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.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Patsy and John

I have to admit that the biggest problem with my theory concerns Patsy's role. As I see it, she was innocent of both the murder and the initial coverup, but participated in later aspects of the coverup by either remaining silent about what she knew to be true or lying outright. I'm referring in particular to two specific cases: 1. her decision not to challenge John's assertion that calling 911 was his idea (despite the fact that, in the A&E documentary, she provided a very different version in which this was her idea) and 2. her testimony supporting John's obvious lie about breaking the basement window pane on an earlier occasion. I think it revealing that in both instances she was lying to support John's version of what happened.


I've already provided explanations of why I think she would lie to support John despite her innocence. They can be found here and also here. However, since so much suspicion has been cast on Patsy and since so many are convinced she wrote the note and participated in either the murder or other aspects of the coverup, it's difficult to convince those who've been following the case for some time that her lies have a very different meaning than John's and that she was lying for a very different reason.

Unfortunately, Patsy is no longer with us, so we will never be in a position to question her on this matter. However, the fact that she is now out of the picture actually simplifies matters for any future prosecution, because it is no longer necessary to worry about the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted.

Clearly, John is not innocent. His lies about breaking the window at an earlier time tell us this, because such a lie could only have been concocted to point away from the staging of a breakin at the basement window the night of the crime. Whether Patsy was involved in this staging (I feel sure she wasn't) is no longer relevant, since she cannot be tried, but clearly John was, or else he would not have lied about breaking the window earlier. (And it's important to remember that this lie totally destroys any possible intruder theory, DNA or no DNA.) Neither is it any longer relevant whether Patsy participated in other aspects of the coverup, including the writing of the note (I feel sure John wrote it, not her, but that no longer really matters).

What is relevant are the injuries to the victim's vagina, which tell us she was sexually molested the night of the crime. And there are chronic injuries consistent with prior molestation. Since the most likely person to have inflicted such injuries is the only mature male in the household, this points very strongly to John as the molester, which also would have provided him with a motive to kill his victim if he had reason to believe she might expose him. To this we can add the ligature strangulation with a "garotte," which looks much more like something an experienced sailor and ex-navy man would construct than a housewife obsessed with beauty pageants. Add to this the presence of John's fibers in the victim's crotch, and clearly there is a very strong case to be made against John, regardless of what Patsy's role might have been.

It's been asserted that Patsy struck the devastating head blow and it's also been asserted that this blow could have been struck by Burke. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for either claim, only speculation based on vague psychological assumptions. I see no reason to avoid prosecuting John because some are convinced JonBenet might have been killed by her mother or brother. The most likely molester is the mature male in the house, and the most likely motive for murder by far is associated with the same molestation. If John would want to claim he was only covering for either Patsy or Burke, he would have ample opportunity to do so during the trial.

So. Since it is obvious that John lied about breaking the window earlier, a clear chain of inference follows, consistent with John's guilt. Regardless of Patsy's role (or Burke's for that matter), there is no longer any reason not to prosecute John Ramsey for the molestation and murder of his daughter. Anyone who still feels hesitant about proceeding promptly with an indictment should think very carefully about the Sandusky case and what the long delay in prosecuting this very devious individual has meant.


10 comments:

  1. http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&q=other+side+of+suffering+pdf&oq=other+side+of+suffering+pdf&gs_l=serp.3...12969.15876.0.16979.6.5.1.0.0.0.133.534.2j3.5.0...0.0...1c.aCdJ23SCylk

    Have a look at "the other side of suffering" pdf about 6 down. He talks about that fateful day. See if it helps your theory. If for some reason the link doesn't work just do a google search on "the other side of suffering pdf".

    RW7

    ReplyDelete
  2. The pdf didn't download for some reason. Can you include the quote? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is one of your best pages yet, DocG! I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that there is no reason John Ramsey shouldn't face prosectution. Now, all that remains is figuring out what any of us can do to help get the rusty wheels of justice into motion. MWMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I'm so glad you agree. Instead of so many of us fighting over whether Patsy, Burke or John was responsible for JonBenet's most serious injuries, it makes sense to very simply go after the only one who could actually be prosecuted, now that Patsy is no longer with us, i.e., John Ramsey.

      If he is the one who molested and attacked her, then he can be charged with murder one. If he was only involved in the coverup then he can claim he was only an accessory and his lawyer can remind the court of the statute of limitations. But in order for him to invoke this statute he would have to come clean regarding what actually happened that night.

      We know for a fact that there's no way he could possibly be innocent of either murder or accessory to murder, so why not go after him on the more serious charge and then let him try to weasle out of it by pointing the finger at Patsy or Burke.

      He'll want to claim an intruder did it, but we know better and can prove otherwise. The problem is getting through to authorities who would rather not 'go there' again, after having been burned so many times in the past. Probably the most effective way to reach these people is through media pressure.

      If we go Kolar's route, on the other hamnd, regardless of whether or not he's right about Burke, there would simply be no clear route to prosecution of John, since there is no way to prove that he and not Patsy strangled JonBenet with the "garotte." Since Burke cannot be charged, John's lawyers would invoke the statute of limitations and that would be the end of it.

      Delete
  4. So, if media pressure might work, do you have some recommendations of the most effective ones to "pressurize"? And what methods of 'pressure' - letters, emails, phone calls, what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this point, I'm feeling pretty pessimistic. There's been all sorts of pressure to pursue this case, but unfortunately almost all of it has been misdirected, i.e., based on the assumption that JonBenet was killed by her mother in some sort of "accident", a theory any good defense lawyer could demolish in about five minutes. While I've been pleased to see so many comments supporting my own take on this case, realistically I see little hope of making much of a difference as far as any concrete action is concerned.

      Delete
  5. I believe John Ramsey tried to frame Patsy . I think Jon Benet Ramsay was killed by John Ramsay by mistake. John Ramsay used chloroform whilst he molested get and she died due to chloroform overdose . JR then staged the murder. JR told Patsy J B R was dead. He dictated ransom note to Patsy. He wanted Pasty to be convicted and he would have not cared. He is a man with no conscience .....his victims have been his daughters Elizabeth and JBR and He used Patsy. He should go to trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have an interesting take on the case, but of course there's no evidence chloroform was used. Not sure what you mean by JR staging the murder. If he used chloroform on her and she died, he murdered her. And why would he want to stage a murder anyhow? Also I find it difficult to believe Patsy would want to go along with any coverup after John had murdered her beloved daughter. Also I see no reason to believe Patsy wrote the note. That's a myth. There is NO evidence she wrote, nor any reason for her to have written such a note.

      Delete
  6. everything about jon benet's murder looks intentional. even the FBI said the blow to the head was not consistent with an accident.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patsy was clueless.If she knew something it would have been a huge risk to allow her to speak on national tv (CNN,january),being that medicated.

    ReplyDelete