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, August 12, 2012

The Case Against John Ramsey

For some time after my epiphany, I was nevertheless troubled by the thought that some key piece of evidence could be missing, that, however unlikely, an intruder or intruders may have somehow entered the house after all, leaving no trace, possibly with a key, and left the note and the body for reasons of their own that I couldn't fathom. Despite my growing conviction that my theory explained all the strange "mysteries" of this case, there was always the possibility I could be wrong, and was pointing the finger of suspicion at an innocent man.

Half Truths, Deceptions, Lies

However, with the release of the police files, containing transcripts of all the Ramsey interrogations, it became crystal clear John was either hedging or lying outright about many key aspects of the case in a manner that removed all doubts. The most damaging lies are to be found in his testimony regarding the basement window, which I've already covered and will return to presently. There are many other instances as well, duly noted by Kolar in a chapter aptly titled, "The Evolution of John Ramsey's Statements." I'd already gone over many of these inconsistencies in a series of blog posts [correction, I should have written "forum posts"] back in 2005. Here are some excerpts, with my slightly revised comments:



From the 1997 police interview:
JR: Yeah. And when I went down and looked around the house that morning, and I think I’d made a statement or at least I read, I know I said this, that all the doors were locked and I had checked, I believe, every door on the first floor. And they were, appeared to be locked.

ST: So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?

JR: I believed I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. 
John's statement must be read in connection with the police report, which stated that there were no signs of forced entry when they arrived on the scene. In other words, all doors closed and locked according to John, and no signs of forced entry according to the police. [The report also mentioned that the first policemen on the scene double checked to make sure all doors that might allow entry to the house were locked, and reported that in fact they were.]

From the 1998 police interview:
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, you know, one of the things that perplexed me is how did this person get in. When Linda Arndt was there, I used to say I don't know how they got in. The doors are locked. Well, these guys said did you check all the doors, I said yeah. Well, did you check all the doors? Well no, I didn't, there is doors on the second floor, you know, I guess I didn't check all the doors. So you know, if -- I don't remember specifically what you're talking about, but I am sure I told Linda Arndt the doors are all locked. I don't know how they got in. But the fact of the matter is I didn't check the door in JonBenet's room, I didn't check the door in the TV room, I didn't check the door on the third floor bathroom, I don't remember checking the pantry door. So I mean, I checked the doors that we normally used, and would have left open, you know, accidentally, perhaps, but.
[Wow, talk about blowing smoke. It's easy to miss the point of this barrage of apparently pointless verbiage -- until we recognize how slyly he's inserted the bit about not remembering whether he'd checked the pantry door, aka the notorious "Butler door."]

Now let's turn to the Ramsey book, Death of Innocence, page 270. John writes, "I was shocked to see that they [the police] had found the butler kitchen door, which led to the outside, open." John returns to the butler door several times, clearly implying it could have been a point of entry or exit for an intruder. Now to DOI, p. 225: "The newspapers had identified 'unnamed sources' who reported that unlocked windows and doors had been discovered at our home on the morning of December 26 but had gone unreported. Obviously someone had either come in or gone out one of the exits during the night." Unnamed sources indeed! "Obviously" indeed!

John knew very well he'd checked all the street level doors, the doors that counted, including the "Butler door," and he knew the police had also checked those same doors PLUS all ground level and basement windows and found nothing suspicious. But his own testimony was, as far as he knew, buried safely and forever in those police transcripts. So he felt free to "forget" that testimony and inform his DOI readers of an open Butler door that he knew had been closed and locked earlier, and a newspaper report about unlocked windows and doors, windows and doors which could NOT have gained anyone access to the house.

Here's more from DOI, on another topic entirely:
Patsy and I heard that Mike Archuleta was subpoenaed to testify, and I knew he would clarify one of the urban legends that had been floated by the media, if he were asked. They had reported that I had called Mike early on the morning of December 26, 1996, to arrange a hasty trip to Atlanta. Of course, that wasn't true. I had called Mike to tell him what had happened. (p. 324)
This is a classic John Ramsey half truth. No, John's call that morning didn't involve a hasty trip to Atlanta. But his call around 1:30 PM, after the body had been found, did involve making arrangements for just such a trip. John has nothing to say about that call, of course. As for the "urban legend" that John made an attempt to fly out of Boulder as soon as possible after the murder had been discovered, sorry that's no urban legend, but a fact. The book would have given him an opportunity to explain why that call was made, but it's easier to simply deny it ever happened, so that's what he did.

Of course misleading statements about possible entry and exit points, could be construed as feeble efforts on the part of a befuddled suspect to understand the machinations of a super clever intruder, capable of entering and exiting without leaving a trace. And a half truth about plans to flee Boulder could be construed as an effort to avoid embarrassment for having acted in such a cowardly and irresponsible manner.

The Smoking Gun

Not so, however, John's basement window story, a much more serious matter. If that story were true, it would explain away the potentially incriminating scene at the basement window, which would otherwise have looked very much like staging. But John's story is not true, it is patently false, as I demonstrated here, here, here and here. And since the only reason for making up such a story would be to explain away the window scene, we are left with the following clear realization: the window could only have been broken the night of the crime, by John himself, in a desperate effort to stage an intruder breakin. Thanks to Patsy's premature 911 call, he was unable to complete his staging, which made it necessary for him to unstage by claiming he'd broken it earlier. This would also explain the relative absence of broken glass (he'd have cleaned most of it up while Patsy was phoning their friends) and the reason for failing to report that he'd found the window open and, for no good reason, closed it. It would also explain John's failure to report the odd positioning of the suitcase, which was clearly intended to suggest that the window had been the intruder's exit as well as entry point.

This goes beyond simply lying, it goes to the heart of the entire case and in fact completely destroys any possible intruder theory. Regardless of what one might want to think of any of the so-called intruder evidence, the stun gun, the untraced fibers, the unmatched DNA, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, once we realize that John (abetted by an otherwise innocent, but easily manipulated Patsy) lied about breaking in earlier, to cover the fact that he himself staged the window breakin, then any possible intruder theory crumbles into dust.


Lux Facta Est

Once that happens, then everything falls into place. No intruder means the evidence of both acute and chronic injury to the victim's vagina could only have been inflicted by someone in the Ramsey family. Same with the "garotte," same with the head blow. No intruder also means someone in the family wrote the ransom note, which returns us to my second post, where I point to the fact that it was Patsy and not John who called 911 at such an early hour, thus negating the staging so apparent in that note. Since it was she and not John who made that call, the note could only have been written by John, without the participation of Patsy, who must therefore be innocent.

Once we realize that Patsy and John could not have collaborated on the coverup (since otherwise the 911 call would never have happened), then it's impossible to see them jointly covering for their son, as Kolar assumed, which tells us the most likely person by far to have molested and then, in cold blood, murdered JonBenet is her father, John Ramsey. Whose shirt fibers were found in the victim's crotch. Who just happens to have been the leading suspect in the first place.

Which takes us to the very odd decision to rule him out as writer of the note, clearly a huge mistake, which turned the case upside down and led the investigators on one of the wildest wild goose chases in the history of crime.

A Prosecution Strategy

First and foremost it will be necessary to call the so-called handwriting "experts" back for some very serious questioning. They should, of course, be separated. And they may well want their lawyers present. I've already suggested some very pointed questions to ask them (see here), but the DA's office also needs to ask itself how it is, under any circumstances, possible to state with total certainly that a leading suspect, with every opportunity and every reason to want to write such a document, could not possibly have written it? What could possibly be the scientific basis for such a decision -- and why was it never, in all these years, questioned?

Once it becomes clear that ruling John out was a huge mistake, then the DA's office should proceed with an indictment. John Ramsey should of course be arrested with bail denied. There would be no need for a grand jury investigation since it should by now be crystal clear what happened and why.

[Added 8-13-12: My advice would be for the prosecution to avoid getting side tracked by all the many secondary issues while making its case, and to go for the jugular, i.e., the lie about breaking the window at an earlier date. Once it's established that John and Patsy made up that story, and that the window could only have been broken the night of the crime, then 1. John's credibility is shattered and 2. the insider staging (and subsequent unstaging) of the window breakin becomes crystal clear. Imo the prosecution should stay away from any attempt to prove John wrote the note on the basis of handwriting evidence, because John will fall back on the old decision to rule him out. All that's necessary on that score would be to undermine the authority of the "experts" who foolishly ruled him out, by introducing other professionals in this field who could attest to the unscientific nature of their decision. Similarly all the many other factors to be considered when evaluating what happened and why should be minimized, because as we well know, they lead to a morass of contradictory evidence and opinions.

