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.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

The Crux


"The crux of the matter," as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms: "The basic, central or critical point of an issue."

As I see it, the 911 call is the crux of the JonBenet Ramsey murder, the critical point which, in this case, forces us to make a crucial choice. Very simply, if the Ramseys were collaborating to coverup the murder of their daughter by staging a phoney kidnapping, that call would never have happened. There are two components to be considered in evaluating this assertion. First, the call was made with the body still in the house, and once the police were called in, there was no longer going to be any way to safely get the body out of the house -- and once the body was found in the house, then it would be clear no kidnapping had taken place, thus completely nullifying the effect of the note. Second, by handing the police a patently phoney "ransom" note penned by either Patsy or John, the Ramseys would be handing them a potentially devastating piece of self-incriminating evidence. And if, as so many have attested, this note "screams Patsy," in both content and penmanship, then Patsy would literally have been placing a noose around her own neck by making that call.


Lou Smit made the point very succinctly when challenged by Larry King regarding the absurdities of the intruder theory:
KING: Why would a kidnapper kill the person they're going to kidnap at the scene while writing a ransom note? You're not going to get any money that way.

SMIT: That's true. I don't know what happened during the evening to change this person's mind. But the opposite is also true. If people believe that the Ramseys for some reason inadvertently killed JonBenet, staged this massive cover-up to make it look like a kidnapping, wrote a 2 1/2 page ransom note, brutally garroted their daughter, and then did not bring her body out of the house, no one can answer that question either.
The central dilemma of the case is summarized very neatly in this exchange. Which explains why an experienced homicide detective like Smit would become such an adamant Ramsey supporter.

So how to decide? A kidnapper who leaves a potentially incriminating hand-printed ransom note yet fails to actually kidnap anyone vs. parents staging a phoney kidnapping who call the police while the alleged "kidnap" victim is still in the house, supplying the authorities at the same time with evidence against themselves in the form of a now pointless, patently phoney, "ransom" note.

The only solution, as I see it, is to recognize the consistently overlooked fact that Patsy and John Ramsey were two different people, who may well have acted very differently out of completely different motives. Thus Patsy could have made the call in all innocence, accepting the note at face value, while John could be the one who, unknown to Patsy, both committed the murder and wrote the note, in which case he would have been forced to look on helplessly as a panicked Patsy suddenly decided to make the call.

It's been argued, on the basis of what looks like airtight evidence, that John told Patsy to make that call. This is the official version presented in their book. And, as reported by detective Steve Thomas, Burke Ramsey claimed to have overheard his father tell his mother to make the call, while he was pretending to be asleep in his upstairs room. If this version is in fact true, and both John and Patsy wanted that call made at that time, then we have no choice but to accept the intruder theory, as unlikely as it may seem, because, as demonstrated above, it makes no sense to assume both Ramseys, if guilty, would have wanted to make that call before getting the body out of the house.

The simple logic summarized above has been consistently ignored by those claiming "the Ramseys" must have collaborated to cover up a murder committed by either Patsy or Burke, with Patsy writing the note, and John colluding to cover for both of them, apparently to "preserve family honor." In a nutshell, if you accept the testimony of the three Ramsey family members present in the house the night of the murder, that both John and Patsy agreed to make that call, then both must be innocent, meaning that somehow some person with very strange, indeed incomprehensible motives, must have entered the house that night, murdered JonBenet, and then taken the time to write a pointless 2 1/2 page ransom note for no reason anyone has ever been able to explain.

It's been argued that we can't really know what was on John and Patsy's mind when they made that call, and that they could have been motivated by factors we know nothing about. While their actions might seem irrational to us, they might have made sense to them, and we have no way of knowing anything about that. What's invariably overlooked is the fact that Ramsey defenders can make exactly the same case for their very strange intruder, who may also have been motivated by factors we know nothing about. So, sorry, but if you simply must link Patsy and John together as acting in tandem and in perfect accord, then there is no case to be made against them, the 911 call becomes a perfect alibi.

I've been accused of "bending the evidence to fit my theory." And I must admit, yes, I do have a theory, actually several theories, concerning this case, though I don't think I've bent any evidence. I have a theory about the purpose of the note, and the plan behind it. I have a theory about why John lied about breaking the basement window on a previous occasion. I have a theory about why JonBenet was murdered and by whom. Etc. But the dilemma behind the 911 call that constitutes the crux of this case, is not a theory, not my theory, not anyone's theory. It simply makes no sense to assume both John and Patsy would have wanted to make that call if they were collaborating on the staging of a kidnapping and knew the body of their victim was still in the house. That is not a theory, it is simple common sense. 

So we are all left with a very stark choice. Either accept the testimony of the two suspects and their son, that John told Patsy to make that call, which leaves us with no case to be made against them, strongly supporting the intruder theory; or conclude that all three were lying, for whatever reasons, and that the call was Patsy's idea, which, in the context of the case as a whole, points to John Ramsey as the sole perpetrator of this horrendous outrage.

Aside from the simple but in my view incontestable logic presented above, consider also:

1. The existence of a very different version of the story, as presented by Patsy in the documentary produced for A&E by David Mills and Michael Tracey:
Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."
 2. The unlikelihood of John asking Patsy to make such an important call if in fact he wanted it made. As should be clear from the recording, she was hysterical, barely able to blurt out their location and the basics of their situation. If John wanted it made, despite the dire warnings in the note, then surely he would have wanted to make the call himself, and would have wanted to make clear to the authorities that their house could be under surveillance and the need to contact the FBI before taking any action. And if for some reason he was unable to stop Patsy from making the call herself, he would have taken the receiver to explain their situation in more detail, and the dangers of bringing uniformed police to their door.

3. If one might want to assume Patsy was the sole perpetrator, told by an innocent John to make the call against her wishes, then it's impossible to believe she would simply have obeyed his instructions without at least attempting to argue against it, pointing to the dire threats in the note. At which point, John could easily have gone to the phone and made the call himself. In other words, if he really wanted that call made and Patsy resisted, there would have been no point in him insisting on her making the call, as he could easily have overruled her by making it himself.

It is, of course, not easy to explain why Patsy would lie about whose idea it was to make that call. On most occasions, when asked, she deferred to the version first offered by John in their first CNN interview. To understand why she might have been willing to support John's version of what happened, I'll refer you to an earlier blog post, entitled White Lies. As far as Burke is concerned, his actual testimony has never been made public, so we don't know the details. He might have thought he heard something of that sort but couldn't be sure, or the suggestion might have been put into his mind by John, or he might have been convinced by John that his support was needed, or his Daddy might wind up in jail. His room was in a completely different part of the house, far from where this conversation allegedly took place, so it's hard to believe he could have overheard exactly what was being said.

92 comments:

  1. On the forums the "logic" is that the Ramseys, working as co-conspirators, wanted the body found in the house. The theory is that the Ramseys thought the police (or ultimately a jury) would believe there were kidnappers and that the kidnappers changed plans midway through the kidnapping, deciding to make it a murder instead.

    Sometimes there is a slightly different version, in which the Ramseys figured the body wouldn't be found and they could then claim the body had been returned, dead, as retaliation for not follwing the instructions.

    As you correctly point out, the body nullifies the kidnapping, so no one in their right mind would believe that.

    As for the body not being found, it's pretty unlikely, and the Ramseys, working together, could not have planned on that happening.

    I would call the "crux" the fact that there is a body and a RN in the house. There should be one, or the other, not both.

    Your theory is the only one that makes sense of the fact that there is a body and a RN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "On the forums the "logic" is that the Ramseys, working as co-conspirators, wanted the body found in the house. The theory is that the Ramseys thought the police (or ultimately a jury) would believe there were kidnappers and that the kidnappers changed plans midway through the kidnapping, deciding to make it a murder instead."

      Yes. Thank you. And of course this "logic" makes no sense at all, since as you say the existence of the RN and the body in the house logically cancel each other out. Actually it's worse than that, because once the body is found, then the ransom note makes the Ramseys look even more suspicious. It should have been clear to the police at that point that this was a staged kidnapping, and something must have gone wrong with the original plan.

      As I understand it, this was in fact their original theory, with John as the focus -- until the word came down from on high that he was "ruled out," effectively giving him "a pass," to quote Steve Thomas.

      This idea that the Ramseys somehow expected the authorities to accept their "ransom" note at face value even after discovering the body is especially unconvincing given how easy it would have been for them to get the body out of the house prior to calling 911. It's clear the note was written expressly for the purpose of giving the writer an excuse NOT to call the police right away.

      Delete
    2. *NEWS ALERT: ShadowGov founder, pastor Bob Adolph Enyart of Denver Bible Cult in Arvada, CO is Guilty of MURDERING Jonbenet Ramsey in her parents home on Christmas Day in 1996.....To this day he has gotten away with framing John & Patsy for murder, despite the PROOF of DNA from a foreign white male intruder. ShadowLurker, Bob is also responsible for the kidnapping, murder & DISMEMBERMENT of Jessica Ridgeway - this was NOT the work of an lone-teenage gamer. If at any point Mr. Adolph thinks the Kekoas are being less than honest or if he believes we are defaming his good character, surely he will have enough integrity to contact the Kekoas and ask them to stop lying. But since Bob has relentlessly tried to take our six children away since last year by making multiple false reports to Social Services, he has not responded to any of our dozens of attempts or contacts to confront the issue. Instead, Dani got hung up on when calling the BEL studio so Bob sent "anonymous" posers from the cult like "Tom Whiting" & "Curtis Cocoa" to pass the message along that Bob says we are "paranoid & delusional from pot" and has ignored us because he thinks the Kekoas are "insignificant" to him and not worth his precious time. So since "pastor" Bob has ignored the TRUTH and doesn't want to debate these criminal accusations against him, we shall assume it's only a matter of moments before the FBI comes and charges the entire ShadowGov mafia with horrendous conspiracy crimes against humanity & innocent children. Tic-Toc-Tic-Toc.... YAY ~ VICTORY!

      For the TRUTH about this monster go to www.GenerationXpose.com

      Delete
    3. If you REALLY want to know what happened to Jon Benet Ramsey go to youtube and search for::The Killing of JonBenet (2001)
      It's obvious Boulder Police, were extremely negligent and an intruder killed the child. We will never know who, because the evidence has been compromised.

      Delete
    4. This video is based on the seriously flawed detective work of Lou Smit, who very quickly went from being an investigator to being a Ramsey advocate. My reasons for rejecting Smit's view of the case can be found here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-lou-smit-show.html

      Delete
  2. I completely agree with your theory as well. Nothing else makes sense. I also think it can be applied to a lot of unsolved murder cases that seem to make no sense, where one person is innocent and the other is guilty. I personally think Patsy probably lied without realizing she was lying. We know she was heavily sedated and probably didn't remember much. She had no choice but to go with John's version of what happened because she may not have remembered what actually took place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Patsy was heavily sedated for some time after the murder. And once John announced to the world, via CNN, that he told her to make that call, she would have been placed in an impossible position in any case, because correcting him on national television would have made both of them look very suspicious. If she challenged him on that score later, in private, then yes, you're right, he could easily have reminded her that she'd been sedated and that her memory was foggy. Soon afterward, the handwriting "experts" he himself had hired, ruled him out, so she'd have had no reason to be suspicious -- and every reason to go along with his version of what happened.

      Delete
  3. *TRUTH & Victory! BREAKING CLUES in the MURDER CASE - by Dani Kekoa: JonBenét Ramsey Ransom Note - ShadowGov = "Small Foreign Faction" led by Convicted Child Abuser & Serial Child-Killer, Robert Adolph Enyart of Denver Bible Cult.

