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.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Key Questions

The Ramsey case poses some very challenging questions. Any theory that can answer all these questions in a reasonable and consistent manner, based on solid evidence, should be taken seriously. Theories based largely on speculation are much harder to take seriously. Though of course, any theory might possibly be correct -- because anything is possible -- it makes sense to concentrate more on what seems likely than what seems contrived. One must be especially cautious when confronted with theories designed to explain away the evidence rather than actually account for it in a systematic and logical manner. In this regard, and according to one of the most important principles of science, Occam's Razor, the simpler the explanation, i.e., the fewer the elements needed to account for all the evidence, the more likely it is to be true. That does not mean it has to be true, just that a parsimonious explanation should generally be taken more seriously than complicated ones involving more elements and requiring more time and effort to explain.


I've identified a set of questions I regard as key, 1. because the correct answers could lead us to the guilty party, and 2. because all stem from the known and undisputed facts of the case. Questions relating to, for example, Patsy's or John's or Burke's behavior, or their personalities; or various reports regarding, for example, someone hearing a scream or a metallic sound, seeing a suspicious vehicle, or identifying a "likely" suspect or type of suspect; or questions regarding where JonBenet was assaulted and whether the head blow or the strangulation came first, etc., are in my view not key questions, because their significance is more a matter of speculation than fact.

Here are some of the key questions I've identified:

1. What was the purpose of the ransom note?
2. Why would the Ramseys call 911 if they were staging a fake kidnapping?
3. Why would any murderer want to leave a possibly incriminating note written in his own hand? 
4. Why would a kidnapper not write his ransom note ahead of time, but take valuable time to compose a long note while in the house?
5. Why would a kidnapper leave his victim in the house?
6. Why would a kidnapper bother to leave a ransom note knowing his victim is still in the house?
7. Why would any murderer want to hide the body of his victim?
8.  From whom was the murderer hiding the body?
 9. Why did the murderer wrap the body in a blanket?
10.  Who broke the basement window? when was it broken? and why?
11. Why were packing peanuts from the window well found on the floor beneath the window?
12. Why was a suitcase found positioned flush against the wall under the window?
13. Why was JonBenet sexually assaulted?
14. Why was JonBenet killed?

Note that all these questions are based on known and undisputed facts of the case, rather than observations made by witnesses who weren't sure what they saw or heard, or various opinions offered by law enforcement personnel or in some cases "experts" on this or that aspect of the case, or various bits of inconclusive "evidence" that might or might not be related to the case.

One cannot claim to have solved the case unless one is capable of answering all the above questions in a simple, reasonable and consistent manner. This is my claim. And here are my answers:

1. The purpose of the ransom note was to, first, convince Patsy Ramsey not to call the police when she discovered her daughter missing; second, discourage her from searching the house for JonBenet by convincing her that her daughter had been kidnapped; and, third, make it possible for John to dump the body under the pretext that he was delivering a ransom. 

2. It was Patsy, not John, who called 911, and she would only have done that if she were innocent, and had no knowledge that the kidnapping had been staged. If the Ramseys were in it together, the call would not have been made before the body had been removed from the house.

3. According to my theory, if all had gone according to plan, John could have destroyed the note, claiming the "kidnappers" wanted it returned. He'd have shown it to friends, who would serve as witnesses and he might have planned on making a copy to show the police, but he would not have needed to give his original to the authorities.

4 - 6. These three questions are almost impossible to answer if we assume there was actually an intruder in the house that night. According to my theory no intruder was present and that provides the answer to all three. (However, see the previous post for a discussion of a possible alternative intruder theory.)

7. It's very difficult to understand why any intruder would want to hide the body, though such a possibility is discussed in my previous post. On the other hand, if John is the murderer he'd have had an excellent reason for hiding it, since there was always the possibility Patsy might decide to search the house looking for her daughter.

8. The murderer was hiding the body from Patsy.

9. Again, it's very difficult to understand why any intruder would bother wrapping the body in a blanket. (And this goes as well for the "intruder" I concocted in my previous post.) John, on the other hand, would have been planning on carrying the body to the trunk of his car at some point. The blanket would then serve to insulate the body from the trunk, so no fibers, DNA or other evidence would be found there. After dumping the body, John would have destroyed the blanket.

10. John broke the basement window the night of the crime to stage an intruder breakin. His story about breaking in earlier is nothing more than an alibi.