Once it's established that John lied about the window, meaning he must have staged the breakin the night of the crime, then there is no longer any need to refute the intruder theory by going into all the questions of how that person could have gotten in, whether a stun gun was used and above all what the DNA might mean. All that's necessary would be to argue that literally ALL the so-called "intruder evidence" is inconclusive -- while John's lies regarding the window are clear. The deceptive plan behind the note should of course be brought out, as should the clear evidence that Patsy could not have been involved, since no one involved with the kidnapping staging would have called the police so soon. Which would put all the focus of the molestation and murder, plus the writing of the note, squarely on John. If he would like to argue that Burke is the one who killed her, then put Burke on the stand and see what he has to say about that idea. Otherwise I'd suggest leaving Burke out of it, because he will almost certainly be a hostile witness and there's no way of telling what lies he might produce to protect his father.]

92 comments:

  1. I didn't read JR's books so maybe you can help answer my questions. Did JR think it was a stranger who climbed through the broken window? If so, did he have a theory re the ransom amount of $118K? Did he have the pay stub in full view on a table in the house or did he think it was someone from his company or the bank who knew the amount of his Christmas bonus?

    I always wonder whether the ransom amount was used to point to or away from the perp. Was it an intruder taunting the Ramseys and the police or JR dropping a hint?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, by "JR dropping a hint", I didn't mean JR being self-incriminating but rather leading investigators to think his high profile job led to jealousy from colleagues.

      Delete
    2. As far as the broken window is concerned, John seems to have vacillated as to whether he considered the window an entry/exit point or whether the intruder came and went via a door (e.g., the famous "Butler door"). Remember, he tried to explain the broken window as something he himself had done months ago, NOT necessarily as a point of entry for an intruder -- though he certain vacillated on that point.

      Whether it was a stranger or not, again I think he vacillated. He certainly gave the police the names of several people he knew who might have done it, but didn't rule out a stranger. As far as the note is concerned, he did say he thought it could be someone who knew him through business dealings and resented him, and that could explain the use of the bonus figure. Imo he used that figure exactly for that purpose, to make it look like a disgruntled employee or business associate who knew about his bonus.

      Delete
    3. I think that's right. The $118K was meant to send police off quizzing every business associate and implying that it was someone who had a grudge.

      But IMO it was also an amount of money he was willing to kiss goodbye. He'd have to leave a paper sack with $118K in somewhere in a remote area, and probably had little chance of ever getting it back. A small price to pay to stay out of the chair, but still he's mitigating his damages. It's also probably an amount he can get easily. He probably had that much liquidity.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, the $118,000 bonus amount was the perfect solution for him, because it could be understood as symbolic and also because he could easily afford it. But he wouldn't have dared to leave that cash anywhere, he'd have had to burn it. If anything about this case would have made the "iceman" cry, that would have been it.

      Delete
  2. No one will sit in the witness box until the DA's office respects the opinion of Dr. Lee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it curious that even Barry Scheck didn't think this case hinges on DNA evidence but the DA thought the touch DNA results were enough to rule out the Ramseys while ignoring all other evidence.

      Delete
    2. Once it becomes clear that John lied about the window, the DNA evidence becomes irrelevant. All the prosecution need do is produce experts such as Scheck to testify that none of it points unequivocally to the presence of an intruder. Clearly if John staged the window breakin, there is no longer any reason at all to even consider an intruder.

      Delete
    3. I wish there was a way to get people off their butts and get this thing moving!

      Delete
    4. One thing I don't understand...if JB broke the window, why say anything about it...the window would look like an intruder might have come in, so why should JB say he broke it earlier? Help, I am confused!!

      Delete
    5. Why would John lie about breaking the window earlier? Why wouldn't he have wanted it to look like an intruder breakin? The answer is very simple: if he hadn't lied about breaking in earlier he would have been arrested that day, and no doubt indicted and convicted in short order.

      You have to remember that his original plan was totally blown when Patsy called 911. Part of that plan was the staging of a phoney breakin at the window -- but thanks to Patsy's calling in the police he never had a chance to complete his staging. As a result, the police -- who reported "no sign of forced breakin" -- would have taken one look at that broken window and seen through his staging immediately. Since there was no evidence that anyone actually passed through that window, no broken cobwebs, no smearing of the heavy layers of dust and grime, it would have been clear that someone from the inside had broken it to stage an intruder breakin.

      John would have figured this out very soon after the police arrived, and realized he had to provide an innocent explanation for why that window was broken.

      For details, see this post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html plus the three that follow it.

      Delete
    6. I agree with this but for a while I wondered, well, why didn't he just finish all the staging while Patsy was asleep? But then I considered all the things he would have to get done before 5:30 am, including writing the note, breaking the window, cleaning it up, wiping the flashlight and batteries, getting rid of the torn pages, etc... I think that took not only a lot of activity but a lot of THOUGHT. I can see him running out of time, and I can see him really believing he'd have all the next day at his leisure to make that window work. What he was focused on at the time was what was needed to get Patsy convinced and out of the house: the ransom note. I think the vast majority of his time between JB's death and getting back in bed with Patsy (he would have to do this at some point before the alarm went off) was spent on the ransom note. There are a lot of layers to that ransom note. That's why it's so long. It's carefully constructed to give him time to do what he needs to do and to account for everything that needs to happen. I think it took him several tries. Hence the missing pages from the pad, the false start, and the very few (I think maybe just one?) scratch-outs in the final note.

      I have read - and I don't know for sure if this is true - that Patsy started to call 911 and then the connection was broken. I think that is telling if it happened. I think it would have been easy, even for a guy in control, to lose track of Patsy for just a few seconds, such as when he was pretending to read the note, enough for her to get down the stairs and to the phone. I can see him breaking the connection, then realizing by now the police would already have the call traced, and just letting her go ahead and call again.

      KH

      Delete
    7. Yes, I've heard about that aborted call also, though I'm not sure it's ever been confirmed. It's certainly possible that her first attempt to call 911 was interrupted by John. And I agree that he would have realized it was too late, that the 911 operator would have traced the call and called back. There is no way John could have monitored her every move that morning, so if she wanted to call 911 he could not have stopped her in any case. Since their story about what happened prior to that call is clearly a fabrication, we have no way of knowing what went on between them at that time. What we DO know, however, should certainly be sufficient. If John had wanted the call made he would certainly have made it himself. If Patsy had written the note, there is no way she'd have wanted the police there at that time.

      Delete
    8. John Ramsey wrote the ransom note to mislead his wife in the first place

      Delete
    9. So the 911 call was interrupted, very good, but why not by Patsy but by John? Why Patsy was wearing the same clothes and not John? Why the detective Linda asked John to search the house and not Patsy? Moreover, she asked Mr. White to take John and to go and search the house. Again, why not Patsy but John?! Why the ransom letter was addressed to John and not to both Patsy and John?! Why Mr. White is so related to this case, maybe JonBenet was killed at his house?! At one side you say, John had a plenty of time to think about the window before the police came in the house, why he didn't remove the blanket from JonBenet, which was a clue that somebody who cared for her did the crime, and why he left around the duct tape, the lighter, the rope, the papers which were a proof of practicing for writings the ransom letter, and the most important why he didn't kept Patsy away from the phone. Let's say that Patsy slept without taking her clothes off because she was so tired from the party, so tired that she couldn't heard her daughter scream. Why John didn't put the ransom letter in front of the door where she slept, so it would be easier for him to hear her scream after she read the letter, in this way she was far from the phone, why in the kitchen, close to the phone? John didn't wanted a 911 call. So his plain went in vain because he was not careful after all he did for the most important part of his plan!!! NO 911 call. He failed!

      Delete
    10. I'm sorry but many of your questions I just don't understand. And most of the others seem unreasonable. I don't think anyone could answer some of them. I'm not a mindreader, so I won't even try. If you read what I've written from the beginning then you'll hopefully see the logic behind my reasons for suspecting John. Over and above that, I try to speculate as to what some of the details of the case might mean, but that doesn't affect the basic logic, which points to John and no one else. My speculations could be wrong and it may have happened some other way. But I don't see the point of trying to account for every little detail, since most of those details will never be known.

      Delete
    11. The Ramsey's were scheduled to leave on a trip early that morning, and they couldn't leave without their daughter, so of course one of them would HAVE to make that early call to the police. But, I do see your point in that JR was trying to scare PR away from contacting the police, I imagine he wanted witnesses in the form of their friends to see the note, he may have said call our friends, and PR panic stricken called 911 first.

      The other call to 911 that was cut off was during a Ramsey dinner party, not related to the frantic call PR made on Christmas day. Could have been the kids playing around...

      Delete
  3. I'm very much in need to have your help. Let's talk about molestation. Touchy subject but I believe JBR murder is all about molestation: it starts with an acute digital penetration and it finishes with the hiding the chronic sexual abuse. And we have 3 suspects at the night of the murder: Patsy, John and Burke. Who can be the most possible molester? Let's address each and everyone with the 'open mind'. Sorry in advance for the graphic discussion and taking space on your server:). Today, with your permission, I'll post PATSY analysis. (please let me know if it's OK to post JOHN and BURKE analysis tomorrow).