    This has been a work in progress, but in light of the recent child murders & abductions in the CO area, I thought I would blow the whistle a little sooner on who murdered JonBenet Ramsey so the community can be aware of the MONSTER among us. Some changes still may be made, but here it is...Boulder PD & Westminster PD have a copy too! ;-)

    The “Small Foreign Faction” includes the following “group of individuals” who have been bound together for over twenty years: Master-mind Pastor Bob Enyart who wants to take over the country, his supporter Sheriff’s Deputy and snuff-style horror novelist, Gordon Carroll . Ex-US Marine, friend and BEL Co-Host, Doug McBurney, who also has a business called Bound Inc. in addition to his YouTube account under BoundInc. Other long-time criminal offenders such as Ken Scott and countless unknown political assassins belong to ShadowGov. The combination of these clinically-ill characteristics makes these ShadowGov men textbook cases as dangerous threats to society. According to Enyart, as of the late 1990's he has "Judges" stationed in 100 major cities nationwide ready for orders.

    Founder of ShadowGov.com, Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church: A Twice Divorced, Adulterer, Porn Addict, Convicted Child-Abuser, a "Christian" radio talk-show host (KGOV.com), "prolife" spokesman for American Right to Life, as well as the "key" person" behind PersonhoodUSA and other “pro-life” organizations.

    Bob Enyart is also the Religious Psychopath who MURDERED Jon Benet Ramsey & framed her parents for the crime.

    READ Public Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e1OjFLI45j53YcCK_OA7AS8RmpXSRbC96EWcwEoGdTw/edit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dani, over the years, a great many people have been suspected in this crime, and many accusations have been made. If you want your accusations to stick, you will need to come up with evidence to support them. There is no conclusive evidence that ANY intruder was in the Ramsey home that night, and also no reason for any intruder to have written such a note and not also taken his victim from the house. And if someone wanted to frame the Ramseys, why would he have written a long "ransom" note in his own hand?

      Delete
    2. It WAS an intruder. He came in under the grate and window, went straight up the stairs to the kitchen, calmly wrote a menacing note, hid under the bed in John Andrews room, used a stun gun on Jon Benet, took her to the basement and brutally murdered her. Perhaps he was a psychopath, perhaps, obsessed with JonBenet, perhaps angry with John Ramsey, never the less, it was a premeditated crime done by an intruder. The note was left to throw everyone off, which it has for years. His intent was to rape and murder, not to kidnap and not for money and it was not John. Patsy or Burke Ramsey. Doc, if you are really pationate about this case, you must realize you are biased and not looking at all of the facts. Its easy to say, the perfect family full of dark secrets, including a pedophile father and maybe mother too did this, but they didn't, and we wont know who did as long as people like you keep blaming the Ramseys. EVERYTHING points to an intruder in this case

      Delete
    3. Since you claim I'm blaming "the Ramseys" then obviously you haven't read much in this blog. Read some more and you'll learn why I've become convinced that John and only John could have committed this crime. An intruder, any intruder, can easily be ruled out, not only by the lack of any convincing intruder evidence, but also by the absurdity of any possible intruder theory.

      Delete
  4. I think that although your theory is very good, you may have jumped to some conclusions:
    1. Patsy, if the author of the note (and much points to this, see Andrew Hodges) would not necessarily believe a noose would be round her neck if she phoned police. She may have been up all night and desperate to "get things moving".
    1a. Patsy died in 2006 without ever being indicted or jailed. Thus, her call, if she was the author of the note, was no noose.
    2. I don't think the Ramseys EVER intended to move the body - too risky. Not only the possibility of being seen, but tire marks being traced, etc.
    3. Your theory is compelling, but I am convinced with Andrew Hodges that Patsy authored the ransom note and that both parents partook of the crime staging.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually NOTHING points to Patsy as writer of the note. The overall look of her hand is nothing like the note. And as I've demonstrated, it's not difficult to find isolated similarities between certain letters and even words written by all sorts of people, when you are looking for them. Brugnatelli and I found several similarities with John's hand, and as we see from the youtube video, several striking similarities were found with Chris Wolf's writing. As I've demonstrated, the "experts" who fingered Patsy were clearly cherry picking for anything they could find that might possibly match. As I've also demonstrated, all were incompetent.

    Patsy was never indicted simply because there was no evidence linking her to the crime. If she'd written the note, she certainly would have been putting her head in a noose, but she didn't write it, which is why she had no problem calling the police and handing it over to them. What else is there? The fiber evidence means nothing as it can easily be explained via indirect transfer. The ONLY reason for suspecting Patsy is that John was "ruled out." That turns out to have been a mistake. She was never indicted because they had nothing on her but a lot of wishful thinking and fantasizing.

    I have no idea what you mean by her being desperate to get things moving. If by getting things moving you mean calling the police on herself to totally blow her kidnap staging and have herself arrested, then I suppose, yes, that would have done it. If she was actually guilty of something.

    "2. I don't think the Ramseys EVER intended to move the body - too risky. Not only the possibility of being seen, but tire marks being traced, etc."

    If you read what I've written about the note you'll see how it would have enabled John to get the body out of the house while pretending to deliver the "ransom." And if you read the note with an open mind, you'll see that this is in fact it's main purpose.

    There is no reason to assume Patsy wrote the note. There is no evidence whatsoever that she harmed her daughter in any way, nor is there any evidence she participated in the staging. It's all a huge fairy tale dreamed up by investigators totally stumped after convincing themselves that John couldn't have written the note. He could. And did. Andrew Hodges is no different from so many others who focused on Patsy for the same reason the cops did. They decided ahead of time that she must be "the one" and then saw what they wanted to see.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Addendum:

    I think the Ramseys thought that :

    1. Either the body would not be found, and at some point they could get someone to move it.

    2. Or that the body would be found but would somehow still seem the work of kidnappers/a molester who fled the scene. (as Detective Lou Smit did in fact conclude.)

    I think they wanted her body nearby, and viewed the child as their prize possession, even in death. Why risk dumping her somewhere to be dragged off by wildlife? No, I think they hid her in the basement because as far fetched as it seemed, they were arrogant and wealthy and felt they would be believed, and be in control.

    They were correct in assuming this. No indictments, no trail, District Attorney cleared them.

    I very much agree with Andrew Hodges' account consisting of Patsy discovering John Ramsey molesting Jonbenet, then striking the child, and then both involved in the staging.

    The ransom note was Patsy's grandiose idea and bears her signature and her psychological thought prints. Even if John wrote it, it was dictated by PR.

    This I concluded initially from my own intuition and observations, and finally from a careful study of both of Hodges' texts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but in a case such as this we have no choice but to go by the facts. All sorts of people have speculated about various aspects of this case, and there are all sorts of theories. Some think the note reflects Patsy's style, both in writing and prose, others think John must have dictated it and she wrote it. I myself see nothing of Patsy in the note whatsoever. It's full of terminology and references only a man would be likely to use. I see no sign of a "caring mother" in it, sorry.

    It may be your opinion that the Ramseys wanted their child nearby, but that's not evidence, nor does it make much sense. You don't go to all that trouble to stage a kidnapping and then call the police while the body is in the house. If they wanted her nearby they would not have staged a kidnapping but reported a home invasion.

    Also, I see no reason for them to write exactly the sort of note that would have enabled them to get the body out of the house before calling the police and then call the police anyhow. The note makes sense only if we see it as an excuse to dump the body first and then call the police.

    The only reason there was no indictment was the decision to rule John out as writer of the note. He was the original suspect, but that finding destroyed any possible case the DA might have been able to make against him. So they had no choice but to focus on Patsy and since there never was ANY reason to suspect her the case went nowhere. Just try to think rationally for a moment and forget about all the folklore that's accumulated. Why would Patsy have wanted to kill a child she doted on? Bedwetting is not a motive, sorry, that too is folklore. If she'd caught John molesting JonBenet, then why on earth would she have wanted to cover for him? She'd have wanted to kill him, NOT make him look innocent.

    People have woven all sorts of fantasies about this case that now sound reasonable only because they've been around so long we've gotten used to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the ways I am supporting my suspicion of John being the molester/killer is by the fact that Patsy simply could not have shown up at the door on the a.m. of the 26th wearing her yesterday's party clothing and with hair and makeup in place, if she had worn them through the night while committing the type of crime that occurred. She would have been a disheveled mess. I know what happens to me when I spend a couple of strenuous hours outdoors just weeding the flower beds, so how could Patsy have been as physical with JB as the crime required and have her clothing and physical appearance not show signs of wear and tear?

      JR, however, presented himself freshly attended - obviously changed, showered and probably shaven. Something he would have had to do to get rid of the physical signs of the crime: JB's clothing fibers, blood, hairs, lint, dust, wine-cellar mold dust, etc.

      I have wanted to also believe JR wrote the note, since when I look closely at it, I do see some similarities of letters written that look like some on his few exemplars in the public arena. But I have had to agree with most that the comparisons really seem to connect Patsy.....however, using the same reasoning about the condition of her clothing and person not reflecting much physical exertion, I also wonder now about the fact that no one commented on her eyes being puffed up or baggy from crying, as you would expect they would have been if she had come into the crime at some time during the night and been coerced into writing the note. Surely she would have been a wreck upon discovering JB dead, if John had involved her at a point in time in order to engage her as an unwilling accomplice. By the time she cried through the discovery and writing the note, her eyes would have remained puffed up for hours and no amount of makeup could have totally fixed that.

      So, DocG, if she met friends and the police at the door the morning of the crime relatively neat and presentable, with signs of anguish clear, but not necessary her eye bawled out, maybe we should see that as an indication she only thought JB was taken, and did NOT know she was dead??

      And since Patsy said she was upstairs, then went down to call 911 ahead of John, might that not explain the comments that link Patsy to being mid-sentence saying "because we need them, Hon" when the operator came on the line? Maybe John had only come down the stairs at that point and questioned what she was doing, just to learn it was too late to stop the call. His rice was cooked.

      Then, once the R's were able to share a couple of moments without any other ears around, I find it totally plausible that John got Patsy aboard by telling her he was covering up for finding Burke as the perpetrator of the crime. He had the behavioral grounds to set Burke up, and Patsy would have done whatever necessary from then on to protect her son. John would have been in the driver's seat from then on. John could have convinced Patsy that they would keep Burke protected, and that they would always make Burke think an intruder killed his sister.

      MWMM

      Delete
    2. Yes, you make an excellent point. Once everyone trained their sights on Patsy, then anything about her behavior that seemed unusual became suspicious, if not "obvious proof" of her involvement. As I see it, her wearing the same outfit the next morning is evidence in her favor. And as you point out, if she had in fact been up all night murdering her daughter, then covering it up with vaginal penetration, strangling, etc., and had NOT taken the trouble to shower and change before calling the police, she'd have been a frightful mess.

      We see the same syndrome at work when people like Steve Thomas attempt to tie Patsy to the crime because the note was written on her pad. I see no reason why someone writing such a document would want to use her own notepad, but to Thomas and many others, this fact has great significance simply because it's something they think they can use to tie the note to Patsy. Absurd!

      Your comment about her eyes not showing any signs that she'd been crying all night is also insightful, so thanks again for that.

      As for the "because we need them" phrase, I'm sorry but I've never been able to hear anything like that in the 911 call. Nor do I think John would have tried to convince Patsy he was covering for Burke. If he'd tried that she would have confronted Burke right away, and he would certainly have denied it.

      As I see it, the simplest explanation is the one that makes the most sense. He killed his daughter to shut her up and then staged a phoney kidnapping to point away from himself. No need to share any aspect of that with anyone, least of all his wife.