11. As part of his staging, John must have gathered a bunch of packing peanuts from the window well, and then strewn them over the floor. Clearly they could not have gotten there as the result of someone breaking in, since the police found "no sign of forced entry" anywhere.

12. John must have placed the suitcase under the window as part of his staging.

13. JonBenet was sexually assaulted because John was most likely in the habit of sexually molesting her on a regular basis, so this was just one more time.

14. JonBenet was killed because she must have indicated to John that she was planning to expose him.

Those are my questions, and those are my answers. Anyone with different answers to this set of questions is welcome to provide them in a comment. All I ask is that 1. you answer ALL the questions, and 2. your answers must be fully consistent with one another.

58 comments:

  1. I have the same answers for 1-13.

    For 14, I don't have any better idea than you, but I always wonder if the skull fracture was an accident and the murder/staged kidnapping follows from that. Strictly speaking, we don't know why JR murdered JB. An accident that couldn't be explained away might serve as a reason.

    It's hard to imagine JR not being able to talk his way out of the situation. Or not being able to bribe his way out. (What 6 year old girl doesn't want a pony?)

    Still, killing to prevent the truth from coming out is certainly a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too would like to think this was an accident. But the head blow was very powerful! It cracked her skull from end to end. I don't see how that could have been the result of an accident. Looks to me like her attacker didn't want her to suffer, so knocked her out -- from behind -- and then strangled her, to be sure. She would not have known what - or who - hit her.

      Delete
  2. 1. What was the purpose of the ransom note?

    The ransom note had no purpose, ultimately. This was a burglary gone wrong. The burglars thought the Ramseys had left for Michigan. JonBenet discovered the burglars in the house. She could identify at least one of them by name. The burglars were not sure what to do next. They considered kidnapping her (hence, the ransom note), but ultimately decided to kill her, probably because they realized they would have to kill her eventually anyway if they were going to avoid prison time.

    Occam's razor: a burglary gone wrong is the simplest explanation.


    2. Why would the Ramseys call 911 if they were staging a fake kidnapping?

    They wouldn't, at least not while the body was still in the house.


    3. Why would any murderer want to leave a possibly incriminating note written in his own hand?

    A murderer wouldn't. A burglar trying to persuade an accomplice, who is considering murder, that it would be better to kidnap JonBenet, instead of kill her, might be inclined to write a ransom note.


    4. Why would a kidnapper not write his ransom note ahead of time, but take valuable time to compose a long note while in the house?

    An actual kidnapper would never do such a thing. However, a makeshift kidnapper trying to buy time against the murdering of a child might certainly do such a thing.


    5. Why would a kidnapper leave his victim in the house?

    They wouldn't. Kidnapping schemes work so much better when you take the hostage with you.


    6. Why would a kidnapper bother to leave a ransom note knowing his victim is still in the house?

    They wouldn't, unless she wrote the note before JonBenet was murdered by the accomplice.


    7. Why would any murderer want to hide the body of his victim?

    He (or she) might have been hiding it from an accomplice who did not have the stomach to watch the cold-blood murder of a six year-old child. Therefore, he took the child into a secluded room to do the deed so not to upset his female accomplice, who likely knew and liked JonBenet.


    8. From whom was the murderer hiding the body?

    The accomplice.


    9. Why did the murderer wrap the body in a blanket?

    Remorse. These were not really murderers. These were thrill burglars.


    10. Who broke the basement window? when was it broken? and why?

    Who knows? Who cares? It is inconsequential.


    11. Why were packing peanuts from the window well found on the floor beneath the window?

    Perhaps, our pair of burglars explored the idea of escaping the Ramsey household through the egress window but wrongfully thought the grate to be locked or welded shut.


    12. Why was a suitcase found positioned flush against the wall under the window?

    Perhaps, to use as a stepping stool to the window well.


    13. Why was JonBenet sexually assaulted?

    She was prodded with a paintbrush handle either because the murderer was an envious sociopathic female who begrudged "Little Miss Colorado," or because the murderer knew a thing or two about homicide investigation and attempted to stage a sexual assault in order to misdirect investigators. Of course, he could not leave the usual semen deposit behind as this would allow him to be identified through DNA analysis.


    14. Why was JonBenet killed?

    To keep her from identifying the burglars to police.


    - Sig

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If an intruder committed this crime how do you explain the following:

      1. Knowledge of John's bonus amount.

      2. If burglars decided to rob the Ramsey home and were under the belief they were out of town, how do you explain them attempting the robbery at such a late hour? Surely they would have come earlier and noticed the lights were still on.