    PATSY. As the known fact, woman can be the sexual abuser. The history of such a violence exists so I will not going to present here the proof of that or repeat these horror stories of mis-fortunate children who were molester by their mothers. What usually triggers such a behavior in woman?
    - childhood history of sexual abuse. There were rumors that Patsy was molested by her father, Donald Paugh, But it's just a rumors, no supportive facts or evidences;
    - presence of the pathological illness (referring as the psychopathology or mental illness or distress) which occurred in patient who has the significant changes in the brain or/and harmone's functioning. Especially, due to so called 'artificial' menopause with following symptoms: loss of sexual desire; mind/body doesn't follow one set pattern; satisfaction may not lead to orgasm; genital and subjective arousal may not match. One of the 'side effect' from the ovarian cancer surgery is the early 'artificial' menopause! The side effects from the following chemo therapy and stress reduction medications are endless: including fatigue, psychological unbalance and much more. In another world, Patsy's battle with the stage IV ovarian cancer has damaged her brain and harmones functionality's. And this is the fact (read any medical references to this cancer and you'll learn alot). But does it damaged her to the point that her sexual satisfaction could only be achieved by performing vaginal digital penetration on her daughter? I don't know. What I do know is that Patsy was leaving her life through JBR existence. Just look at JBR's pictures and videos from these pageants! Look at the costumes JBR was warring...make-ups, sexual pose..Patsy was saying that this wasn't important in JBR life. But it was DAMN important in PR life, isn't?! We know as the fact that on December 25 1996, Patsy and JBR were warring the same outfit. It was very important to Patsy to be 'look alike', to be 'associated' with JBR youth, beauty....and, possibly, desire. So, could Patsy be the molester? Yes, it's very possible!

    OpenMind

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know how much profiling means to you, OpenMind, and I'm tempted to join in on your speculations, which are interesting. But the whole drift of the argument I've presented in literally every single post on this blog is that this sort of speculation is a morass to be avoided at all costs. Because ultimately all of it is: inconclusive. So why bother?

      Sure there are many reasons to suppose a mother such as Patsy could have molested and murdered her child. And there are many reasons to suppose, as did John Douglas, that this was highly unlikely in her case. And one can argue back and forth on this forever to no avail. Which is actually what has been happening for years on the forums.

      I literally have no opinion on such matters, though I must say Patsy has always struck me as sincere (except of course when she is lying). As I see it, we know Patsy must be innocent because 1. she called the police while the body was still in the house; and 2. the whole point of the note was to put John in charge of the situation -- thus there is nothing in the note that would have been useful to Patsy had she written it; and finally, 3. if they were in on it together then once again they wouldn't have called the cops so early.

      This incontrovertible logic makes all the attempts at psychological analysis and profiling irrelevant. It is crystal clear and based on factual evidence, while the rest, while interesting and possibly meaningful, is inherently speculative.

      Delete
    2. I know, I know. But PLEASE can you explain how John become the molester? You asked your readers many times to adapt your theory based on the logic. And you even asked: who would consider to be MORE LIKELY molester John or Burke? OK, I'll not going to take the space and time on your forum with my 'molestation' profiles but could YOU please do so and explain how John becomes the child molester? What could trigger this pathological changes in man after 40 to become the ONE child molester? Did you see 'child molestation' as 'one-time' occurrence in adult male? Here are few facts: JR raised 2 daughters before JBR. With Melinda he still very-very close. John always was 'woman'-man, possibly had an affairs, been merit 3 times, has 5 children...but the most important, after 15 years being 'under suspicion', nobody link him to any children molestation history!!! So, you're honestly believe that John molestation is one-time deal??? And if this is possible then please tell me what could happen in JR life around 1990-1996 to make JR the 'one-time child molester'. If you could 'profiling'/reasoning this one-time molestation - I'll be the most loyal fan of your JDI theory.

      OpenMind

      Delete
    3. OK. What do we really know about John Ramsey. Lou Smit saw him as some sort of ideal "Good Christian," but on what basis? Because they prayed together?

      First of all, John had been married previously, but what is often not discussed is that he had had an affair during that marriage, which lasted for two years, during which time he routinely LIED to his wife. When asked about it he laid the blame on the "other woman," claiming it was a "Fatal Attraction" sort of thing, in which the woman was stalking him. Sorry but that's hard to believe for a relationship that lasted two years. So that looks like still another lie.

      Very different from child molestation, true. But there was allegedly another woman in his life, Kimberly Ballard, who claimed John asked her to dress up in pageant type costumes, like JonBenet wore. She appeared on several talk shows making these allegations, but then suddenly stopped, and ultimately retracted, saying she had lied. (See e.g., http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05121997kimballardongeraldo.htm)

      The Ramsey lawyers dismissed her as someone trying to extort money from John, but it's hard to imagine why someone would want to make up such stories out of the blue and how they might expect money if the stories were total bullshit. I suspect she shut up because she was paid off, simple as that. But who knows, this whole case is so full of bizarre episodes.

      Another thing to consider is that John spent a great deal of time overseas, supposedly on business trips, very often to Holland, where he had a business partner or subsidiary. In fact he was away from home a lot and spent a lot of time on these overseas jaunts. Now he might have been a perfect angel during these trips, but we don't really know do we?

      Again, most of this is speculation. John may have been a perfect husband, at least as far as Patsy was concerned, and may never have laid a hand on any child prior to JonBenet. But the facts in this case point to John and only to John. And what is more he lied!!!! So sorry, I'm not about to give him a pass, even if he was a bloody angel prior to the night of the murder.

      Delete
    4. 'But the facts in this case point to John and only to John. And what is more he lied!!!! '...hmmmm...EVERYONE had lied, not just John...Patsy lied, Burke lied. No more arguing from me on this subject. You're an exceptional writer, intelligent debater. Your 'breaking window' analysis is superb. But your unwillingness to consider the psychological angle in JBR molestation/murder case - IMO, is wrong. (I'm sure you're familiar with 'Double Jeopardy' Mel Ignatow case. The FBI's psychological profile was the 'roadmap' to his conviction. Unfortunately, nobody could find photo pictures on time:).

      Delete
    5. OpenMind, your theory is not logical.

      Some facts:

      Early menopause caused by hysterectomy is routinely treated with hormone replacement therapy.

      Menopause does not typically change anyone's sexual orientation or turn them into child molestors. It does not "damage" a woman's brain and sexuality. The idea that it does is misogynist fantasizing.

      The only pathological illness that has caused someone to molest was a brain tumor, and the offender in that case was a man.

      While there are female child molestors, men are far more likely to molest children of either sex.

      You say it is a fact that Patsy's mind was disturbed and damaged by her battle with cancer, but you present no evidence. This "fact" is your fantasy. It is fiction.

      Patsy and JonBenet dressing alike is not indicative of molestation or of any improper sexual desire on Patsy's part. Many little girls like to dress like their mothers, and Patsy clearly doted on JonBenet. Identical outfits are especially common for holiday pictures.

      Is it possible that Pasty could have molested her daughter? well, anything's possible, right? But is is probable that she molested her daugher? No.

      The fact that John Ramsey did not molest his older daughters doesn't mean he didn't molest JonBenet. Opportunity and attraction are both relevant here. He may not have had opportunity to molest his other daughters, he may not have found them attractive. It is not at all unusual for child abusers who have multiple children to choose only one child to directly abuse.

      The fact that we have no knowledge of John molesting any other time does not mean he never did. However, yes, some pmolestors only molest one victim their entire lives. Sometimes they spend years working up the nerve to act, sometimes they don't have the opportunity.

      Honestly, your posts here make absolutely no sense. None. Yu clearly don't understand that, which leads me to believe that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play.

      Delete
    6. In re: the woman who claimed John was attracted to pageant-style outfits and then recanted... I've also read that John was recently remarried to a woman who designs showgirl costumes in Vegas. Interesting...

      Delete
  4. This wasn't any old lie, this was the mother of all lies, the lie about breaking the basement window "last summer" or "some summer" or one of several times in the past, with his pants off and possibly his shirt, etc. This lie tells us he staged a window breakin the night of the murder. What more do you need? If he wants to testify that he was covering for Burke, let him. Do you really think any jury would buy such a story? On the basis of profiling? Because Kolar found some studies informing us that some 9 year old boys have been sexually active? Please!

    And what sort of psychological profile would you use to convince us that John would be willing to risk the electric chair to protect a son who had just killed his daughter, instead of calling 911 and grounding him forever? When the son was too young to be indicted anyhow? Maybe you need to profile his lawyer as well, because who knows he too might also be challenged in a similar way.