      Delete
  8. Your points are extremely well taken. I must admit your theory is cohesive and seems to answer all the questions. I suppose I was taking Hodges as gospel : But he too may have an ax to grind, and his own peculiar psychological motivations. Of course he believes each parent covered for the other.

    Do you think it is still possible to indict Ramsey? Is that likely to occur? If he is guilty, then his continued freedom is a travesty of sorts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If John is guilty, then his continued freedom is not a travesty of sorts, it is a travesty of the worst kind.

      Delete
    2. The travesty is that John has lost everything, 2 daughters, a wife, his businesses, his reputation, because he has been proven guilty in the court of public opinion when he has done nothing wrong. Sad

      Delete
  9. I'm pleased to learn you find my arguments meaningful despite your suspicions of Patsy. You obviously have an open mind and I thank you for that.

    I've laid out some strategies for trying and convicting John Ramsey on this blog. I don't think it would be that difficult to do. But before the DA can convince a jury, he himself must be convinced, and that will not be easy. Too many careers have been compromised or even wrecked over this case, so it would take a considerable amount of courage to pursue it. I've sent the DA and also Chief Beckner links to this blog, but neither has seen fit to respond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is the difficult thing; I would imagine they do not really want to grasp the degree to which you've been able to see clearly because it only makes the history of this case seem more bungled.

      That said, I hope that somehow this case can come to its rightful completion. Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's exonerating of the Ramseys in 2008 always struck me as her method of coping with her extreme embarrassment over the John Mark Karr fiasco. It certainly hasn't helped matters any.

      Thank you for your informative blogging.
      Very best regards;
      SMK

      Delete
    2. They don't respond because this blog is innuendo and theory. Nothing they care to read. They can't and wont persue John Ramsey anymore because they know an intruder did it and they let this person slip through their fingers. They have no time for or interest in bloggers,

      Delete
    3. I'll make it really easy for you. A pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. A kidnapper would have prepared his note in advance. An intruder deciding to kidnap on the spur of the moment would not have taken the time and trouble to pen a 2 1/2 page ransom note. And someone trying to frame John or Patsy would not have written a note in his own hand, but would have forged John or Patsy's hand.

      When we combine the above with John's obvious lies regarding the broken basement window, it becomes crystal clear that there was no intruder, that John wrote the note and attempted to stage a break-in at that window.

      When you include all the many other reasons for focusing on John Ramsey, as presented on this blog, then there is clearly more than enough probable cause to indict him for the murder of his daughter and put him on trial. If he's innocent then he'll have ample opportunity to defend himself before a jury of his peers in a court of law.

      Delete
  10. Problem #1:

    While you theory is intriguing it fails to answer the Million Dollar Question:

    "Why would John Ramsey write a two and a half page ransom note and not dispose of the body?"

    You have to answer this question soundly before you can make the case that JR did it.

    JonBenet died somewhere close to midnight. JR had way more than enough time to write the note, dump the body in Colorado Springs, and be home in time for breakfast.

    Why did he not dump the body? It would have made the kidnapping ploy so much more convincing?

    Problem #2:

    The ransom note advises JR to "use that good southern common sense of yours." Patsy was from the South, not John. JR would never have written such a line. (For that matter, neither would have Patsy.) Ergo, JR did not write the RN, and your theory falls apart.

    - Sig Turner




    ReplyDelete
  11. I can answer this one since I've read every post in this blog. JR didn't hide the body because it was too risky. It was Christmas and he didn't want to take the chance that one of the neighbors saw or heard his car leaving in the middle of the night. How would he explain his leaving in the middle of the night when JonBenet just happened to be missing at the same time? And when the autopsy came in and there were potential eyewitnesses to the fact that he left after JonBenet had died, it could have been all over for him. Like I said, too risky.It would be much easier to leave the house with the body and say that you are delivering the ransom the next day.

    As for the ransome note, it was written to prevent Patsy from calling the police. As for the phrasing, who writes a ransom note and uses phrases that they would use on a regular basis? A person writing a fake or real ransom note would want to disguise himself or herself and, therefore, would probably write or say things that they would never say in real life. Instead, they would use common expressions or lines from movies. The whole purpose, again, would be to conceal his or her identity.

    When you think about it this way, JR did everything he could to get away with what he did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Anonymous, you've answered these questions more or less as I would.

      Sig, I'm surprised at your claim that I haven't answered your Million Dollar question, because that was in fact the purpose of this post, to explain why the writer of the note didn't dispose of the body before calling the police. The answer is, very simply, that the writer was John Ramsey, and the person who called 911 was Patsy Ramsey, who would only have made that call if she were innocent. Clearly John must have been planning to dispose of the body prior to the time the "kidnappers" were scheduled to call the following morning. The note was designed to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, but she decided to call them anyhow, thus spoiling his plan.

      Million Dollar question answered!

      Delete
    2. While one can argue that it may have been "too risky" to attempt to dump the body, one cannot argue that it would have been "less risky" to leave it in the basement, at least if one's scheme is to fake a kidnapping. Leaving the body in the basement is absolutely foolish. The best proof of this is the fact that we are having this conversation.

      If JR felt so compelled to write a note and leave the body in the basement, would it not have been easier, and considerably more convincing, to simply write one claiming to be a "foreign faction" who killed JonBenet in protest over "American imperialist foreign policy, blah, blah blah... Your daughter's body is in the basement"?

      Why even write a note for that matter? Why not stage the scene to make it appear as though she slipped and smashed her head on the corner of a coffee table?

      Pretend for one moment that you are JR and, for whatever reason, you flew into a rage, smashed your daughter's skull in, and you need to cover it up so as not to go to prison for the rest of your life. Is this what you would do, write a two and a half page ransom note claiming that she had been kidnapped by some radical political organization, and then leave the body in the basement?

      What sort of imbecile would even consider such a ridiculous scheme? Does JR strike you as a hopeless moron?

      The suggestion that he wrote such a ransom note in order to keep his wife from calling the police is almost too absurd to contemplate. If he didn't want her to call the police, then why did her let her call the police? Why didn't he pull the jack out of the wall as soon as she picked up the phone? For that matter, why would he leave the ransom note for her to find so she could fly off into a fit of hysterical panic and speed dial 911?

      As for the phrasing of the note, particularly the line advising him to "use his good southern common sense," when he is not a Southerner, only a criminal genius the likes of Professor Moriarty would think to do something like that; but then again, a criminal genius would never have wrote a fake ransom note and left the body in the basement.

      When you think about it this way, plus the fact that every handwriting analyst cleared JR as the author, plus the fact that most analysts believe the note was written by a female, plus the fact that JR has no prior history of such extremely violent sociopathic and psychopathic behavior, plus the fact that the evidence suggests JonBenet was very deliberately murdered with extreme prejudice and was not killed by accident, it seems virtually impossible that JR wrote the RN or murdered his daughter.

      - Sig Turner














      Delete
    3. Million Dollar Question not answered.

      As stated previously, according to the autopsy, JonBenet was killed somewhere around midnight. JR had time enough to write a ransom note, dump the body in Colorado Springs, and be home in time for breakfast.

      Why did he leave the body in the basement if he was trying to fake a kidnapping?

      What is your answer?

      "Too risky" does not cut it. If it were too risky to dump the body, why not simply stage the scene to make it look as though she fell and smashed her head on a coffee table? That would have been a lot easier, both physically and emotionally--BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE--than garroting her in the basement and writing an extensive ransom note claiming that she was kidnapped by foreign radicals, and then leaving the body in the basement where it would inevitably be found. Wouldn't you agree?

      --Sig Turner






      Delete
    4. IMO "too risky" does cut it. To remove the body with Patsy asleep upstairs would have been an extremely high risk thing to do. Patsy might wake up and be waiting for JR when he returned. She'd want to know where he'd been, and where their daughter was. He had to take care of the body after he got PR/BR out of the house, not before.

      IMO the wine cellar is not part of the staging, it's a place where the body, and other bits of evidence were stashed to keep them out of sight until they could be dealt with.

      Why not fake an accident? Good question. The probable explanation is that there was no accident that could be staged that would convince PR.

      Delete
    5. Additionally, an accident would require calling 911 for an ambulance. At that point the body is in the control of the medical authorities and no additional staging can be done. Also the ER team would be able to determine the extent and within reason the time of the injury. By contrast, if she's buried in a shallow grave, or tossed in a ravine, and not found for weeks/months, then there's no way to say when the injuries occurred, and the injuries can be blamed on the "kidnappers".

      Delete
    6. "Leaving the body in the basement is absolutely foolish."

      According to my theory he had no intention of leaving the body in the basement. He hid it there so Patsy wouldn't find it and was planning to dump it later that day, or most likely the following night, under cover of darkness. Dumping it on the night of the murder would have been far too risky, since Patsy might have been awakened by the sound of the car starting or the garage door opening. Also, someone could have spotted him or his car on the road or in the vicinity of where the body was dumped. However, dumping it the following night, after picking up the ransom money from the bank, would have been far less risky, since, if seen, he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom. Such a plan would also have enabled him to destroy the note, claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned.

      He would then have called the police, showing them a copy of the note he'd made. Patsy and the friends would have been witnesses to its authenticity but the original note would have been destroyed. No one would ever know it had been written on a notepad from the house.

      "Why even write a note for that matter? Why not stage the scene to make it appear as though she slipped and smashed her head on the corner of a coffee table?"

      He couldn't claim it was only an accident, since she had also been sexually assaulted. He could, of course, have staged it as a home invasion, but would have realized how suspicious such a story would have sounded. I'm not saying he created the perfect plan, but it does look as though he must have thought through the various options and decided that the staging of a phoney kidnapping was his best bet.

      "If he didn't want her to call the police, then why did her let her call the police? Why didn't he pull the jack out of the wall as soon as she picked up the phone?"

      By the same token one could say, "If he wanted the 911 call made, he'd have made it himself." There will always be various "ifs" to contemplate, but it's impossible to speculate about what actually happened, as we simply don't know. My guess is that John never expected Patsy to panic as she did and call the police despite the warnings in the note. She probably caught him off guard. According to her version in the A&E documentary, she ran downstairs to make the call while John was upstairs checking on Burke.

      As for the contents of the note, it's impossible to determine who wrote it from the content alone, as this is a document intended to deceive. The line about "southern common sense" was probably placed in the note because John was constructing a "kidnapper" who had had personal dealings with him and his family and was seeking revenge for some slight. It's consistent with the other taunting and sarcastic remarks in the note. I don't see anything particularly clever or ingenious in any of that, only deception.

      As for the rest, questioned doc forensics is NOT science, and in many cases the opinions of these "experts" are not even permitted in a courtroom. It's hard to imagine what their reasons could have been for ruling John out, and they have never been called upon to explain. I think they simply made a mistake. As for John's history, he was away "on business" a LOT, and is something of a loner, so we don't really know much about him.

      The bottom line: no intruder theory makes any sense at all. Patsy and John collaborating is inconsistent with the 911 call. Burke could not have written the note. So we are left with the only other alternative: John acting on his own. And when we consider John, then all sorts of mysterious things about this case suddenly fall into place and make sense. As I believe I've demonstrated throughout this blog.

      Delete
    7. Sid, it's clear to me and many others that there could have been no intruder. There is a long list of very good reasons to doubt any intruder theory, but for me two stand out:

      1. Just as you have argued that "the Ramseys" calling 911 with the body in the house makes no sense, the same can be said for leaving a 2 1/2 page ransom note without actually kidnapping anyone. It also makes no sense to plan a kidnapping without writing a note ahead of time. And if the kidnapping had not been planned in advance, but decided on at the spur of the moment, then why wasn't it actually carried out? And if the kidnapper changed his mind at the last minute, then why did he nevertheless leave the note? with his own handwriting all over it? Also, why would someone seeking to frame John leave a note in his own hand? In other words, no intruder theory makes any sense at all.

