them gave it to her and other knew nothing.

  11. listen to what patsy says in the 911 call. her first words are WE HAVE A KIDNAPPING. the call is the first part of the staging. she didnt even wake burke up to ask him had he seen his sister, which under the circumstances is unbelievable. this makes her look suspicious in my view. john also didnt wake burke up following the discovery of the ransom note.

    1. Sorry, but "we have a kidnapping" sounds perfectly innocent to me. No need to wake Burke up since there was a note telling them she'd been kidnapped. Obviously she wasn't playing hide and seek, and as far as Patsy knew the note was for real, so as far as she was concerned JonBenet had been kidnapped.

  12. "lee dumettMarch 23, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    JB was given pineapple by her abuser.

    How do we know she was given pineapple by her abuser?

    Couldn't she simply have helped herself to some? This could have been shortly after arriving home. It could also have been later - she may have got up after the others had gone to bed.

    Couldn't BR have brought a few pieces upstairs to her? (In situations where adults would not want to handle something sticky, like pineapple, kids will handle it, and simply lick their hands clean)

    I see no reason for the assumption that her abuser gave her pineapple, though certainly it's possible.

    1. You have a point. As with almost every single piece of "evidence" in this case, there are multiple interpretations possible as to what it might mean.

    2. How in the world can Patsy call the police and report kidnapping etc. without
      waking up or checking on the other child sleeping in the next room!
      This is a problem.The answer is simple..if someone is guilty of something
      the best alibi is "I was sleeping"..The Ramsey's knew if Burke was up
      in anyway,shape,or form it's game over because he would be
      vulnerable to an interrogation.The precursors to any situation
      ALWAYS tell the story.The answers are always found when you look
      at information prior to a situation.The pineapple eaten,the third voice
      in the background on the 911 call,and not waking up Burke when
      the note was found says it all!..

    3. According to one version of this story, as told by Patsy, she told John she was going to call the police, he said "OK" and went to check on Burke, while she went downstairs and called 911.

  13. just a comment. I have two children. Ummmm, if I were to find a ransom note saying one of my only two children had been kidnapped, my very first rote instinct would be to lunge towards getting, holding * protecting my one 'safe' child, not leaving them sleeping. It just would not happen this way with 'normal' parents in a 'normal' kidnapping (ha! if that makes sense) It does not add

  14. The pineapple was fresh with rind in jonbenet. Who bought and cut up the pineapple? Was Patsy asked if she had bought or cut pineapple? Who cut up the pineapple in the Ramsey home? Was the housekeeper asked if she had seen or cleaned up fresh/pineapple close to Christmas? Where did the pineapple come from?

  15. Were Patsy or Burke ever tested for substances that would have prevented them from waking up during the night? If John had sedated them somehow that would explain why Patsy was wearing the same clothes instead of pajamas and why Burke slept until later that morning.

    1. No, I feel sure they were NOT tested. And yes, they could have been drugged by John. But that would not explain Patsy being in the same outfit, assuming she is innocent, because if that were the case she'd have had no problem reporting that she just felt extremely tired and fell asleep with her clothes on.