    There comes a time when we simply have to rely on simple common sense. When combined with irrefutable evidence and basic logic, it can be a very powerful tool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more on the need to put aside the amateur psychological profiling. I find that people usually have a theory of the case then fit the "profile" (which they've largely made up in their minds) to their theory. It never gets anywhere because there's never any real proof, just supposition. The facts are plenty. No need to fabricate psychological answers.

      Delete
  5. OpenMind, I can't speak for men because I'm not one, but given Patsy had ovarian cancer, it's entirely probable that John wasn't getting any. I do know the average guy thinks about sex a lot, a lot! There is also something called situational abuse, wherein the person may not be a died in the wool, lifetime pedophile, but the situation they confront lends itself to abuse. Remove them from that particular situation, and the abuse goes away. It is quite possible that if John wasn't getting any from Patsy, it may follow with some of JonBenet's pageant outfits that he began to think of and see her in a sexual light. Patsy had poor JonBenet up on a stage flaunting a sexuality that wasn't natural by any means for her age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. JonBenet was definitely sexualized, an illusion was created that she was more mature than of course she was. And John may have been tempted. I don't think he'd have to have been a chronic pedophile under such circumstances.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for replying. Your post reminds me of one very powerful book by V.Nabokov: 'Lolita'. (If you didn't read it yet - I highy recommend). Anyway, like DocG pointed out - John's traveling opportunities could compensate his sexual void from Patsy. JR wasn't 'woman-shy' person:). Here what well known medical experts concluded: 'Child molestation is a DISEASE. The child molester is a sick person with an illness that he is UNABLE to control or stop on his own. He has a preoccupation and a sexual desire for young children. In order to stop, he needs help through treatment, supervision or incarceration'. Thanks God is not 'just my opinion'...

      OpenMind

      Delete
    3. All the more reason to get this guy off the streets.

      Delete
    4. Oh come on guys, theres a huge difference between having an affair and molesting your daughter!

      And if John wasn't getting any, but had had affairs in previous relationships why not just go and have another one?

      I'm sure he had both the time and money, and the opportunity.

      Something really serious has to happen to someone to turn them into a situational molester,have you any proof of that? and if they were a true paedophile then it's very likely they would have acted on those impulses in the past..John had previous duaghters after all..true they weren't sexualised like JB was, but thats irrelevant, since in the mind of the molester the child is ALWAYS acting sexually towards them even though they are not, so the trigger of make up and mannerisms and costumes is not needed because the abuser already sees them in that fashion, as a sexually viable person/object.

      I have to say, respectfully, and I do mean that, that you are quite dismissive of people having their own pet theory and desperately trying to make the facts fit that..but reading this it just comes across that you are doing exactly the same.

      Delete
    5. My theory is based strictly on known, non-disputed facts and documented testimony. I am not trying to make the facts fit my theory, the facts are the facts and I am presenting them as such. Whether John's past behavior fits or does not fit some preconceived "profile" is for others to decide. I can only speculate on that, but it has nothing to do with the case I've made.

      Delete
    6. Sometimes a child molester is not a pedophile but a sexual addict, so far gone that only the thrill of molesting a child can get him off. It is more a crime of power and opportunity than about sex.

      JonBenet probably didn't realize what was going on until he went too far and hurt her. She cried out or threatened to tell and to silence her he hit her on the head too hard. He thought she was dead, so he started to stage a murder.

      Like Doc said, he found her still breathing and had to strangle her to get her to stop moaning, then fashioned the garrote around her neck to hide fingerprints. We know she died from strangulation, we do NOT know the garrote killed her.

      He probably thought he could place her body in the mountains somewhere and she might not be found, (still, he wiped her down so his DNA would not be found and put the wrong size underwear back on her just in case), but he needed to get the family out of the way first. I live close to the Ramsey house, and the Rocky National Park is only minutes away.

      I grew up with just such a molester. Unlike John Ramsey he was also a violent child abuser, so I knew better than to resist or tell anyone.

      I find your theory makes perfect sense and is the only one which incorporates all the known facts.

      Delete
    7. I find it impossible to believe that JR had the resourcefullness to try and hide his crime (if indeed it was him), only to blow it completely by wiping JB down with his own shirt and redressing her in a pair of panties that were ridiculously too large for her. If he is this cool, calm, collected, criminal mastermind he is being portrayed as then this does NOT fit..and I don't buy it, sorry.

      Delete
    8. I see no reason to assume John wiped her with his shirt. He could have wiped her with some tissues for all we know. The fibers from his shirt could have been transferred by other means for sure. As far as the panties are concerned, it seems much more likely for a man to make that sort of mistake than a woman. And I don't think he'd have been cool and collected at that moment. He'd have been in a hurry!

      Delete
    9. Child molestation is such a complicated subject that there's no way anyone could psychologically profile (amateur or otherwise) one single individual. Some child molesters are pedophiles, some are mentally ill, some are making horrible decisions because of outside influences like alcohol. If John Ramsey did molest and murder his daughter there's no way to point to solid evidence for it. But I say this as someone who also believes John Ramsey did in fact sexually molest and murder his daughter.

      I'm not 100% sold on there being a history of sexual abuse with JonBenet. A previously broken hymen, chronic vaginitis, and regressive bed wetting do not automatically mean sexual abuse. A broken hymen and tissue erosion can easily be caused by masturbation. Vaginitis is ridiculously common in little girls and can be caused by bed wetting and incontinence. Regressive bladder control can be caused by everything from stress to bladder infections. And as a life-long vagina haver and the mother of a six-year-old little girl I promise yeast infections, vaginitis and masturbation to point of injury is normal for well adjusted young children.

      That being said, all of these things can point to sexual abuse too. I just don't think it's solid evidence. But there would be no other motive for John Ramsey to kill JonBenet. Can it be equally possible that the night of Dec. 25 was the first time John Ramsey molested JonBenet? Considering that there's been no evidence of a history of child abuse or pedophilia in regards to John Ramsey I think he sexually molested JonBenet for the first time that night (had he been drinking at the Christmas party?), and having no experience with coercing children into silence bludgeoned her in shame, guilt, and maybe in his state of mind a weird idea of mercy.

      Erica

      Delete
    10. Thanks for this well thought out, and well informed, comment, Erica. Fact is, we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not John had been abusing JonBenet prior to the night of the murder. There is evidence consistent with chronic abuse, but as you say there could have been other causes of those injuries.

      I've made the point many times that almost all the so-called "evidence" in this case is inconclusive and can be interpreted in many different ways to point in many different directions. It is only when we focus on the really solid evidence that the sordid truth of this case is revealed. Very clearly, there was no sign of forced entry. Very clearly, the note was written on paper from the house, paper which had in fact never even been folded, which already makes it obvious there was no kidnapper. Very clearly, there were signs of staging at the basement window.

      We know for sure it was Patsy and not John who called 911. It's not difficult to see that John from his own testimony that lied about breaking the window the previous summer.

      So, regardless of what one might think about the likelihood of chronic sexual abuse, or bedwetting or sibling rivalry, or what the "experts" might have concluded about who wrote what, when we stick to the basics, the conclusion should be clear. I'm glad you agree.

      Delete
    11. Erica, I agree with most of what you said except for the "fact" that "masturbation to the point of injury" is normal for a 6-year-old girl. I've seen others bring this up and even considered it as an explanation for her injuries but. Eh... not convinced of that. In order to cause herself the type of "erosion" that was found it seems like she'd have to engage in this activity frequently. And frequent masturbation is not necessarily normal for a six-year-old child of either gender. Occasionally? Yes, that can be normal. But parents of very young children who chronically or excessively masturbate are encouraged to seek professional help. You can find this by googling. HealthyChildren.org, for example, is one of many public health type websites that give this advice.

      A close friend who is a developmental psychologist indulged in letting me obsess about this case and pick her brain about child development - after her 4-year-old daughter was down for a nap, of course. :-) She said a 6-year-old girl masturbating enough that it left marks on her would be a "major warning sign" that "something is up."

      I think - and my friend agrees - that the bed-wetting, vaginal trauma, partially torn hymen, and chronic yeast infections all taken together do point to probable abuse. Any one or two of them alone MIGHT be something else. All together, they are extremely suspicious. And when you add the indisputable fact that she was killed under her own roof in a crime that involved vaginal trauma and almost certainly could not have been perpetrated by anyone but a member of her own family, I think that's the nail in the coffin of any doubt that she was a victim of chronic abuse.

      That's my two cents.

      Delete
    12. "I think that's the nail in the coffin of any doubt that she was a victim of chronic abuse."


      Yeah, I can totally see your point. I wouldn't be completely shocked to discover that JonBenet had been molested for months or years prior to her death. But my money is still on her being abused for the first time the night she passed away.

      For starters, many children chronically masturbate in private at ages even younger than six, without there being a single instance of abuse by an adult. Chronic private masturbation most certainly does not automatically point to abuse. I realize everything together can be warning signs, but all of these together are things that I personally have experienced as both a former little girl and mother of a little girl. Lots of children do not masturbate until sexual maturity, but it's not a written rule.