      2. While one could argue that the lack of conclusive intruder evidence does not in itself rule out an intruder, in fact it actually does. Because a real intruder would have left abundant evidence of his presence. It wouldn't have been necessary to look in every little nook and cranny for something that might possibly have been left by such a person (or persons). The evidence would be all over the place. If he'd entered or left via the window, the police would have seen signs of that, but none were found. The ground was damp and covered with light snow and frost, but there were no signs of anything like that in the basement, where the attack apparently took place.

      If he had attacked JonBenet with bare hands, his DNA would have been all over her clothing and it wouldn't have been necessary to use esoteric methods to find it. Also his fingerprints would most likely have been found. And if he'd used gloves, his "touch" DNA would not have been found.

      One could argue that he went out of his way to leave no trace of his presence, but that's totally inconsistent with his leaving a ransom note, which, if an intruder had written it, would have been very strong evidence indeed that he'd been present in the house that night.

      Finally, even if one is willing to give John every benefit of the doubt, and argue that somehow in spite of everything, an intruder with very strange motives and methods attacked JonBenet after all, then all doubts are removed when one considers John's testimony regarding his story about having broken the basement window the previous summer -- which is clearly and on its face a lie. I've analyzed John's testimony in some detail in a series of posts beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

      I think you'll agree that there is something very wrong with this story. As I see it, it's an alibi to cover the fact that John broke the window the night of the crime to stage an intruder breakin. Once this becomes clear, then it's obvious there was no intruder.

      Delete
    8. Doc, don't you think that if JR's plan was to dump the body on the way to drop off a bogus ransom, he would have stashed it in the trunk of his car and not in the wine cellar?

      There is no clear evidence that JBR had been previously sexually molested, let alone sexually assaulted (The hymen was still intact.) What is more, there would be no clear reason to accuse him of sexually molesting JBR even if there was such evidence, particularly with a nine year-old older brother to her in the house.

      As far as it "looking as though he must have thought through the various options and decided that the staging of a phoney kidnapping was his best bet," I have to strongly disagree. If he was staging a phoney kidnapping, what's with the garrote and the ligatures around her wrists? Why the hell would he do that? What is more, would he not have written a very terse ransom note, knowing the more he writes the more likely he is to give himself away? Would it not be excessively nerve racking, if not emotionally unbearable, to write such a long-winded ransom note under the circumstances? From all appearances, the RN was written by a young adult female, either high as a kite on meth or a schizophrenic off her meds.


      "There will always be various "ifs" to contemplate, but it's impossible to speculate about what actually happened, as we simply don't know. My guess is that John never expected Patsy to panic as she did and call the police despite the warnings in the note."

      However, it is not impossible to speculate beforehand how Patsy (or any mother for that matter) would react to finding such a note. JR would have to have been severely autistic, with absolutely no empathy, nor even the most basic insight into human behavior, not to expect his wife to flip out. This is every mother's worst nightmare. Of course Patsy is going to freak. How could he possibly expect her not to? You're not really making a whole lot of sense here, Doc.


      "As for the contents of the note, it's impossible to determine who wrote it from the content alone."

      However, it is very possible to determine who did not write it, and with a high degree of reasonable assurance. As much as you may want to dismiss the art of handwriting analysis in order to buttress your theory, you cannot. Handwriting analysis is a skill which most everyone possesses to a considerable degree, and one for which people who are particularly talented and trained can excel. The overwhelming evidence presented in the RN, recognized by both experts and novices alike, is that JR did not write this note. Therefore, the onus is on you to present convincing evidence to the contrary. You cannot simply dismiss the available evidence, to wit, pages and pages of writing samples, as well as hi-tech, computer driven, verbal analyses, which convincingly demonstrate that he was not the author.

      "The bottom line: no intruder theory makes any sense at all."

      You keep repeating this obviously erroneous statement as if, by saying it enough times, you will somehow make it true. There is absolutely no rational basis whatsoever to suggest that "no intruder theory makes any sense of at all." I defy you to present an actual case for such an argument, instead of a baseless mantra. Until then, please refrain from repeating it. It's annoying.

















      Delete
    9. 1. Just as you have argued that "the Ramseys" calling 911 with the body in the house makes no sense, the same can be said for leaving a 2 1/2 page ransom note without actually kidnapping anyone. It also makes no sense to plan a kidnapping without writing a note ahead of time. And if the kidnapping had not been planned in advance, but decided on at the spur of the moment, then why wasn't it actually carried out?

      ANSWER:

      It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to write a two and a half page ransom note (even if you were intent on kidnapping) and then not take the body with you. It makes even less sense not to write a succinct ransom note before hand.

      These observances should be your first clue that the perpetrators never had any intention of kidnapping anyone, not even JonBenet. So what were they doing there? What could have been their raison d'être if it were not kidnapping?

      Pedophilia? No. An obsessed pedophile would have taken JonBenet with him in order to continue using her for his pleasure. If the attempted abduction somehow went awry and he killed her, he would not have written a bogus, rambling ransom note. He would have simply left the body and made his exit as quickly and quietly as possible.

      So what is left?

      The only reasonable raison d'etre in this case is burglary. This had to have been a burglary gone awry. The burglars thought the Ramseys had already left for Michigan. They never expected to be discovered by a six year old girl, and did not know what to do when they were. Obviously, they considered two options, kidnapping or murder. They mulled over kidnapping and then decided upon murder, probably because JonBenet knew at least one of them and it eventually became undeniably apparent to one or both of the perpetrators that they would have to kill her if they were to avoid a felony conviction, prison time, and career-ending public disgrace.


      2. While one could argue that the lack of conclusive intruder evidence does not in itself rule out an intruder, in fact it actually does. Because a real intruder would have left abundant evidence of his presence.

      ANSWER:

      Given the legendary degree of incompetency demonstrated by the Keystone Kops who worked the case, that the crime scene was about as contaminated as it possibly could have been, that the knucklehead detectives and investigators assigned to the case apparently assumed from the start that the Ramseys Did It, it is really not at all surprising that little conclusive evidence of an intruder was discovered.

      In order to find evidence of an intruder, you have to be actively looking for it, and this bunch couldn't find their own butts if they had a bell on it. (Lou Smit not included.)

      Worse still, since incompetency and corruption go hand in hand in law enforcement, it would not surprise me in the least if the fox was investigating the chickens in this case. After all, the perps did brag about being "familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics" in the ransom note. Maybe this little boast simply meant that they were adept burglars who knew how not leave a lot of evidence behind which could be traced back to them. Maybe it meant something considerably more disturbing.

      This is mere speculation, but I am bothered by the statistic references in the RN. It sounds like the sort of phrasing a detective might use during an interrogation wherein he is trying to persuade a suspect to cooperate. In other words, it sounds like copspeak.

      - Sig Turner

      Delete
    10. "Doc, don't you think that if JR's plan was to dump the body on the way to drop off a bogus ransom, he would have stashed it in the trunk of his car and not in the wine cellar?"

      I go principally by the facts of the case and the fact is the body was found in that windowless room and not the trunk of the car. If it had been found there, it would have been all over for John, that's for sure. He said he found it in that room and Fleet corroborated that.

      As for any other possibilities, we can only speculate. It's possible he stashed it in the trunk initially and then decided to move it after the police were called. It's possible he was just being cautious: in the event Patsy called the police despite the warnings, it would not be a good idea for them to find the body in the trunk of his car. So it's possible he decided to stash it in that room temporarily, and move it to the car after he felt it completely safe to do so, with both Patsy and Burke out of the house, staying with friends.

      So then we have to ask why it was hidden away like that, in the most remote place in the entire house. What motive would an intruder have to hide it? None that I can see. However, John would have had an excellent reason for hiding it: to make it difficult for Patsy to find, if she decided to search the house for JonBenet.

      "There is no clear evidence that JBR had been previously sexually molested, let alone sexually assaulted (The hymen was still intact.)"

      There was very clear evidence of sexual assault. And her hymen was NOT intact. Signs of chronic molestation were also found. Read Cyril Wecht's book for more on that.

      "What is more, there would be no clear reason to accuse him of sexually molesting JBR even if there was such evidence, particularly with a nine year-old older brother to her in the house."

      She had indeed been molested, and absent an intruder the only mature male in the house is by far the most likely to have molested her. The vast majority of nine year old boys have NO sexual interest in little girls. The presence of Burke in the house in no way would have gotten John off the hook if he'd been indicted.

      "If he was staging a phoney kidnapping, what's with the garrote and the ligatures around her wrists? Why the hell would he do that?"

      I don't think the ligatures were part of the staging. Wecht thinks it was part of a sick sexual "game" and there are certainly precedents for that. It's also possible he noticed she was still breathing and decided to finish her off by strangling her. Instead of using his hands, which might leave prints, he could have decided on a ligature instead. As an experienced navy man and sailor he would certainly have known how make a slip knot.

      As for the ligatures around her wrists, that could have been an attempt at staging, yes. Also, the duct tape, which was apparently applied after death.

      "What is more, would he not have written a very terse ransom note, knowing the more he writes the more likely he is to give himself away? Would it not be excessively nerve racking, if not emotionally unbearable, to write such a long-winded ransom note under the circumstances?"

      We have to go by the facts and the note is an incontrovertible fact of the case, whether we like it or not. And of course we must also ask why an intruder would take the time to craft such a long, detailed note.

      According to my theory, John had worked out a carefully crafted plan, and probably saw the note as a crucial part of that plan. It had to be written in such a way that John could point to it later and claim he was following its directions "to the letter" as it requested. It also had to be really scary, because he needed to convince Patsy NOT to call the police. He also must have decided it would be more convincing if he constructed a kidnapper with a personal grudge. All these elements required space in the note, which is probably why it's so long.



      Delete
    11. "From all appearances, the RN was written by a young adult female, either high as a kite on meth or a schizophrenic off her meds."

      The idea that it was written by a female is part of the folklore of this case. I see no evidence of a female touch, and in fact the technical terminology and references to male oriented movies suggest to me that a male is far more likely to have written it. The writer is unlikely to have been on drugs and there is no sign of mental illness. The note is almost perfectly spelled, with largely faultless grammar. Spacing of the words is very consistent, the left margin is scrupulously adhered to, all t's are cross and just about every i is dotted. The note has a very clear beginning, middle and end, and nothing in it is confused or ambiguous.

      "Of course Patsy is going to freak. How could he possibly expect her not to?"

      That's your opinion, Sid. You have a right to be skeptical, but neither of us is in a position to read John's state of mind at that time. The intent of the note is very clearly to frighten the reader into not calling the police. That's a standard element in almost every ransom note ever penned. In some cases, the police are called anyhow, in other cases they are not. Many people have received such notes and a great many have in fact decided to cooperate with the kidnappers and not call the police -- at least not right away.

      "As much as you may want to dismiss the art of handwriting analysis in order to buttress your theory, you cannot."

      Handwriting analysis has always been controversial, and in many cases the opinions of handwriting "experts" have been ruled inadmissible by judges. The Ramseys themselves challenged the handwriting "experts" who named Patsy as the writer in the Chris Wolf case, and argued that forensic doc analysis was not a science and was unreliable. Their argument was accepted by Judge Carnes. I feel sure you have no trouble dismissing the findings that Patsy wrote the note, so why be so willing to accept the finding that John did not? The reasons given for ruling him out have never been made public and have gone unquestioned from day one. I see no reason to treat that aspect of the case any differently from any other.

