The 911 Call - Part 2

I seem to be repeating myself a lot lately, so please forgive me if once again I insist, in bold: if both John and Patsy Ramsey had been collaborating on a staged kidnapping, the 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house.

As I see it, my reasoning (see previous post) is perfectly logical. Yet hardly anyone among those who correctly reject the intruder theory seems ready to accept it. The prevailing idea is that either Patsy or Burke struck and killed JonBenet, in a rage over bedwetting or out of jealousy, or whatever, and that Patsy and John got together to concoct both a pedophile attack and a kidnapping, complete with phoney "ransom" note, in a desperate attempt to cover it up. And ever since I began explaining, on the various Internet forums, how the 911 call was inconsistent with this scenario, I've been met with  a steady stream of very odd alternate explanations for why Patsy and John would agree to call the police before they'd had an opportunity to get the body out of the house.

The 911 Call

I'd like at this point to delve more deeply into certain specific issues that have proven especially problematic for both law enforcement and serious followers of this case. I'll begin with the all important 911 call.

Of all the many significant events to be considered here, the 911 call is key. It tells us John and Patsy Ramsey could not have been collaborating on either the crime or the coverup. In other words, if one of them is guilty, the other must be innocent.

Reasonable Doubt - Part 4

Based on the arguments presented in the previous three posts, I believe it possible to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that no intruder was present in the Ramsey home that night. There was no sign an intruder had been in the house. The DNA "evidence" is easily dismissed as the result of indirect transfer and might not even be admissible. There was no sign of a forced breakin. There was no reason for an intruder to do all that was done. And finally, the clinching evidence, John attempted to stage a breakin at the basement window and then lied about it since he hadn't had an opportunity to complete his staging. Thus, on the basis of the preponderance of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt, the crime was an inside job. And just as clearly, based on his many lies and misdirections, John Ramsey was involved. He is clearly guilty. But of what?

Reasonable Doubt - Part 3

In my view, it should not be all that difficult to convincingly argue, not only on the basis of the evidence, or lack of it, but also the logic of the case generally, that no intruder was present on the night of the murder. Whether such an argument would constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt would, of course, be up to each and every juror to decide. And regardless of how unlikely it is that an intruder would have wanted to do all the things that were done, and how seriously lame all the so-called "intruder evidence" has turned out to be, there would still be some wiggle room for the defense to assert reasonable doubt in this respect, since we have no way of knowing for sure what some unknown person or persons might have had in mind, or how devious they might be.

Reasonable Doubt - Part 2

(. . . continued from previous post.)

To foster reasonable doubt, the defense can be expected to dredge up anything it can find that can't easily be accounted for, according to the age-old principle known as "throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." We can get a pretty good idea of what to expect from my blog post That Elusive Intruder, in which the history of various dubious bits and pieces of "intruder evidence" is chronicled. Everything on that list, along with just about all the other "intruder evidence," was accounted for long ago, but that won't prevent the Ramsey defense team from tossing each and every item into the ring all over again. The basic idea: if even one single item on the list can't be fully accounted for, that could trigger reasonable doubt, and if reasonable doubt can be implanted in the head of even one member of the jury, then our client is home free.

Reasonable Doubt

Based on the arguments in my previous post, I'm convinced it would not be difficult for the DA to establish probable cause for John Ramsey to be indicted for the sexual assault and murder of his daughter. Once he is put on trial, however, probable cause is no longer sufficient. It will be necessary to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And before I continue I want to make it clear that putting John on trial and hearing what his defense will be like, when challenged by a determined prosecutor with a solid understanding of the case, has always been my first priority. If he and his lawyers can establish reasonable doubt in my mind, that's fine with me, because like most of us I would prefer to think some strange intruder with baffling motives and methods assaulted this child rather than her own father.

Probable Cause

In several recent posts, I've considered the case against John Ramsey in the context of a potential criminal trial. And, as is well known, conviction in a criminal case must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, admittedly a difficult standard. But the standard in bringing a suspect to justice, i.e., trying him before a criminal court, is much less demanding. The prosecutor need only show probable cause that the person in question committed the crime.

The Defense

If the case ever comes to trial, the defendant will be John Ramsey. Patsy Ramsey is no longer with us. Burke Ramsey was too young at the time and cannot be tried. As far as an "intruder" is concerned, even in the event of a DNA match the suspect's lawyer would have no trouble getting the case tossed out of court by challenging the prosecution to explain that person's motive for murdering an innocent child, how he could have entered the premises through locked doors, leaving no sign of forced entry, his reasons for writing a long "ransom" note while in the house, using paper and pen from within the house, his reasons for hiding the body in a remote room rather than taking and holding it for ransom, etc. Even in the unlikely event of a handwriting "match," his lawyer could challenge such results as unscientific, on the same basis the Ramseys themselves challenged the "experts" who matched Patsy's writing to that of the note in the Wolf case. And thanks to John Mark Karr, we've learned that even a confession is, in itself, all but worthless.

The Scene at the Window

The scene at the basement window has been the focus of much speculation and dispute, centering on the question of whether or not there was any sign of a forced break-in at that point. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, most recently in Kolar's book, the condition of the grate, the well, and the sill is clearly inconsistent with such a possibility. In the words of DA Alex Hunter, "No one passed through that window." What's rarely if ever discussed, however, is another aspect of the window scene that, for me, is of even greater significance. Let's consider the various pieces of evidence at and around that window.