      I think I'm wary of abuse claims from outside experts because it's a similar industry that convinced an entire country that daycare centers were fronts for Satanic child molesters practicing human sacrifice. And I think we as a society are still suffering from the hangover that caused. Children are people, and they do not all behave in a uniform and predictable way. That being said, sexual abuse does happen a lot more than is ever reported, but symptoms of it (when symptoms are even present in the first place) can easily be disguised as normal childhood illnesses, injuries and behaviors.

      But what honestly makes me believe that JonBenet was not abused previously to Dec. 25 is the fact that she died that night. If we concede that John Ramsey killed JonBenet, than why then? Why on Christmas night of all days? I realize that a major (and perfectly plausible) theory is that JonBenet said something or did something that made John believe he was going to be caught the next day. But I can't help but think, what would make him believe she WOULDN'T tell prior to Christmas night?

      John Ramsey was frequently out of town on business trips. If he'd had the type of relationship with his daughter that he believed she'd keep quiet while he was away for days at a time, I don't think she would confront him directly. And if John, through bribes or threats, stopped JonBenet from reporting her father for months, or possibly years of abuse, I think he would have kept his cool if she had said something that night.

      However, I could be completely wrong about that. And to be honest, I think it almost doesn't matter. Whether or not JonBenet had a history of being abused, she was certainly sexually assaulted and murdered on the night of Dec.25. And John Ramsey is the only one who makes sense as the perpetrator.

      And as an aside, I for one cannot possibly be the first and last non-abused person who had an emergency room doctor remove a barbie shoe from my lady bits when I was five. And it wasn't even the first barbie shoe. Stuff like that is just something that some kids do.

      -Erica

      Delete
    13. You both make excellent points. And Erica, if this were simply a case of child abuse rather than sexual assault and murder, then you might be able to make an effective case for reasonable doubt on the basis of your arguments. But as you say "it almost doesn't matter," because whether or not she was previously abused, she was certainly sexually assaulted the night of the murder.

      Delete
    14. I don't know about you, but I can see finger marks on JB neck in autopsy photos. it looks to me like a palm print on the left side of her neck and 3 or 4 fingers on the right side. IMO that is how she was strangled, the garrote was just staging, and clearly put on her while she was dead, as you can see her hair wrapped up in the cord. It is hard to believe an intruder would bring duct tape and cord, hoping to find a paint brush to help make the ligature. Those paintbrushes are not easy to break either, more likely broken by a strong man. John Ramsey was the last to go to bed that night, by his own admission, and the first one up and only one to take a shower. PLUS the alarm never went off, Patsy was awakened by Johns running shower.

      Delete
  6. JR is the one I suspect more than any other individual, but so many weird things pop up in the story that I can't see how it could be so simple. Why would he spend so much time pointlessly scribbling out a note, slowly so as not to use his normal handwriting slant, when every minute was a chance of being caught? Why did JR blame "the world" and a "creature" for the death of his daughter? Sure, he lied. But those particular ways of framing it sound to me like how people talk when they are blaming a real accomplice or "bad influence" in their circle of friends, for "making" them do something bad, not how they talk about imaginary people. Criminals usually describe imaginary perps in calm, individual terms like "shaggy-haired stranger" from what I've read. And they had so many acquaintances and neighbors with a history of pedophilia. They had a house full of people all the time. If there wasn't someone else involved along with JR, it's hard to believe.
    But, maybe not. Your theory is elegantly simple and no evidence I know of rules it out. It just smells more like a group crime to me. Maybe hot shot businessmen like him just think differently from the average perp and that's why it seems so weird next to other single-perp crimes I've heard about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Why would he spend so much time pointlessly scribbling out a note, slowly so as not to use his normal handwriting slant, when every minute was a chance of being caught?"

    Excellent question. And yet, someone wrote that note in that house on that night, and there would have been the same danger involved, no, regardless of who wrote it?

    Also you need to consider the question, caught by whom? If he had just murdered his daughter, I can guarantee you there was no one else in that house he would not have been prepared to murder as well. The case would have looked differently if that had happened and he might have had to alter his plan, but I see no reason to doubt that if he'd been interrupted that person would have been his next victim.

    As far as John's language is concerned, it looks to me like the typical sort of thing someone might say if he's trying to give the impression of an irate father-victim.

    Why do you think their friends were pedophiles, do you have a source for that?

    As far as the involvement of others, I very much doubt that, though one can't be sure. John strikes me as basically a loner. Also it would be a huge risk to involve someone else. And who could it have been?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wasn't thinking that a RN writer other than JR would have had less fear of being caught, but that the writer, whoever it was, would have had reason to spend so much time on it only if it meant something. If most panicked criminals were writing a fake RN, it would seem they would make it even shorter than a real one -- Got kid put 1M$ outside -- something like that, in their fear. If JR or someone else wrote such a long, oddly-phrased letter under such circumstances, my mind goes to "the note means something to someone." But then, JR is an unusual person and I can't vouch for how he thinks.
    I'm not thinking his actual friends were known pedophiles, but I have read that hundreds of them lived within walking distance of the house and would have used the same recreational facilities and must have met the R's at some time. If a neighbor and JR shared a criminal interest, it seems it would have likely come up and they might have formed some horrible favor-trade over the years.
    Also, I'd heard that B was molested by someone P knew, other than JR. And that a former contract employee of theirs ad a reputation for being "pervy." I don't remember the exact sources on that. I could look them up tonight if I get a chance.
    Some of my original reasons for thinking it was a group have fallen away, such as the DNA, and discrepancies about where the body was "found" vs. where she must have died, implying she was moved easily.
    Maybe you're right about JR's language. I don't know anyone in that social class with that personality type, I suppose.
    All in all, I'm between JR and JR+accomplices.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There were all sorts of speculations and odd theories floating around, especially during the first year or so. The bottom line for me, however, is that John lied about the basement window, which means that he was staging and from then on everything else seems clear. As I see it, he definitely needs to be indicted. Once he is put on trial and takes the stand, there will be opportunities to question him regarding the details of what happened. And if others are involved then hopefully that will be revealed. For me the only meaningful message in the note is: we've got your daughter, John and we are putting you in charge of getting her back, so don't call the police or do anything else but follow our instructions.

    That's all I need in order to understand what the note means. It means John wrote it to save his butt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've been following this case since the get-go because I had a daughter a month older than JBR. Interesting theories here that are far stronger and stand up to the evidence better than any other I’ve seen.

    I would like to comment on the molestation and how it fits more with JR than PR. I don't see how never being convicted of sexual abuse would rule JR out. There is a first time for everything.
    We'll never know if JR did or didn't have some kind of experiences in his youth that warped his sexuality; people covered up in those days (pre-80s), males were far less likely to report. Maybe no one knew, or maybe some other reason created deviant impulses. Maybe he started experimenting with younger prostitutes on business trips. Who knows? Speculation can't prove anything there, but in my mind a lack of history with pedophilia or sexual abuse doesn't discount it.

    Obviously had some trouble controlling his sexual impulses-- he had affairs. Maybe PR's cancer, low sex drive, stress of dealing with it, JBR's being sexualized, etc. Maybe it drove him to do the unthinkable.

    The hypothetical situation that has always played in my mind is that PR was out cold (alcohol or meds maybe?). Maybe JBR awoke or he went and woke her, and took her downstairs so they would be less likely to be discovered. Tried to make her feel safe, fed her a snack, etc.

    I don't think he intended to kill her but the blow on the head might have been an automatic, over-forceful reaction to silence her panic. At that point his brain would have been racing and decided to blame intruders. He probably thought she was brain dead anyway, so he finished the job thinking it’d be easier to hide a body. He scrounged for things and concocted the garrote so he wouldn't use his hand, staged the "break in" scene, hid the body, planned the wordy note meant to keep PR from calling the police, planned to disguise his handwriting.

    PR molesting JBR doesn't fit as well with me. Women abusers are usually less forceful, more manipulative and I believe she would have had enough control over JBR to prevent the child from crying out if she had been abusing her. Why kill her? PR was the one who lived vicariously through JBR, why would she want her dead? More importantly, why write a note to discourage John from calling the police only to call them herself immediately?

    Sorry so long; but the molestation thing & note don't work for me with a PDI scenario. I'm continuing onto your next post eagerly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad to learn my thoughts on this case make sense to you. As I see it, and regardless of all the other evidence pointing to John, it's a huge stretch to imagine that anyone other than a mature male would have been likely to have sexually molested JonBenet. And once we see that, it's not much of a step from molestation to murder. And I fully agree, her daughter was the apple of Patsy's eye. So yes, everything you've written makes sense.