      As far as the intrude theory is concerned, I've written on that at some length, including my second response to your last post.

      Delete
    12. "The only reasonable raison d'etre in this case is burglary."

      But nothing was stolen.

      "They mulled over kidnapping and then decided upon murder, probably because JonBenet knew at least one of them and it eventually became undeniably apparent to one or both of the perpetrators that they would have to kill her if they were to avoid a felony conviction, prison time, and career-ending public disgrace."

      Why mull over kidnapping if their intent was burglary? If she could identify them why not simply kill her? And she WAS sexually assaulted, so that too needs to be explained. As does the "garrote," the wrist ligatures, the duct tape, etc. And why hide her in that basement room? After redressing her in oversize panties and wrapping her in a blanket?

      "In order to find evidence of an intruder, you have to be actively looking for it, and this bunch couldn't find their own butts if they had a bell on it."

      This is the standard ploy used by all defense lawyers when the evidence points to their client and away from anyone else. I've read extensively on this case, and can assure you it was very thoroughly investigated. Far more than necessary, imo. The DA and BPD went out of their way to track down every tiny shred of possible evidence and every possible suspect. This is well documented.

      Delete
    13. "I go principally by the facts of the case and the fact is the body was found in that windowless room and not the trunk of the car. If it had been found there, it would have been all over for John, that's for sure. He said he found it in that room and Fleet corroborated that. "

      We are all going principally by the facts, it is with the interpretation of the facts that we differ. The fact of the matter is that body was found in the wine cellar, and in your eyes and the eyes of a great many people, IT IS OVER FOR JR, so what are you talking about? You think he acted alone. A great many others think he acted in conspiracy with Patsy. Obviously, hiding the body in the wine cellar would not have been a very good idea, for even if the absolute truth is that JR had nothing to do with the death of his daughter, the body being found there made him and Patsy look damn suspicious to the police, the media, the general public, and you.

      Therefore, I cannot, for the life of me, understand how in the world you can possibly assert that hiding the body in the wine cellar could ever have been a clever idea. We do not need to speculate about how bad an idea this was. This is not a hypothetical foolish idea, it is a PROVEN foolish idea by the very fact that we are having this conversation.

      "So then we have to ask why it was hidden away like that, in the most remote place in the entire house. What motive would an intruder have to hide it? None that I can see.

      You are not looking hard enough. The body was not only hidden in the most obscure part of the basement, it was covered with a blanket in a way suggestive of someone who felt some degree of remorse over JonBenet having been killed in this way.

      Does this necessarily mean that she was killed by one or both of her parents? No. However, like the anachronistic ransom note, it does suggest that there were two perpetrators involved in the murder, or at least two minds at work. One mind wanted to murder JonBenet, while the other mind preferred to kidnap her. One mind brutally crushes her skull with a crowbar, then garrotes her to death. The other solemnly prepares the body and buries it in a makeshift crypt. The evidence tells us that we are either dealing with a schizophrenic, or two perpetrators. Therefore, you theory does not fit the evidence.

      --Sig

      TO BE CONTINUED




      Delete
    14. "There was very clear evidence of sexual assault. And her hymen was NOT intact. Signs of chronic molestation were also found. Read Cyril Wecht's book for more on that."

      There was clear evidence of vaginal injury at or near the time of death, but not penile penetration. The evidence suggests that her vagina was prodded with a thin object, such as a pencil or the handle of a paint brush, at or near the time she was murdered.

      "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification."

      http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse

      Cyril Wecht, though being a very smart man, is also a publicity hound and a charlatan, most especially with this case where he suggests that JonBenet was the victim of some sort of sex game involving erotic asphyxiation. Personally, I suspect that Wecht has lost his wits due progressive neurologic damage brought on by chronic hypoxia, the inevitable result of touring the media circuit with his head stuck way up his own ass. Wecht would be better off sticking to his specific area of expertise, and let the criminal investigators take it from there. He may like to think of himself as a real-life "Quincy" but he is not. He is way out of his element here, and he is making an ass of himself and a joke of his profession.


      "It's also possible he noticed she was still breathing and decided to finish her off by strangling her."

      Now we are getting somewhere. The evidence of overkill is GLARING. What does that tell us about our perps?

      It tells us that at least one of the perps was absolutely determined to murder JonBenet, but did not want to kill her in a particularly atrocious way. He (or she) first smashed her in the head with a single strike of a crowbar, intending to knock her unconscious.

      The killer obviously did not strike JonBenet in a blind, raging fury, for it they did, the first strike would have been followed by a dozen more, resulting in gross mutilation of the entire cranium. In other words, this was, to a certain degree, a very cold and premeditated murder. JonBenet was murdered as a matter of necessity. She was certainly not killed by an accidental blow to the head since the damage to the cranium was far too extensive for this to have been an accident. When you strike someone in the head with a crowbar or tire iron, or some similar solid heavy metal object, with enough force to knock a plug out of the cranium, you have every intention of causing serious injury or death.

      After knocking her unconscious, the killer decided to finish her off in the most benign way they could think of: garroting her death. Again, they could have simply bashed her brains in till she was unrecognizable, but they did not, and probably because they had neither the malice nor the stomach for such atrocity. After all, these were not murderers, and certainly not child murderers. These were burglars, and probably not even professional burglars in the true sense of the term. They only killed JonBenet so that she could not identify them to the police.

      As far as the duct tape and the reported vaginal injury with the handle of a paint brush, I do not have access to the JBR files. Therefore, I do not know which publicly available details are true and which are shills kept to protect a continuing investigation. Was the duct tape applied after death? Maybe. Maybe it was applied prior to death in order to muffle JonBenet's terrified crying. Maybe it was applied after death because the killer misinterpreted postmortem twitching as an indication that JonBenet was still alive. Therefore, it may have been applied as another attempt to suffocate her, more evidence that the perps were not experienced with death.

      -- Sig

      TO BE CONTINUED

      Delete
    15. "We have to go by the facts and the note is an incontrovertible fact of the case, whether we like it or not. "

      Yes, it is. Indeed, it is the most important piece of evidence for it was obviously written by someone who was involved in the murder. Therefore, we cannot simply ignore important aspects of the note. We cannot simply say "Oh, well... JR probably wrote it" and disregard its absurd length, the phrasing, the juvenile movie references, the ridiculous ransom demand, the mistaken belief that he was a Southerner, and the style of calligraphy---all of which rule him OUT as the author.

      "And of course we must also ask why an intruder would take the time to craft such a long, detailed note."

      You and your accomplice are thrill burglars who have just been discovered by a six year-old girl who knows you or your accomplice by name and can identify you to police. Neither one of you are sure what to do next. Kidnapping is on the table. Murder is on the table. As the accomplice who is arguing for kidnapping instead of murder, writing a long ransom note is a psychologically effective way of buying time against the unthinkable, and perhaps inevitable, other option, namely, murdering a six year-old girl in cold blood so to avoid prison time for burglary.

      - Sig

      Delete
    16. Sig, you are bending yourself into a pretzel trying to find anything you can think of to bolster your intruder theory. You say you're basing your thinking on the evidence, but that's not true. You're basing your thinking on an attempt to explain away the evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that there were any intruders, either one or two or however many you think you might need.

      As I see it, hiding the body in the windowless room was part of a plan by John that required hiding the body from Patsy until it could be removed from the house, and if the plan had been carried out, it would have worked. I say that not because it fits "my theory" but because it's the only explanation I can think of that tells us why the murderer would have felt the need to hide the body of the victim.

      You say she was wrapped in a blanket out of compassion? Sorry, but there's no evidence for that or any reason to assume it. And how does that tell us why an intruder or intruders would have wanted to hide the body in the first place?

      "The evidence tells us that we are either dealing with a schizophrenic, or two perpetrators. Therefore, you theory does not fit the evidence."

      This is sheer fantasy on your part, a story that only a defense attorney could love. Two perps with different motives does not begin to account for why any intruder would want to write such a note, least of all a burglar. And regardless of any need to show compassion, your theory fails to explain why the body was hidden and whom it was supposed to be hidden from.

      So to make this work you're going to have to embellish your theory even more. Which I'm sure you're capable of. What's not so clear is whether anyone else is capable of buying it.

      Delete
    17. "Sig, you are bending yourself into a pretzel trying to find anything you can think of to bolster your intruder theory. You say you're basing your thinking on the evidence, but that's not true. You're basing your thinking on an attempt to explain away the evidence."

      I might say the same thing about you.

      "You're basing your thinking on an attempt to explain away the evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that there were any intruders, either one or two or however many you think you might need."

      Now who is attempting to explain away the evidence? There is no clearer evidence of an intruder than the ransom note. This is PRIMA FACIE evidence of an intruder, especially since there is no convincing evidence that the RN was written by any member of the Ramsey family. Until you can submit such evidence, and in the case of John Ramsey, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, you MUST begin from the premise that the note was written by an intruder lest you engage in self-deception and gross intellectual dishonesty. After all, the RN did not write itself and it was not written by wraiths.

      Delete
    18. "As I see it, hiding the body in the windowless room was part of a plan by John that required hiding the body from Patsy until it could be removed from the house, and if the plan had been carried out, it would have worked. I say that not because it fits "my theory" but because it's the only explanation I can think of that tells us why the murderer would have felt the need to hide the body of the victim."

      The problem is that it is very flimsy plan, at best. You say it would have been "too risky" to bury dump the body. However, it has already been proven "too risky" to have hid it in the basement.

      Of course, the biggest problem with your theory, aside from the previously mentioned ransom note, is that you have submitted absolutely no evidence that JR committed this outrage. All you have submitted thus far is a highly fanciful theory. JR has no history of such violent sociopathic and psychopathic behavior. And like it or not, THIS IS EVIDENCE, and very strong evidence, that he is not the killer. Your explanation that "he was away from home a lot; therefore, we don't really know anything about him" is NOT evidence. In fact, it is nothing but the most ridiculous sort of conjecture.


      "You say she was wrapped in a blanket out of compassion? Sorry, but there's no evidence for that or any reason to assume it."

      Can you think of any other reason to wrap the body in a blanket? Why not forget the blanket and stuff the body up a vent? Better yet, why not chop the body up and hide it in a suitcase, especially if the intention was to dispose of it later?


      "And how does that tell us why an intruder or intruders would have wanted to hide the body in the first place?"

      For a practical reason, they may have hid the body in order to buy some time before police would start looking for homicide suspects instead of kidnappers.

      For a less practical reason, they hid the body in order to hide their own terrible deed from themselves. These were thrill burglars. They never murdered anyone before. They never had any intention of murdering anyone, let alone a child. In hiding the body, they are psychologically hiding their own culpability. It is not at all unusual behavior for humans of any age to hide that of which they are ashamed.


      "This is sheer fantasy on your part, a story that only a defense attorney could love. Two perps with different motives does not begin to account for why any intruder would want to write such a note, least of all a burglar."

      You have an a long, rambling ransom note on the one hand, and the dead body of the purported hostage on the other, all within the same household. If this is not the most schizophrenic crime scene in the annals of crime history, I do not know what is. The evidence speaks for itself: Either we are dealing with a single schizophrenic kidnapper/child murderer (and this is highly unlikely) or we are dealing with two perps whose initial motive for being there was neither kidnapping nor murder.

      - Sig

      Delete
    19. "But nothing was stolen."

      This was a botched burglary conducted by thrill burglars. In other words, they were not dependent upon swag as their primary source of income. Once this turned into a kidnapping and then into a murder, all they really wanted to do was get out of there before being caught. Anything stolen from the residence would have implicated them if it were to be traced back to having been in their possession.