      3. Was anything of value stolen? If not, why not? Murder without taking something of value doesn't make sense.

      4. If money is what they were after, and they had the opportunity to extort A LOT of money by means of ransom, why did the pass on that opportunity?

      Those are a few of the questions I would need answered in a satisfactorily manner before I would consider the burglary gone bad theory.

      Delete
    2. 1. Obviously, at least one of our burglars was embedded deep enough within the Ramsey's social circle that they were privy to certain personal information. It could be that he or she was an employ at Access Graphics, or kin to one of the Ramsey's servants, or the daughter to a Ramsey confidante or associate who overheard a bit of gossip. One thing is for certain, the ransom request is an excellent lead. Too bad the BPD put the bulk of their energy into investigating the Ramseys. Keystone Kops.

      2. It is entirely possible that our burglars entered the Ramsey home while the family was visiting with the Whites. However, it is also possible that our burglars preferred to move sometime after midnight when most of the neighbors are in bed.

      3. I have not read of anything of value having been reported missing from the household, except the life of JonBenet. This is not at all surprising since anything that would have been stolen would have been less than worthless as it would be incriminating evidence of complicity to murder. Thus, even if the burglars had stolen something by accident, they would most likely have thrown it in the river as soon as possible.

      4. Kidnapping is not the sort of thing in which your average burglar indulges. Even highly skilled professional burglars will not engage in such crime. Kidnapping means the automatic intervention of the FBI. Most burglars are not interested in that sort of heat. In the United States, kidnapping for ransom is usually something that occurs between criminal organizations. For example, one drug gang might kidnap a high-ranking member of a rival drug gang and ransom the hostage for return of a drug shipment which the rival gang had previously hi-jacked.

      Kidnapping for ransom, especially child kidnapping of the sort presented in this case, is probably the most foolish thing that a criminal could ever endeavor. The FBI will throw an enormous amount of their considerable weight into catching said criminal, and they absolutely will not stop their pursuit, wherever it takes them, anywhere in the world. They will chase the kidnappers to the moon if necessary, even if it takes 40, 50, 100 years to catch them.

      - Sig

      Delete
  3. (Doc, I just called out a bunch of RDI fascists at Topix and challenged them to debate me here. I hope you don't mind.)


    Any RDI fascists from Topix looking to debate me. Here I am. Take your best shot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not from Topix. However, what is an RDI fascist exactly? I am curious.

      Delete
    2. Exactly:

      An RDI fascist is the type of person who believes the "Ramseys Did It" as a matter of religious conviction and cannot tolerate anyone challenging the tenets of their religion.

      Thus, when an IDI theorist appears on a JBR crime forum, they do everything they can to get the IDI theorist banned. They are are a bunch weak-minded fascists with no guts and no respect for the very American tenet of "Freedom of Speech."

      Doc, while being an RDI theorist himself, does believe in freedom of speech and freedom of ideas which is why he invited me to post at his blog.

      - Sig Turner


      Delete
    3. That is interesting. I will admit that I am an RDI theorist as well, but my conclusion is strictly based on my systematic approach and interpretation of the evidence. If a valid case can be made for an intruder, I wouldn't summarily reject it based on any preconceived idea or belief. It is evident that your conclusion was arrived at by logic and interpretation of the evidence as well. I will post some questions for you in a separate post related to your theory.

      Delete
  4. DocG: I emailed you my theory earlier this afternoon. To summarize, I eliminated an intruder and Patsy, leaving John and Burke as the only two possible suspects. That would leave two possible theories: a murder or an unintentional death with a parental coverup. The key to determining if it was John or Burke lies with Patsy. I believe there is sufficient behavioral evidence to suggest Patsy had knowledge of the kidnapping. That would make Burke the most likely suspect. I think the evidence is most consistent with that theory for the reasons I outlined.

    However, something has been bothering me about the whole coverup plot. It is a little too elaborate, a little too perfect and was carried out a little too perfectly. The more I thought about it, the more perplexed I became, given the frame of mind the parents would have been in. Well, I believe I finally found the missing puzzle piece.

    If there was an accidental death at the hands of Burke, what would John immediately do? Call an attorney for legal counsel. Now everything falls into place. If you look at the evidence in light of this, everything makes perfect sense. Manufactured reasonable doubt is abundant. I will outline a few items:

    1. All signs point away from Burke. There is evidence of an intruder, John and Patsy, but not Burke. In addition, just enough to implicate John and Patsy but not enough to convict. Also, he was taken out of the home very early by family friends. He was likely coached beforehand about remaining silent.