      Delete
  11. straight from the detective when the body was discovered...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aly2fPK-XE&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with that interview, but I must say I have mixed feelings about it. While obviously I can see how Arndt would have suspected John, her report is extremely subjective, not very different from the reports we've seen regarding Patsy's demeanor, which struck others as suspicious. So while I can very well understand why Arndt would have suspected John, since I'm convinced John is in fact exactly what she saw in him, I'm bothered by the tendency of so many to judge both Patsy and John by their behavior and not according to the concrete facts of the case, especially those that are beyond dispute.

      Needless to say, I am NOT a fan of criminal profilers, who too often jump to conclusions based on their own personal biases, which could also use some profiling, by the way. I respect Arndt because I think she did show some insight into the meaning of John's behavior. But her testimony is far from sufficient as an indicator of guilt. There is no substitute for concrete, conclusive evidence and the logical evaluation of same.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you to an extent but I think the gut reaction of a detective in a situation like that, in the moment, is something to take into account, on some level. After all, she is the only detective who was there when the body was discovered. No other LE professional was literally looking JR in the eye over the body of his daughter. Her gut reaction was fear of him and belief that she was looking at the killer.

      Question: has JR ever explained why he was reading his mail in the kitchen as Arndt observed? Has he explained where he went when Arndt lost track of him? What do you think he was really doing when he says he went outside briefly?

      Yes, these are piddling details, and the macro view of the crime remains the same. I'm just curious...

      I agree that the criminal profiling gets taken too far. It can be useful in certain cases, but in this one, it's hard facts that solve the crime. There is no UNSUB. He was right there in the house.

      Delete
    3. It seems clear to me that John must have taken advantage of Arndt's awkward situation to get rid of any incriminating evidence he could find. He went AWOL on her for a considerable length of time, as I recall around 45 minutes. That was plenty of time for him to, for example, redress the body in a fresh pair of panties, and dump the remaining cord, tape, window glass, etc. in a handy nearby sewer drain or garbage can.

      Since I feel sure John killed his daughter, I have no problem agreeing that Arndt's gut reaction was right on the money. But, as I said above, that sort of evidence isn't very useful in a court of law, it's just too subjective.

      Delete
  12. Ηеllo there, ѕimply become аware of your
    weblоg thru Goοglе, and lοcateԁ that іt's truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I'll appгeсiate fоr thoѕe who
    pгoceed this in future. Manу folκs will
    be benеfitеd frоm your ωrіting.
    Cheегs!
    Here is my homepage : candida caused by antibotitics

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not all molestations end up in murder. What, in your opinion DocG, would have caused JR to "snap" and kill his daughter? It has been my belief that most molesters have a very keen "control" over their victims --- many who never reveal the abuse for years, if at all. And we are talking about a very young child, who probably actually loved her daddy and would believe anything he would tell her. What could this 6-year old possibly have said, or done, to make JR feel he had no choice but to kill her??? I definitely believe JR is responsible for her death, but I still l can't grasp what could have possibly happened that fateful night. That blow to her head was done in a rage. What caused this rage??

    Obsessed with this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every case is different. JonBenet was an unusually intelligent child, with a mind of her own. It's not difficult for me to see her as someone who'd stand up for herself in an abusive situation. We must also recognize that the family was about to go on a trip during which she'd have had the opportunity to confer with her older sister, and perhaps confide some secrets.

      My guess is that JonBenet must have said something that led John to believe he couldn't trust her to keep silent. His company had reached an important milestone of a billion dollars in business over the previous year and he was flying high. It's not difficult to see how concerned he might have gotten over the possibility of losing his business and being ruined, all due to one single "mistake."

      The blow to the head may have been calculated as the "most merciful" means of doing away with her. First knock her out, so she won't feel anything. Then strangle her to make sure she's dead. So he may not have killed her in a rage at all.

      Delete
    2. If you do not suspect to Patsy because she did the phone call, I say you are wrong. This is the great reason to doubt about her, because if she really believed that somebody entered during her sleeping and took her daughter, and wrote that he/she/ or they (a small group) would have killed her daughter, and she still called the police, then you've never have known real mothers. A real mother, never and ever would call a police to sign the death of a her child. Because of she did the phone call, there are two possibilities, either she did the killing, or she was following the kidnapers advices (forget about the ransom note, it is completely a crap, just to compromise John and Patsy with the crime) with the hope they would returned JonBenet. Also, your idea that John is the killer is wrong because of the ransom letter. If he would have been an ignorant man, i would have accepted completely that he was so stupid such that couldn't have been able to distinguish a professional kidnaper who doesn't leave any clue wrote a stupid ransom letter, so he never could written that stupid letter. Or if he wrote it, he could try to leave some footprints over the house, and he had a plenty of time to destroy the shoes, for example those boots that left footprints on the basement. So I wrote a lot for today, and I feel so tired to give my ideas about what happened 17 years ago. True or false story?! Sometimes it looks both, sometimes it looks completely false story. End of my comments.

      Delete
    3. What is your point? It sounded at first as though you were saying Patsy is innocent. Now you are saying no real mother would have called 911 after getting such a ransom note. But if she is innocent then that's exactly what she did. And if she were still alive you could ask her why. But she is not alive so we will never know. But don't ask me, I didn't make that call, she did.

      And if she were guilty and was aware that the note was phoney she wouldn't have made the call either, because the call would have destroyed her plan.

      The FACT is that she DID make that call. And it does stand to reason that she could have believed it was in her child's best interest to have the police investigating the kidnapping rather than simply obeying the instructions in the note. She would certainly not have made that call if she'd written the ransom note or even knew that it was phoney, because the call destroyed the staging of the kidnapping. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. As for the rest, you have a thousand questions and I just don't have time to answer all of them, and in fact most are answered elsewhere on this blog, if you look you'll find them.

      Delete
  14. Just curious as to what you all think? I thought John was responsible all along, but thought He and Patsy collaborated at the beginning. I had my doubts though because Patsy absolutely adored that little girl. My question is this. At some point Patsy had to realize John was responsible, so what do you think stopped her from coming to the police?

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's a very good question. I've already attempted to answer it in a few places on this blog, notably here, toward the end of the post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html

    In a nutshell, it's important to remember that John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, and hardly anyone has ever questioned that. So why would Patsy? If he didn't write the note, and she didn't write it, then only an intruder could have written it, so she's have had no reason to suspect anything other than an intruder. Also, if she did develop some suspicions over time, which I doubt, it would have been a huge mistake for her to take them to the authorities, because not only had John been ruled out, but in the eyes of many of the investigators SHE was the one who wrote that note. So they would not have believed her and her accusations would have backfired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. apparently John does not mind being referred to as the killer of his beloved daughter

      KING: In a couple of minutes, Greta Van Susteren will join us, as will Lin Wood, the attorney for the Ramseys, civil attorney.

      We have seen JonBenet's grave can be a place of sadness and solace, but our camera crew learned it's also been touched by public suspicion about the Ramseys. Watch.

      (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

      P. RAMSEY: It's nice to think so many people come out here.

      J. RAMSEY: Yes. Yes, this gives you faith in mankind. This kind of stuff doesn't. It's amazing that some people would be that crude. What we've learned in the world is there are good people and there are evil people. That's, unfortunately, what we ought to be aware of.

      (END VIDEO CLIP)

      KING: How did you react to that, "daddy did it"?

      J. RAMSEY: Well, it's hurtful to us that someone would desecrate her grave. That's the sad part. The allegation isn't hurtful. It's the...

      KING: No, you really can handle this well, John. I mean, most people would be ticked.

      J. RAMSEY: Well, you look at the tree above it, and there's probably 150 angels that have been brought there by good people. The good has outweighed the bad in this situation for us.

      Delete
  16. I've had this nagging feeling they staged this together. Honestly if it is staging and not an intruder then the 911 call and what transpired after is simply part of the staging. Look at the case of Diane Downs & Susan Smith- while these cases were both more premeditated (and I don't think Jonbenet's demise was)- my point being both of those "loving" mothers put on quite a dramatic show of innocence right after they did their dirty deeds. It's not impossible for her to be putting on a show. She was after all the queen of appearances. She was also very religious and could have even convinced herself she had been overtaken by the devil in that moment so "she" really didn't do it in her own warped mind.

    It always bugged me in the autopsy photos the way Jonbenet's little golden cross necklace was trapped in the garrote as if it hung down behind her when it was initially applied, yet it looks like they turned her away and did not want to look at her when they did the final deed, and they did it thinking she had already died and couldn't explain it. This made me think she was unconscious from the head wound and something about the way it was snagged in the hair underneath it made me think someone was holding her unconscious body in their arms when someone else slipped the garrote around her neck and initially tightened it.