      "If she could identify them why not simply kill her?

      Killing six year-old children is not a crime in which thrill burglars (or even professional burglars) regularly engage. They certainly would have mulled it over. The fact that they did (ie: the ransom note) is an indication that we are probably not dealing with hardcore sociopaths with long criminal records.


      "And she WAS sexually assaulted, so that too needs to be explained."

      I have yet to see any reports of semen being discovered on or near the body. Have you? There should be some if this was a sexually motivated crime. When you get down to very specific details about the crime without access to the actual case file, you run the risk of self-deception for it is a known fact that law enforcement does not disclose all the facts of a continuing investigation to the public. This is done in order to protect the integrity of the investigation itself. Issues about pineapple, sexual assault vs. vaginal injury, duct tape, etc. that are shrouded in controversy for no apparent reason, fall into this category.

      The fact that there is reported evidence of vaginal injury, but none of penile penetration nor deposits of semen casts serious doubt over whether a sexual assault actually occurred. If the vagina was penetrated with a the handle of a paint brush, as has been suggested, it may be a clue that we are dealing with two female perps and not a male and a female. The female perp who clubbed JonBenet over the head with a crowbar, then garroted her, would also be the one who would have stabbed her in the vagina with a paintbrush. This would be much less a sexual assault than a physical assault, suggestive of a sociopathic personality who begrudged JonBenet for all her good fortune and pleasant childhood.







      Delete
    20. "There was clear evidence of vaginal injury at or near the time of death, but not penile penetration. The evidence suggests that her vagina was prodded with a thin object, such as a pencil or the handle of a paint brush, at or near the time she was murdered."

      Digital penetration is the most likely cause of the injury. The paint brush handle is folklore. See my most recent post for an explanation of how this one got started.

      And no, there was no evidence of penile penetration, but so what? Digital penetration of a child constitutes sexual assault. Which must be explained. If John were having an incestuous relation with is daughter that would explain it. If she had been assaulted by a pedophile intruder, that would explain it. So of course now one of your burglars will conveniently morph into a sexual predator. Very flexible, this theory of yours. You can fiddle with it until it "explains" just about anything.

      "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification."

      Yes, and the FBI also stated that the injuries were consistent with the staging of a phoney sexual assault. Are you sure you want to stick with that FBI report? It was done at the behest of Steve Thomas and he used it to implicate Patsy, not an intruder. As for me, I have a hard time with any pronouncements from on high. What looks like a sexual assault is most likely a sexual assault, unless there is real evidence otherwise. And I've never seen such evidence.

      Your remarks on Wecht are strictly ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but such attacks are meaningless. If you have an argument to make, show me the evidence.

      "It tells us that at least one of the perps was absolutely determined to murder JonBenet, but did not want to kill her in a particularly atrocious way. . . " etc.

      Your attempt to recreate the crime and explain your intruder's motives is interesting (up to a point) but even you have to realize how fanciful this all is. Thousands of people have speculated about what happened and why. What makes your scenario any more convincing than anyone else's?

      It would be more convincing if you could explain why any intruders, burglars or whoever, would have wanted to do all that was done, including taking the time to write a ransom note while in the house, leaving a note written with his or her own handwriting and then not bothering to actually kidnap the victim, hiding the body in the remote basement room (hiding it from whom?).

      Your speculations about who might have done what and why mean nothing if you can't put together a scenario that answers these very basic questions.

      Delete
    21. "You and your accomplice are thrill burglars who have just been discovered by a six year-old girl who knows you or your accomplice by name and can identify you to police. Neither one of you are sure what to do next. Kidnapping is on the table. Murder is on the table. As the accomplice who is arguing for kidnapping instead of murder, writing a long ransom note is a psychologically effective way of buying time against the unthinkable, and perhaps inevitable, other option, namely, murdering a six year-old girl in cold blood so to avoid prison time for burglary."

      Once again, this is pure fantasy. There is no evidence a burglary occurred. There is no reason for a kidnapper not to bring a note with him, rather than write one while at the site of the kidnapping. And also no reason for burglars to morph into kidnappers after committing a murder. I defy you to show me a single case where such a thing ever happened or was even alleged to have happened. I also defy you to cite a single case where a ransom note was left without anyone actually being kidnapped.

      What your theory really does is demonstrate all over again how absurd any intruder theory has to be in order to make it account for everything that happened that night. I'm sure I'll never convince you of that, but I find it an excellent lesson for any of those reading here who might still believe in the intruder fairy.

      Delete
    22. "There is no clearer evidence of an intruder than the ransom note. This is PRIMA FACIE evidence of an intruder, especially since there is no convincing evidence that the RN was written by any member of the Ramsey family."

      As there is no reason for anyone to leave a ransom note and yet not follow through with an actual kidnapping, this in itself is already enough to tell us how unlikely it is that the note could have been written by an intruder. When we add the fact that the note was written on a pad taken from the house itself, then I'm sorry, but it looks very much like the work of an insider.

      Delete
    23. "Of course, the biggest problem with your theory, aside from the previously mentioned ransom note, is that you have submitted absolutely no evidence that JR committed this outrage. All you have submitted thus far is a highly fanciful theory. JR has no history of such violent sociopathic and psychopathic behavior."

      There is no direct evidence, true -- no smoking gun. But such evidence is not necessary, as a very strong circumstantial case can be made against John. If you look through the blog archive at the upper right, you'll find posts in which such a case is presented. The most damaging evidence is the clear evidence he lied about breaking the basement window. Look for the posts with the basement window as topic. This is not a "fanciful" theory but a very careful, line by line analysis of his and Patsy's testimony, followed by an analysis of the window scene itself.

      It's true that John has no history of this sort of behavior. But I'm sorry, there are many precedents for all sorts of terrible things being done by people thought to have had no history of violence.

      Delete
    24. "Can you think of any other reason to wrap the body in a blanket?"

      Yes, certainly. I think the body was wrapped so traces of JonBenet's blood or sweat or urine or DNA would not adhere to the trunk of his car. Once she was dumped, he'd have gotten rid of that blanket, to make sure any fibers from it left in the trunk could not be traced.

      You say your burglars hid the body to buy time so the police would be looking for kidnappers instead of burglars. Well at least that's an answer. Finally.

      But what good would it have done them to have the police looking for kidnappers instead of burglars? Sorry, but I don't get it. Also, how does writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note buy you any time? Same with wrapping the body and hiding it. If they wanted to buy time they'd have taken off as soon as possible. Find some other reason.

      "It is not at all unusual behavior for humans of any age to hide that of which they are ashamed."

      I defy you to find any precedent for an intruder entering a home and killing someone, and then hiding the body because they were ashamed of what they did.

      Sig, this has been fun, but it's becoming tiresome. Sorry but I don't take your theory seriously enough to continue responding. Clearly this could go on forever and I simply don't have the time.


      Delete
    25. "Digital penetration is the most likely cause of the injury. The paint brush handle is folklore. See my most recent post for an explanation of how this one got started.

      And no, there was no evidence of penile penetration, but so what? Digital penetration of a child constitutes sexual assault. Which must be explained. If John were having an incestuous relation with is daughter that would explain it. If she had been assaulted by a pedophile intruder, that would explain it. So of course now one of your burglars will conveniently morph into a sexual predator. Very flexible, this theory of yours. You can fiddle with it until it "explains" just about anything."

      Anyone who can brutally murder a six year-old girl in such a way as JonBenet was murdered is certainly capable of abusing the genitalia of her corpse, whether with a finger or a paintbrush. However, the fact that no semen was found on or near the body certainly diminishes the offense as a sexual assault. Sexual assault was clearly not the primary motive of the murderer. The primary motive of the murderer, at least in regards to JonBenet, was murder.

      You need to recognize that this would not be the first, second, or 10,000th time in the history of crime that a burglary morphed into a murder.

      - Sig

      Delete
    26. "Yes, and the FBI also stated that the injuries were consistent with the staging of a phoney sexual assault. Are you sure you want to stick with that FBI report? It was done at the behest of Steve Thomas and he used it to implicate Patsy, not an intruder. As for me, I have a hard time with any pronouncements from on high. What looks like a sexual assault is most likely a sexual assault, unless there is real evidence otherwise. And I've never seen such evidence."

      The fact of the matter is that without the presence of semen, it is difficult to construe this as an actual sexual assault. With this sort of crime, it should be there. At the very least, the perp would have masturbated on or near the body. This is obviously not just my opinion, but the opinion of the FBI. Although I am not convinced that this was staging, I am not convinced that it was not, either.

      If it were a staging, then it says something about the identity of the murderer, and to my mind, it suggests that we are dealing with someone who knows a thing or two about criminal investigation and was attempting to misdirect it.

      - Sig


      Delete
    27. "Your attempt to recreate the crime and explain your intruder's motives is interesting (up to a point) but even you have to realize how fanciful this all is. Thousands of people have speculated about what happened and why. What makes your scenario any more convincing than anyone else's?"

      My theory is more convincing because it fits the evidence like a glove. The same cannot be said of your theory which fails coming out of the gate on the premise that JR wrote the ransom note. The same can be said of any theory that Patsy or Burke or the entire Ramsey family did it. The ransom note is the strongest evidence that an intruder or intruders did it.

      I have already explained how this is so through logical deduction, beginning with the Million Dollar Question, which you have yet to answer to any reasonable satisfaction.

      Sorry, but your exceedingly fanciful idea that JR planned to dump the body later the following morning because it was "too risky" to dump it in the middle of the night while everyone was asleep is nothing short of ridiculous. His best chance to get rid of the body would have been BEFORE JonBenet was discovered missing, not after. JR would have to be a complete and utter moron to have thought otherwise.

      - Sig












      Delete
    28. "As there is no reason for anyone to leave a ransom note and yet not follow through with an actual kidnapping, this in itself is already enough to tell us how unlikely it is that the note could have been written by an intruder. When we add the fact that the note was written on a pad taken from the house itself, then I'm sorry, but it looks very much like the work of an insider."

      There is plenty of reason to be undecided upon how you should react when you're a burglar who has been discovered by your six year-old neighbor and you or your accomplice are terrified at the thought of ruining a prestigious career and going to prison. There is a very big difference, both morally and criminally, between burgling a home and murdering a child. Burglars mulling over the idea of kidnapping JonBenet instead of murdering her is not nearly beyond the pale of possibility.

      - Sig

      Delete
    29. "There is no direct evidence, true -- no smoking gun. But such evidence is not necessary, as a very strong circumstantial case can be made against John."

      Such evidence is necessary since the only circumstantial evidence that exists is that JR was home at the time JonBenet was murdered. That is not nearly enough to even suggest that he was guilty of anything except being a father who lived at home with his children.


      "If you look through the blog archive at the upper right, you'll find posts in which such a case is presented. The most damaging evidence is the clear evidence he lied about breaking the basement window. Look for the posts with the basement window as topic. This is not a "fanciful" theory but a very careful, line by line analysis of his and Patsy's testimony, followed by an analysis of the window scene itself."

      Sorry but I cannot find it. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope you are not hanging JR on something as tertiary and insignificant as a recollection over whether he did or did not break a window. Please say you're not.


      "It's true that John has no history of this sort of behavior. But I'm sorry, there are many precedents for all sorts of terrible things being done by people thought to have had no history of violence."

      You have no direct evidence and the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. Sorry, but the substantial history of his behavior running contrary to the personality you allege him to be, as well as his noble reputation and lack of a prior criminal history, trumps your extremely weak theory and thoroughly unsupportable accusation.

      - Sig

      Delete
  12. Re: pulling the phone out of the wall.