    2. The timing and length of the 911 call display signs of coaching. It was placed at a time they would normally wake up. Not too early and not too late. Also, the very short duration limits providing incriminating evidence.

    3. The brutality of the staging makes it hard to accept a family member was involved. Combine that with the suitcase by the basement window and ransom note and you have an intruder theory.

    4. I do believe that the garrote was used as a way to disguise the actual cause of the asphyxia. I covered that possibility but it makes more sense if a lawyer is involved.

    5. I've read the body was wiped clean. That is extremely unusual, if true, unless it was deliberate and calculated.

    6. Calling friends and family over first thing in the morning served as a distraction and contaminated the crime scene.

    7. And the fact that John found the body. The plan had to have been for the police to find it. It was paramount for it to be found while law enforcement officers were present. However, since they didn't, there must have been some sort of panic. John may have continually hinted for another search to be conducted and Detective Arndt finally told John to do it. If all law enforcement officers left before discovery of the body, it would be difficult to explain finding the body in the basement later after multiple searches, including one by the police.

    In conclusion: I am sticking by my analysis as to my Burke theory and revising it to include legal advice and coaching for an elaborate coverup plot. The coverup was likely the idea of the attorney. As of this point, I am at least 95% sure that is what actually happened. It was an accidental death followed by the perfect coverup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In conclusion: I am sticking by my analysis as to my Burke theory and revising it to include legal advice and coaching for an elaborate coverup plot. The coverup was likely the idea of the attorney. As of this point, I am at least 95% sure that is what actually happened. It was an accidental death followed by the perfect coverup."

      The flaw in this scenario; Burke could not have been charged, being nine years of age. An attorney would not have coached B's parents into incriminating themselves into a possible electric chair for, ultimately, no real benefit to their cause.

      Delete
  5. "If there was an accidental death at the hands of Burke..."

    This was not an accidental death caused by 9 year-old Burke or anyone else. This was a very deliberate, cold-blooded murder. JonBenet had her head split open by a crowbar and then was immediately garroted. Whoever killed her knew exactly what they were doing.


    It is possible that Burke "played doctor" with his little sister, and that John and Patsy caught them in the act. This might explain why it appears that John and Patsy are protecting him. They would not want their son to be wrongfully accused of murdering his sister by a horde of Keystone Kops.

    Regardless if Burke was habitually molesting his sister, he did not commit this crime. He could not have caused the extensive damage to his sister's skull that was discovered in the autopsy. He would not have known how to use a garrote, and he certainly did not write the ransom note. Moreover, he would not have thought to stage a sexual assault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My post above is a little out of context as my actual theory is not posted here. To address a couple of your concerns, though, we agree that Burke was not responsible for the garrote or ransom note. The sexual assault was not staged either.

      I am going to hold off on discussing my theory any further right now. Suffice it to say that I believe my Burke Theory is be consistent with the evidence and extremely plausible.

      I will post one big concern I have with the cold-blooded murder theory though. In my estimation, the only two possible suspects are John and Burke. If it was indeed murder, that would mean John was responsible. And that brings me to my questions:

      1. If John was guilty of murder and tried to stage a kidnapping, isn't it only logical that he didn't want the body discovered?

      2. If so, why did he 'find' the body? The police had missed it during their search. Detective Arndt was the only law enforcement officer left in the house and likely would have left shortly. The staged kidnapping ploy had succeeded. He could have easily 'not found anything' in the room. Instead, John 'finds' the body and carries it upstairs. That is inconsistent with him trying to conceal the discovery of the body.

      Delete
    2. "I will post one big concern I have with the cold-blooded murder theory though. In my estimation, the only two possible suspects are John and Burke."

      "Cold-blooded murder" is not a theory. It is a fact. JonBenet was very deliberately murdered. This is indisputable.


      "If it was indeed murder, that would mean John was responsible."

      No, that is a non-sequitur.


      "If John was guilty of murder and tried to stage a kidnapping, isn't it only logical that he didn't want the body discovered?"

      It would certainly appear so. Ergo, John did not kill his daughter since it is he who discovered the body.


      - Sig


      Delete
    3. "If it was indeed murder, that would mean John was responsible." As noted, it was indeed, indisputably murder. Therefore, you are correct; John was responsible.