    Also her mother's complete denial of the pineapple when there is a bowl on the table with her prints on it. In my minds eye I could imagine Patsy even up with both kids before it all took place, having a pineapple snack.. Then something comes later to cause her to lose her temper and first grab Jonbenet's shirt and shake her violently causing the little girl to scream and then the mom whacking her with the flashlight almost as an angry reflex to shut her up. I can almost imagine Patsy panicking and trying to figure out what to do, not sure at first how badly she injured her, even thinking maybe she will wake up- until she starts death throes and vomiting instead throwing Patsy into a straight up panic. Maybe during this time is when John found out what happened.

    Lastly the sexual abuse is a nagging issue… unless Patsy really did catch her husband messing with her and tried to clock him but hit the kid instead…but then again maybe the signs of long term 'sexual abuse' was more innocent than what we've all imagined. If the housekeeper was right that JB and B were caught 'playing doctor' under the covers in his bed several times. Maybe it went too far and Patsy knew it. I have wondered what is in the medical records the parents never wanted anyone to see. Were they Burke's records or Patsy's?
    Maybe all that Burke was guilty of was experimenting with his sister and his odd detachment afterwards can be explained by having a mother intensely focused on his little sister and a dad who wasn't there a lot of the time.

    Finally I tend to think that John was all about the damage control. In some interview he said he just liked to solve problems. Maybe that is what he did. We have to consider both of them stood to lose everything that mattered to them- their reputations and lifestyle, all their friends, the job etc. These are people who were all about appearances and success. Even accidentally killing a child would certainly tarnish everything they held dear. Maybe he helped cover it up to save face of the family and "protect their remaining child" so to speak.

    Anyway just my two cents at this very late date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the 911 call was part of the staging, then what, exactly, was being staged? The phoney "kidnap" note tells us a kidnapping was being staged. And yet the call was made with the body still in the house, which completely undermines the kidnap staging. It's clear to me that the call could only have been made by someone with no knowledge of who actually wrote that note and why. Certainly not by the person who wrote it. Especially because, if Patsy did in fact write it, the note becomes evidence against her. And if it's so obvious she wrote it, then the evidence would be overwhelming. So why hand the police evidence that might well send you to prison for life?

      As far as the pineapple is concerned, I think Patsy denied any knowledge of it because she was asleep when John fed it to JonBenet. And why wouldn't Patsy's prints be on that bowl, since she was the housewife and could very likely have taken the bowl from the dishwasher and placed it in a cupboard. Fingerprints don't come with time stamps. And in many cases there are no prints at all, even after something has been handles.

      Delete
  17. I'm sorry, but I cannot buy the idea that Patsy was not involved. I am certain they were both involved in the staging and cover up. In her initial statement, she claimed that she had checked Jonbenet's room BEFORE she started down the stairs and found the ransom note. She later changed her story by stating that she started down stairs, found the note and the ran back up to her room to find her missing. She was wearing the same outfit she was wearing the day before and fibers from her dress jacket were found in the ligatures, under the duct tape covering Jonbenet's mouth and in her paint tote. Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple PROVING that she did indeed feed Jonbenet pineapple that night even though she swears she did not! The ME concluded that Jonbenet had ingested the pineapple about an hour or two before she died! I think Burke did it and John and Patsy chose to cover it up to protect him and their family name and John's business reputation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Patsy were involved she would have stuck to her story about checking on JBR. What would she have had to gain by changing it? I don't think she "changed her story," I think she just got confused about the sequence of events.

      Similarly, if she were involved, why wear the same outfit, why not shower and change? Patsy's fibers could easily have been transferred to the ligatures via JonBenet, with whom she had been in intimate contact the previous day and evening. They could have been transferred from JBR to her attacker and from him to the ligatures. Same with the duct tape.

      All Patsy's prints on the bowl mean was that she handled it at some point, probably putting it in a cupboard after it had been washed. And if she'd known about the pineapple why not incorporate that into her story, why try to hide it?

      My reasons for concluding that Patsy is innocent can be found on the blog post entitled "Patsy's Role."

      Delete
  18. 5 handwriting experts had examined the ransom note, eliminating very early on John and his other children, but not one of them could eliminate Patsy. Vassar professor Donald Foster, probably the foremost authority in the country eliminated everyone but Patsy as the author! He even went so far as to state " In my opinion, it is not possible that any individual except Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note." He built a wall of linguistic evidence proving that she wrote the damn thing! Problem is that Alex Hunter was in bed with "Team Ramsey" and did not want to "damage" his relationship with the Ramseys, so he did nothing about it!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it were that simple, Patsy would have been put on trial years ago, and convicted. Donald Foster is a charlatan. He initially declared that Patsy could not have written the note, writing that he'd "stake his career on it." Later it turned out that his theories about the poem he'd attributed to Shakespeare were wrong. We haven't heard much from him in some time, and with good reason.

      If you read more in this blog, you'll learn that John is the only one who had anything to gain by writing that note. Patsy would have had no reason to write it. Experts can make mistakes. Happens all the time.

      Delete
  19. Well, I guess 6 handwriting experts and at least two lead detectives, one with many years experience are just full of it when it comes to Patsy then. Interesting that Patsy consistently used the manuscript "a" in her writings, as did the writer of the note, and tried to change this after the fact. When I read DOI, it jumped out at me that their account of the events the morning of the 26th all seemed contrived, like they were recounting a made up and well rehearsed story. Also was amazing the amount of recall they had. But when you consider that and their demeanor during TV interviews, it is blatantly obvious to me that they are both LIARS! Just John's statement alone a couple of days after the murder, "we're not angry. we're just interested in finding out why she died". There are no words to describe how angry I would be if this had happened to my own daughter, in my own house, right under my nose!! Patsy was sitting there in apparent full agreement with this statement!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must admit that after comparing John's handwriting with the RN, I do see a lot of similarities. Perhaps he did write it and investigators pointed the finger at Patsy to put pressure on him. I'm beginning to find your theory compelling. Are you aware of any police statements about their search that morning stating whether or not they checked Ramsey vehicles to determine if they had been recently driven or whether they checked the outside trash containers on their property or that of the neighbors?

      Delete
    2. Steve Thomas got it wrong about Patsy avoiding manuscript "a"s. There are several in her London Letter, written at police request after the murder. I feel sure their vehicles were checked, but I don't see any reason why they would have been used. The plan, as I see it, was to dump the body while claiming to be delivering the ransom, and that could only have taken place the following night. That plan was foiled by Patsy's 911 call, so she could not have been involved.

      As for the trash containers, that's a good question. I don't know.

      Delete
  20. I have gone back and forth over the years about which family member was responsible for this. I truly believe they are all three involved to some extent. They all three know the who, the when, the why and the how. They must. One thing we can agree on though, there was NO INTRUDER! Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's that assumption, that both Patsy and John were involved, that's made the case so impossible to prosecute. Remove Patsy (and of course Burke) from the equation and everything just pops into place. Try it.

      Delete
  21. Another thing I noticed that's interesting about the pantry door is that if it had been open that morning, standing open, they would have known because it was nine degrees that morning! There would have been a nasty draft coming in!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent observation. You're right.

      Delete
  22. Well, I realise I'm a bit late to this particular blog, but thought I'd have my say.

    I agree with DocG for 90% of his theory.

    I certainly agree that we can safetly say "there was NO intruder", due to evidence and John's lies (in particular about the window). I also agree that John was the culprit, most likely due to sexual abuse.

    However, I do disagree with one part. I think Patsy was involved in the staging and wrote the Ransom Note. I certainly believe John verbally assisted with large parts of the note, but I think Patsy wrote it.

    So why did Patsy phone 911 then? Doesn't make sense, right?

    Well, I think neither John or Patsy slept that night and spent the majority of the night completing the "kidnapping staging" and writing the ransom note. Somwhere in the early morning, one or both (probably John) changed his mind. You see, if they were to remove the body from the house the following night, place it in their car, drive it to some remote area, dump or bury the body and ensure no evidence was left anywhere...this was EXTREMELY risky and if they did this they probably would have eventually got caught. Remember, they also had to withdraw $118,000 from the bank (some in 100 dollar notes and some in 50s as per the RN) which would have looked suspect and was just another risky element to it.

    Plus, remember they were due somewhere that day and people were expecting them. If they didn't phone 911 and didn't show up, people would have questioned their whereabouts and people may have come looking to see if they were ok. This trip probably didn't register until early in the morning because they had their hands full with so much else!

    So, they decided it was less risky if they kept the body where it was. They had already staged a kidnapping so now it just become staging a "failed" kidnapping...there wasn't much they had to change.

    I also believe that John was the only one handling and moving JB's body. So he was forced to have a shower and Patsy wore the same clothes on purpose because a guilty person would surely not do this.

    The only thing to then do was ring 911 and Patsy was the obvious choice and did a pretty good job of faking that call. Over the course of the years, both John and Patsy have lied many, many times and if Patsy was innocent, she always would have possibly suspected John in the back of her mind and their relationship would have unraveled.

    I firmly believe that John was the aggressor but both of them staged this and are guilty as sin.