    If the 911 call had already been made, pulling the phone out would do no good. The operator will call back, and if there is no answer, police will be dispatched.

    If the call had not yet been placed, and extreme reaction like pulling the phone out of the wall might make PR suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a feeling John must have been caught off-guard by Patsy. She says she went downstairs to make the call while John was upstairs. So he might not have had a chance to stop her. All we have is their version(s) of what happened, which might well be inaccurate.

      The fact remains: the call was made, and it was made by Patsy. And it makes no sense to assume she would have wanted to make that call if she was staging a kidnapping and knew the body was still in the house. I feel sure John would NOT have wanted it made. And if he HAD in fact wanted it made, I see no reason he wouldn't have made it himself.

      Delete
    2. JR having been caught off guard in such a way is not an indication that he thought this scheme out very carefully, if at all. He needed to control the scene, particularly Patsy's certain hysteria at hearing that her daughter had been kidnapped. He would NEVER have left the note where she could find it. He would have sat her down, away from the phone, and quietly explained to her what happened. Then, before allowing her to read the note, he would have instilled in her the idea that she needed to remain calm and that it was absolutely necessary that they not call the police. He would have even unplugged the phones beforehand in order to prevent her from calling the police. If his plan was to dump the body later, controlling Patsy's reaction and keeping her from calling the police was paramount. The whole scheme depended upon it.

      If this did not happen, if JR did not make a very strong attempt to control Patsy's reaction to hearing news of her daughter's abduction, it is highly unlikely that JR concocted such a scheme, let alone murdered his own daughter.

      Delete
  13. Yes to each of your eight above sentences.

    My only argument for Patsy making the call all along and knowing the body was still in the house was that she just could not bear to have her tossed outdoors somewhere and wanted the police to find her stashed away in the house instead. But then, if the R's had decided to bring in the police for her discovery, JR WOULD have made that call. The note was directed to him, and he would have immediately assumed the 'responsibility' role. Also, if he would have made the call purposefully, he would have had one more sure avenue of evidence AGAINST Patsy - it would have easily corroborated her being the author of the note.

    Patsy cooked his rice.

    MWMM

    ReplyDelete
  14. If Patsy had just penetrated her child's vagina, and then strangled her with a "garrote," as has so often been assumed, then it seems very odd indeed to think she'd care much about tossing the body outdoors. Why not backstep a bit and ask yourself how she could possibly have brought herself to sexually assault and strangle her beloved child in the first place -- to cover for a head blow that could have been reported as an accident?

    As for the rest, I must say I see little point in trying to read their minds. Psychology is an imprecise art. I prefer to stick with the facts. They already tell us what we need to know.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "This is the standard ploy used by all defense lawyers when the evidence points to their client and away from anyone else. I've read extensively on this case, and can assure you it was very thoroughly investigated. Far more than necessary, imo. The DA and BPD went out of their way to track down every tiny shred of possible evidence and every possible suspect. This is well documented."

    This is the most famously botched case in the history of criminology. Please refrain from suggesting that the BPD were even remotely competent with their investigation. They should have recognized this as a burglary gone bad from the very beginning. Instead, they wasted year after year focusing their investigation upon proving that the remaining victims of the crime were the culprits when the most obvious evidence excluded them; and in the process they let the real culprits get away with murder.

    I will go even far enough to say that the FBI should be taking a good hard look at every detective on the BPD who was involved with the case. Incompetency of this magnitude can be a sign of complicity.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The idea that it [the ransom note] was written by a female is part of the folklore of this case. I see no evidence of a female touch."

      It is hardly folklore. It is the prevailing opinion of the majority of experts, including Dr. James Pennebaker, the FBI's verbal analysis expert.


      "That's your opinion, Sid."

      It is hardly "my opinion" to suggest that Patsy, or any mother in the whole entire world, would be expected to get hysterical upon hearing news that her six year-old daughter has been abducted; and for you to say that it is betrays an intellectual dishonesty on your part of the most outrageous kind.


      "Handwriting analysis has always been controversial."

      Handwriting analysis is controversial in the same vein that polygraph is controversial. However, it is certainly not in the same category as "psychic investigation" which is how you are attempting to label it.

      Most everyone, even children, even illiterates, can tell the difference between one random handwriting sample and another. It's like the ability to distinguish the difference between one random face and another. It is a universal human ability and a very real and observable phenomenon. It is only when someone is accused of disguising their handwriting that expert opinion is necessary, and this where the controversy is manifested because there will often be differing opinions between experts.

      In JR's case, not only does the overt handwriting not match his own, but not a single expert on handwriting or verbal analysis determined the writing to be his in disguise. This is no small point.

      If it is your opinion that JR wrote the ransom note, then you are COMPELLED to provide some sort of evidence before your opinion can be taken seriously.

      - Sig

      Delete
  16. "Your remarks on Wecht are strictly ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but such attacks are meaningless. If you have an argument to make, show me the evidence."

    Wecht thinks the murderer was a member of the Ramsey household and a pedophile with a peculiar penchant for erotic asphyxiation. He says this knowing full well that no traces of semen were discovered on or near the body, and while offering no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the Ramsey household had such sexual predilections. Enough said.

    Sorry, but in my opinion, Wecht is living proof that horses' asses are not only found on horses.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "There is no evidence a burglary occurred."

    Actually, the ransom note vis-a-vis the body in basement is certainly very strong evidence of breaking and entering, if not burglary.

    The evidence of a burglary is the fact that JonBenet's life was stolen.


    "There is no reason for a kidnapper not to bring a note with him, rather than write one while at the site of the kidnapping."

    This was never a kidnapping.


    "And also no reason for burglars to morph into kidnappers after committing a murder."

    Get it right. The burglars morphed into kidnappers and then into murderers. Albeit, JonBenet could have been being murdered by one burglar while the other was upstairs writing the ransom note.


    "I defy you to show me a single case where such a thing ever happened or was even alleged to have happened. I also defy you to cite a single case where a ransom note was left without anyone actually being kidnapped.

    While the particulars of this case are indeed unique, there is nothing unique about a burglary morphing into a murder. It happens every day, all around the world. A "burglary gone bad" should have been the working theory for the BPD from the very beginning. Unfortunately, they were thrown off by the ransom note vis-a-vis the body of the purported hostage being found in the basement.


    "What your theory really does is demonstrate all over again how absurd any intruder theory has to be in order to make it account for everything that happened that night. I'm sure I'll never convince you of that."

    I am confident that in the fullness of time you will become an ardent supporter of my theory. You just need a little more time to think about it.

    - Sig

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I think the body was wrapped so traces of JonBenet's blood or sweat or urine or DNA would not adhere to the trunk of his car. Once she was dumped, he'd have gotten rid of that blanket, to make sure any fibers from it left in the trunk could not be traced."

    ...or maybe he wrapped the body in a blanket because he was planning to cremate it somewhere in the woods so to dispose of the evidence.

    ...or maybe he wrapped the body in the blanket because it was her favorite blanket.

    We are delving into compounded speculation so abstract from the direct evidence that it can be of little value toward solving the case.


    "What good would it have done them to have the police looking for kidnappers instead of burglars? Sorry, but I don't get it. "

    I don't get it either, which is why I believe the note was written either before the murder, or concomitantly with one perp writing the note upstairs, unaware that her accomplice in the basement had decided unilaterally to kill the child.

    - Sig

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I defy you to find any precedent for an intruder entering a home and killing someone, and then hiding the body because they were ashamed of what they did. "

    I could spend the rest of the day combing through crime files looking for such precedent, but I'm not going to.

    Even if such a thing has never happened before, which is extremely doubtful, it does not change the fact it is a natural human inclination to hide that of which one is ashamed.



    "Sig, this has been fun, but it's becoming tiresome. Sorry but I don't take your theory seriously enough to continue responding. Clearly this could go on forever and I simply don't have the time."

    Too bad. You must either find the time or concede that I am right and you are wrong.

    To your credit, you have at least attempted to challenge my theory rather than ban me just for challenging you. It is too bad that most other RDI theorists do not have your courage.

    I take my hat off to you accordingly.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc, You don't have to find the time to argue with Sig nor do you have to concede that he is right and you are wrong. How silly!

      Delete
    2. Actually, the arguments are tons of fun to read. Doc's theory about JR is compelling and he backs up his claims. I happen to disagree, but am really enjoying his blog posts.

      As for Sig - not sure I'm buying the 2 intruder theory, but I'm definitely in the 'Ramseys not involved' camp. Here's a big reason why I don't think JR was abusing JB - he was out of town frequently. JB was the apple of her mother's eye and they must have spent a fair amount of time together doing the baby beauty pageant thing. If JB WAS being molested, isn't it more likely to have been by a teenage sibling of one of her schoolmates, while at the friend's house? I think PR was far too doting of a mother to have been unawares if it was happening at home.

      And doesn't the nature of JB's murder suggest immature thinking and actions? The RN itself is an odd combo of statements, some juvenile and others that are trying just too hard to sound sophisticated.

      Sig - I totally dig your theory that someone connected to law enforcement did it. How about the teenage son of a local cop, eh? Especially if that son had suffered abuse at his father's hand (not uncommon in LE)- the abused tend to become abusers, and they always pick on someone smaller than themselves. A cop's kid might know how to pick a lock, or simply may have had access to keys through another friend. The Ramseys were well known and it seems as though they had several sets of keys floating around. In a large, multi-floor suburban home there is a lot of privacy - which could support Doc's theory of JR's ongoing molestation of JB, but makes a better case for an intruder. Look - if JR could have killed JB and staged the off-Broadway hit 'my daughter was kidnapped', then why couldn't an intruder?




      Delete
    3. There are all sorts of reasonable sounding theories, dozens of them, from "Santa did it" to "the photographer did it," to "the housekeeper did it," to "Fleet White did it," on and on ad infinitum, so your theory is just one more. It's an interesting angle, but what all these theories lack is any shred of evidence backing them up. And in every case we have an outsider somehow getting into the house without breaking in, then taking the trouble to lock the door after leaving; sexually molesting his/her victim, then clubbing her and finally strangling her, and then, instead of making a quick exit, sitting down to write a two and a half page, hand-printed "ransom note" for no particular reason; and finally taking the trouble to hide the body in the most remote room in the house; but not before removing her panties and redressing her in panties so oversized that she couldn't possibly have been wearing them while walking around. We also have to account for the window scene, which looks very much like the partial staging of an intruder breakin, and cannot be explained either by an intruder actually passing through the window (no evidence of that) or an intruder with a key.

      To me, it's obvious that this is a staged breakin-kidnapping gone wrong. That's how it apparently looked to the Grand Jury also, as we've recently learned. The only real question is: who did the staging?

      Delete
    4. If it was an intruder (not saying it was, I don't know what to believe) could he have attempted to make an escape via the basement window but changed his mind? Hence the suitcase/open window.

      If it was JR do you think he did the staging before he carried JBR upstairs or the previous night?

      I have always leaned towards an intruder theory because every theory that involved the parents sounded outrageous - except yours.

      Delete
    5. Yes, if an intruder was present, he might have prepared the suitcase and opened the window and then changed his mind, that's possible. However, if he exited via a door then why would he have bothered to lock it behind him? Besides, as I believe I demonstrated, John obviously lied about breaking the window earlier -- and his claim that he couldn't recall whether that window had ever been repaired is not credible.

      The window was clearly broken the night of the crime. The police wouldn't have taken so much time questioning both of them about it if they knew the break was old. And if it was broken by an intruder, then that implies the intruder must have entered via that window. But there was no sign anyone passed through the window, either coming or going. He would have had no reason to break the window if he were just thinking of using it as an exit. So the intruder theory is just one chain of absurdities after another.