    ZJ

    ReplyDelete
  23. Someone entered the house when they were away to burglarize the home believing they were going out of town and hid when they came home. Jonbenet interrupted them and was murdered. The sexual assault was staged to cover their tracks. This blog is ridiculous and you are all stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It doesn't take a scientist to conclude that a family member wasn't involved in this case. The poor girl was murdered and nobody has been charged? I await the day.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Further to my post of May 9 2016 I believe that family secrets hold the key, however family secrets are being kept 'safe' in this investigation. The whole tragedy just does not add up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A burglar who doesn't steal anything. A kidnapper who doesn't kidnap anyone. But leaves his note behind anyhow. A kidnapper who fails to bring his ransom note with him, so decides to write one while in the house of his victim. Or would you prefer a pedophile who decides to write a ransom note for no reason. Or someone out to frame the Ramseys, who pens the note in his own hand. Someone who enters the house via a basement window, yet leaves not a single smudge on the sill. And at the same time props a hard suitcase directly under that window. And strews packing peanuts from the window well onto the basement floor. Sorry, but none of that makes any sense. There was no intruder.

      Delete
  26. One of my first memories is of masturbation, and I have never been sexually abused. She could have been masturbating quite a bit, because it is indeed known that Burke masturbated as young as three. So maybe she saw him doing it at one point and learned from him. I don't think she was assaulted, I think she probably masturbated.

    ReplyDelete
  27. After watching the new documentary on pointing to Burke accidentally killed his sister and the parents covered it up. But what kind of parents would go out of their way to cover up by strangling their own daughter even more and placed all these sexual tools around? What kind of monster are they to torture their own daughter's dead body even more by covering an accidental death? I believe John Ramsey was sexually abusing her and caused an accident in her death so he had to cover it up in such way

    ReplyDelete

  28. Specifically, how much MORE staging would John have had to do by the broken window? Jump into the window well area, rustle some leaves and dirt then lift the gate to show a disturbance. Did he need to move the grate off and actually exit and have some footprints in the semi-frozen grass or dirt? But then these footprints would have been traceable to his shoes or boots unless his original plan was to throw them away while picking up the ransom so he knew now (post 911 call) he couldn't leave any prints outside the well. But even if he risked coming out of the window well, was he afraid that Patsy or a neighbor could have seen him? Was he worried that he might not be able to completely clean the remaining dirt and debris from his clothes if he had done this?


    More logically, wouldn't he have finished the staging and THEN written the ransom letter?

    Ultimately, didn't John have a dilemna after Patsy's 911 call? He needed to establish an entry & exit point for the "kidnapper" which was the staging area in the basement. But he couldn't have an unfinished staging area that would have incriminated him. So looks like he opted for the latter and tried to cover up the staging/entry area.







    Steve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine John would have planned on having time the following night to enter the basement window via the grate and squeezing through so the dust and dirt on the sill would be disturbed, as though by an intruder. As I understand it, that area would not have been visible from any house in the neighborhood, so he would not have been seen. As for footprints, he could have rubbed out any tell-tale marks with his feet. His clothes would have been filthy, but he could have laundered them afterward. And as I see it, his plan would have included getting Patsy and Burke out of the house to stay with neighbors "for their own safety" while he dealt with the "kidnappers."

      I don't think he could have finished the staging on the night of the murder because his clothing would have been a mess and Patsy would certainly have awakened if he turned on the washer.

      After the 911 call, John would have been improvising and most likely didn't have time to do everything he might have wanted to do before the police arrived.

      Delete
  29. Interesting page about John's choice of words describing Jonbenet:

    http://www.lsiscan.com/id39.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that very interesting link. I'll be reposting it on the current blog page, so everyone else can see it.

      Delete
  30. I thought of something else. DocG, I agree with everything you've written. I believe that Patsy had nothing to do with the murder and truly had no clue what happened before and during her 911 call. But she must have known John was the killer after learning of his lie that the basement window was broken over the summer. If John was innocent, why would he make that claim? In the best case scenario, it barely helps make the case that there might have been an intruder. In the worst case, the real case, it proves he broke the window himself. Surely Patsy would have known if it was broken or not before December 25. And of course she also knew that being rich, they wouldn't leave a broken window unfixed for 5-6 months. This of course means that Patsy covered for her husband until her death as soon as she heard the window lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, this does seem to be the weakest link in my theory of the case. Why would Patsy lie for John about the window if she believed him to be innocent?

      I've already gone over this elsewhere. So. One more time:

      First, Patsy testified that she rarely went to the basement and in fact hardly ever was in that particular part of the basement. If this seems like a contradiction, bear with me. If she was telling the truth on that score, then it's perfectly possible she would have had no way of knowing for sure whether or not that window was ever broken.

      Now: let's suppose she and John were in it together and she was simply lying to support his story. Then why on earth would she have wanted to include Linda, knowing full well that Linda would deny it? And if we want to assume Patsy was telling the truth, then why would Linda have denied any knowledge of any broken glass?

      So we are faced with a contradiction: if Patsy was lying, she wouldn't have mentioned Linda. And if Patsy was telling the truth, Linda would have supported her story. Thus Patsy could not have been lying, nor could she have been telling the truth.

      What alternative is there? As I see it, only one: an implanted memory. As I see it, this is one of the reasons John refused to allow the police to interrogate Patsy for several months. He needed time to work on her. It would not have been difficult, as she would have been under heavy medication for weeks or even months after the discovery of her daughter's body, and her memory would have been foggy. This sort of thing is sometimes referred to as "gaslighting" and it is very real. I think he managed to convince her that she'd cleaned up that glass, and since Linda would routinely have helped her in such a task she innocently included Linda in her memory, something John would NOT have planned on.

      While this may seem far fetched, I see no other alternative. I think Patsy neither lied nor told the truth, but simply produced a convincing scenario in her own mind, prompted by John's manipulation.

      Delete
    2. Or perhaps Patsy knew that he was the killer, especially when the basement window lie came out, and decided not to do anything about it for fear of a trial that might implicate herself, and more stress for her and her last living child. Understandable maybe, but disturbing. As someone who knew nothing about this case beforehand, an hour or two of research online, to me, as a logical person, points to the fact that John is the only person on earth who could have killed her that night given the evidence we have, and the evidence we will never have, because of tampering/staging and bad police work. Besides the window lie, the other fact that should send a shiver down the spine of a juror at his murder trial is that he moved/touched her dead body AFTER the police had arrived. Whether the police let him do this or not is irrelevant. No innocent father would dare risk touching or moving the body, especially once the cops showed up, for fear of tampering with the scene, or accidentally implicating themselves. Unless one was already guilty and had nothing to lose...

      Delete
    3. Oh, and one last thing I noticed. Apparently only one pane of glass was broken on the window, nobody in this story disputes that. Maybe this was because John didn't have enough time to smash the entire thing or Patsy came down at that point- who knows. Yet John claims he broke the window over the summer to get into the house because he left his keys in the house. So we are supposed to believe that a tall, well built adult male crawled through a tiny space from one pane being smashed? Why wouldnt he smash the whole thing, if he was so desperate to get into his house that summer day? Of course, it never happened. He smashed one pane on the early morning of December 26, and that's it. I don't understand how anyone can see any other possible murderer than John unless he hired a secret hitman to kill his daughter, who he had to have let into the house. Either way, he's guilty of murder if you ask me.

      Delete
    4. Last comment for now from me, I promise...this guy is so guilty it's amazing. Look at the ransom note:

      "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."

      No foreign faction would call themselves that, they would proudly state the name of their faction. And if they were foreign, they would not be using American expressions like "follow to the letter" as the note states among other very classic American expressions.

      The note then states...
      You will withdraw $118,000.00 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 attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag.

      No hostage taker would say "adequate size attache" or care that the remaining $18,000 is in 20s instead of 100s. It makes no sense. The only thing that does make sense is that John was thinking in his head of what he would need to do to perfect his fake kidnapping- go to the bank, bring an adequate sized attache...it's like John was writing down what he was thinking in the moment as he wrote the note.

      Delete
  31. Patsy is a believer. Believers can ignore clear conclusions because of what they want to believe. Patsy would never believe that John would ever hurt JB. John knew this. John also knew that Patsy would not be a trustworthy accomplice. John is the only one who could withstand questioning. If Patsy was in on it, she would crack eventually and not be convincing in the spotlight. John knows the power Patsy's conviction if she is kept ignorant of what really happened. John is highly intelligent and proven to be duplicitous (e.g. affair kept up for 2 years). If it was an inside job, the only way it works is if John is acting alone. If John did the crime, he would certainly not involve Patsy. If Patsy did the crime and went to John, he might have been able to coach her up some, but I don't think she would have been able to pull off the performances she did. My main point is, don't underestimate the power of having a believer on your side.

    ReplyDelete