      I think John must have done some staging prior to finding the body. I think he probably changed her into the oversized panties after Patsy called 911, and also he'd have had to clean up the glass under the window. According to Det. Arndt, he vanished from her sight for a significant period that morning, at least 45 minutes, as I recall. So he'd have had plenty of time to improvise a plan B.

      I'm glad you find my thinking reasonable, thanks.

      Delete
  20. Hello, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your blog in Opera, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.

    I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, awesome
    blog!
    My website ; health benefits

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nice blog here! Additionally your website so much up fast!
    What web host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associate link to your host?
    I wish my website loaded up as quickly as yours lol
    Here is my webpage ... degrees of financial literacy

    ReplyDelete
  22. Great goods from you, man. I've understand your stuff previous to and you are just too great. I really like what you have acquired here, really like what you're stating and the way in which you say it.

    You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it wise.
    I cant wait to read much more from you. This is really a
    tremendous site.
    Also visit my web blog - www.dmae.upm.es

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi there to every body, it's my first visit of this blog; this webpage contains amazing and genuinely good material for visitors.
    My website ... http://www.somerco.com/21938

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think this is one of the most important info for me.

    And i am glad reading your article. But
    want to remark on few general things, The website style is ideal, the articles is really
    great : D. Good job, cheers
    Look at my web page ... cltad-web.arts.ac.uk

    ReplyDelete
  25. Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your site, how can i subscribe
    for a weblog web site? The account aided me a appropriate deal.
    I were a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered shiny clear concept get more information http://www.logmeonce.com/why-should-i-trust-you/
    Feel free to surf my web blog online password manager review

    ReplyDelete
  26. I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I'll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am quite certain I'll learn many new stuff right here!
    Good luck for the next!
    My site :: types of web hosting

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good response in return of this difficulty with solid
    arguments and explaining all on the topic of that.
    Also visit my page ... http://www.mistyfall.org/wiki/Index.php?title=Affiliate_Marketing_-_Finding_Proper_Content.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very nice article, totally what I needed.
    Also visit my weblog : serialclubbers.org

    ReplyDelete
  29. That is true, valid points. I have been reading this blog when I get the chance and you are the only one that has presented a logical account of any parental involvement. I always discounted the parents involvement and favoured the intruder theory because other websites seem to be so outrageous, saying that JBR was a religious sacrifice, BR did it, PR did it & PR molested JBR.

    Everytime I think of another question it seems to be covered in another entry that I read later on.

    Questions I haven't found the answer to yet:
    Do you think Patsy ever knew that it was John or suspected him?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Good question. No, I don't think she ever suspected him. First, because he is obviously a master manipulator. Secondly, because she, like everyone else, would have accepted the finding that John was "ruled out" as writer of the note. Since she knew very well that SHE didn't writeit, and was convinced (wrongly) that John couldn't have, then she would have had no doubts regarding an intruder. In her mind, that would have been the only possibility. And thanks to the decision to rule John out, and her conviction that he must be innocent, he would have been able to easily manipulate her into telling a few "white lies" to help him get the authorities off his back. Which is, I think, why she was unwilling to challenge his version of what happened prior to the 911 call and also his story about breaking the window the previous summer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read extensively on this case, and was convinced early on the JR was the perp for the very reasons you state. He was sexually molesting JBR, and was either caught at it, or afraid she was going to tell. I was never able to reconcile PR's complicity in it though until I read your theory. I just couldn't reconcile her covering for someone who abused and murdered her child. Now it makes sense.

      One thing bothers me though, the RN stated that she would be beheaded, and he would have had to remove the garrote or it would tie the crime back to the house. I know it takes a pretty sick individual to do what he did to his own daughter, but would he have gone so far as to behead the body prior to dumping it? Or do you think he would have taken the body somewhere so remote he would believe it would never be found?

      I believe this guy will eventually have to answer for what he's done whether it's in this life, or whatever comes after. But first I hope he has to answer to Patsy for what he did to her own child.....and to his own wife.

      Delete
    2. I'm pleased to learn that you agree.

      And you're right, he probably would have removed the "garotte" before taking the body out of the house, as the paintbrush handle could possibly be traced back to them.

      As to whether he actually planned on beheading JonBenet, that's an interesting question I hadn't thought of. I certainly hope not, but we will probably never know exactly what he had in mind when he wrote that. He certainly wanted to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, so maybe it was just a bluff.

      It's also not clear whether he would have simply dumped the body or buried it somewhere hoping it would never be found. Only John knows the answer to that one.

      Delete
  31. You're so awesome! I do not think I've read through anything like that before.

    So good to discover somebody with some original thoughts on this subject.

    Really.. many thanks for starting this up. This web site is something that is needed on the
    internet, someone with a little originality!
    Look at my weblog ; kids costumes

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you want to take a great deal from this paragraph then you have to apply such
    techniques to your won weblog.
    Also see my webpage > cigarette smoking occurred

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dearest DocG,
    I have read most if not all of the material on this site, and never intended to respond until just now. Without any doubt thee key question is to explain the purpose of the ransom note. Your answer to that question inherently answers the other most important questions in the case. You've made a believer out of me and other logical thinking visitors. On a side note, you've been extremely professional in dealing with the more ridiculous respondents to your blog. Anyway, I do have a question. What's up with the John mark karr situation? I think I took his claims a bit more seriously than others for a couple legitimate reasons. A proven pedofile wanted for child pornography, who says he was there but did not commit the crime, knew undisclosed details about the crime scene, and did much in response to his own personal pain. Could he have been present, but perhaps just the camera man for the snuff film some have speculated about? I can't help but think there's something to that. Could he be connected to JR? Is there any proof JR was into that kind of thing? I guess I don't really know where I'm going with this but it begs the question to account for his knowledge of the crime scene which he should not know. The fact this case has gone cold really bothers me. My own father was murdered in 2001 when i was 14 and Detroit police didn't take the investigation seriously, and the truth will likely never be known. My dads killer might well sell me coffee every morning on my way to work, but there isn't much to do because there arent many details to follow such as in this case.(though there were back then) Maybe I think I'd feel better if I can come up with a working theory about JBR, creating the slight possibility that at least one of them will get justice. Sorry to harp on here dear friend, but if someone popped up knowing undisclosed facts about my dads murder, you can believe I'd be running through them like General Patton through Europe. That man would have about 0.5 cigarettes to make a believer out of me as to how he knew that stuff ya know? Anyway, I've really enjoyed your site, you're quite the straight shooter. If you're ever looking for work in the Motor City, I'd love to offer you a lucrative position at Fords historic rouge plant. Til then, cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, thank you so much, your kind words are very much appreciated. And if I knew anything about cars I might want to take you up on your job offer. (Actually I'm happy where I am, but thanks anyhow.)

      As for John Mark Karr, that was certainly an unexpected and also very disturbing development -- especially since the DA dropped him like a hot potato once the DNA results were in and never investigated him very thoroughly at all. It did seem as though he knew a lot about the case, but by that time a great many details had been released to the public, and since he was clearly obsessed, it's not surprising he knew so much. The problem for me is that he was never able to explain any of the aspects of the case that made an intruder seem so unlikely. For example, he claimed he entered the house through the basement window, but never explained how he could have done that without leaving any trace while squeezing through that narrow space.

      I think he was basically looking for attention and having a great time playing games with the authorities. He was clearly in the driver's seat, since he could tell them whatever he wanted to tell them, and since his family couldn't supply any real proof that he was with them over Xmas, the investigators had no way to tell whether he was being truthful or tailoring his story to suit himself. The bottom line for me is that 1. no intruder theory makes any sense at all; 2. John clearly lied about crucial aspects of the case.

      I'm sorry to hear about your father. A great many cases go unsolved, usually because there is so little evidence. In the Ramsey case, however, there is plenty of evidence, thus NO excuse!

      Delete
  34. I do not think the RN is the crux of the case. It certainly is a HUGE, mind boggling clue, but I think the real crux of the case is the sexual assault. Based on several doctors' opinions and the autopsy, most would agree that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. I do not think the trauma she suffered that night was part of any staging. It is a real clue.

    If an intruder was in that house that night and either planned on kidnapping JB, torturing her, sexually assaulting her, or all of the above, he would NOT stay in that house with her. I feel strongly about this. Once he had JB in his clutches, he would have gotten out of that house and taken her to a place where he felt safe to do whatever he wanted with her.

    If Patsy were the one who had been sexually assaulting her, I am sure there were many, many times that she was alone with JB and would have chosen to assault her then, not in the house Christmas night when everyone was home. Plus, I am certain she was exhausted from a full day of Christmas activities and the fact that they had to get up early the next morning.

    If Burke was the one who had been sexually assaulting her (sorry, Kolar --- I don't buy this either), I think he, too, would have chosen another time to assault her. Certainly not in the house with everyone home, late Christmas night when he, too, was probably extremely tired. I think we all know when boys that age go to bed, they crash out all night. I was molested by my brother when I was 9 years old and he would always do it after school, when my parents weren't home and never at night.

    So who sexually assaulted her? That says it all for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a feeling you won't protest when I assert that the most likely molester in that house would certainly have been the only mature male in the house. And yet, one of the lead investigators, det. Steve Thomas, chose to give him a "pass" and focused instead on Patsy. To explain the obvious sexual assault, he claimed her wounds were more consistent with a coverup than anything sexual. Sorry, but I have a very hard time buying such a strange idea. He also dismisses the evidence of chronic abuse, because it doesn't fit his bizarre theory that Patsy "accidentally" murdered her daughter and then covered up with an off the wall plan involving a staged sexual assault, staged "garotte" strangulation and staged kidnap note. The much more likely possibility that John was molesting his daughter and killed her to keep her quiet appears to be something that never occurred to him.

      Delete
  35. I still believe that the crux of the case is indeed the ransom note. Much has been set about its form, but much less about the more important thing - its function. I dont have a theory that answers all of the questions but it seems that the note did what it was meant to do, delay. Those precious first hours are now down the drain but why was that time needed? The time stated by the killer for the awaited call strikes me as a minimum amount of time needed for something. A getaway maybe? Decaying of forensic evidence?(I dont know the first thing about biology). Or just to escape the city itself if he/she feared a possible perimeter blockade and manhunt within the city? I think the ransom note was meant to do a job. To distract and delay helping the killer not be caught. Was such a theory ever explored? If you think about a possible other party who is still not known(the dna) being the mind and culprit, it really was the perfect crime. Everything found brought nothing but dead ends as intended and the cops went after other parties in a drawn out sequence of wasted time as intended. The note and the dead ends seem to have done what they were meant to do, no theory answers all and the case remains unsolved. Even with the crucial "mistake" of leaving dna is of no consequence bc the possibly crafted dead ends kept it from getting someone caught. Just my thoughts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your theory that an intruder could have written the note to delay involvement by the police does make some sense. The note says the "kidnapper's" call will come "tomorrow," so, if the warnings in the note had frightened the Ramseys into not calling the police until after the ransom had been paid, that would have given the perp over 24 hours to get away.

      The only problem is the inordinate length of the note and all the details about delivery of the ransom cash. An intruder cautious enough to write a note to delay police involvement would not have been so reckless as to sit down and compose such an elaborate note while in the house, where someone might have awakened at any time and called the cops then and there.

      All that would have been necessary would have been a note that said "We have your daughter. We'll call you tomorrow between 8 and 10AM with details on paying the ransom. We are monitoring police communications so don't call the police or she will die."

      Another option would have been to call the Ramsey home from a pay phone with a similar warning. No need to write a note at all.



      Delete