      "...why did he 'find' the body? The police had missed it during their search. Detective Arndt was the only law enforcement officer left in the house and likely would have left shortly. The staged kidnapping ploy had succeeded. He could have easily 'not found anything' in the room. Instead, John 'finds' the body and carries it upstairs. That is inconsistent with him trying to conceal the discovery of the body." We do not know that Arndt would have likely left shortly. Indeed, Arndt may have remained the sole officer at the site until being relieved by back up. It is standard procedure for police keep the site of a kidnapping under surveillance and John may have known this. If he did, he knew he would not have a chance to dispose of the body surreptitiously. Regardless; if the police had left the scene unattended, it would have looked much worse for John (or any member of the house) to have found his daughter after the fact - as the initial police search had not discovered the body, the best thing John could have done was to 'discover' her body himself, in the presence of law enforcement.

      Delete
    4. I think you are correct. John understood that the likelyhood of him being able to move the body out of the house was remote. I think he was in a panic of the body being discovered due to smell or Patsy..Bottom line, the police being in his house for 7 hours with her body hidden there was more than John's nerves could handle.
      I wish someone would address the aspect of it being Christmas. I feel with a 6yrs old victim it had to have played a part in what transpired. Personally, and I am not real familiar with all the case evidence.
      BUT I think the celebration of Christmas demands that special relationships be acknowledged. Perhaps John approached JB for special time with her that night. Perhaps they had a more indepth conversation than might have normally occured. During that encounter something was said/done by JonBenet that John believed was beyond his control and would ruin him. I also think he (on some level he blamed her for ruining their perfect special relationship) that accounts for the brutality.
      I hope the case is proscecuted one day. JonBenet suffered tremendously, and someone needs to be held accountable for that.

      Delete
  6. 4. We do not know if the note was written in the house; this is only an assumption.

    We do know that LHP had Patsy's note pads and pens in her home - who else might have these?

    The note was well thought out with movie paraphrases. If it was written in the house, it would be a good assumption that it was copied onto the note pad. It was too well thought out and detailed to be written within a short period of time.

    The maglite was found on the kitchen counter. That would mean either the murder hit her on the head in the kitchen, or after hitting her in the basement went up to the kitchen and left it on the counter.

    Would John have left his maglite on the counter to be found by police after hitting her? I would think he would have placed it back in the drawer. No need to leave it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The maglite was found on the kitchen counter. That would mean either the murder hit her on the head in the kitchen, or after hitting her in the basement went up to the kitchen and left it on the counter."


      A maglite did not cause the extensive cranial damage observed in the autopsy. How the ridiculous idea that JonBenet's head injury was caused by a maglite is a mystery in its itself. JonBenet was very deliberately struck in the head with a crowbar or tire iron, and with enough force to knock a plug of skull bone out. The burglars/murderers took this murder weapon with them when they left. It is undoubtedly lying at the bottom of a river today.

      - Sig

      Delete
    2. I am inclined to think it was the softball bat; I think the maglite would have broken the skin.

      Also, my husband stated that if you hit something really hard with a maglite, they dent. She was hit really hard according to LE.

      Delete
    3. "We do not know if the note was written in the house; this is only an assumption."

      Good point. But if you're suggesting that someone prepared the note ahead of time, deliberately using Patsy's notepad, you also have to ask: why? No one has ever suggested the note was a forgery of Patsy's hand. In fact, the overall look of the note is radically different from Patsy's writing. And if the intention was to forge John's hand, then why didn't the "experts" spot that? Instead they ruled him out.

      Since, as I see it, John's plan was to get the body out of the house, and make it look like the kidnapper's killed her, he'd have had no reason to assume the police would be interested in the Maglite as a possible murder weapon. To make sure, however, he wiped it clean.

      Delete
  7. 2. Why would the Ramseys call 911 if they were staging a fake kidnapping?

    This is the million dollar question and key to determining who is responsible. In the process of answering this question, I came across a scenario that I had never thought of before.

    The answer to this question is the Ramseys would not have placed the 911 call if they were trying to stage a kidnapping, especially if the body was still in the house. Since Patsy placed the call, there are only two possibilities:

    1. Patsy was unaware of the fake kidnapping and body in the basement. That would mean either John or an intruder committed the crime.

    2. Patsy was aware of the body in the basement and is involved in the fake kidnapping.

    If John was responsible, it is only logical to conclude that he would not have wanted police involvement and Patsy calling 911 was not part of his plan. It is also logical to conclude that he would not have wanted the body discovered. Since he was responsible for finding the body, even after police had missed it, the only logical conclusion is he is not involved directly.

    What does that mean? It means that either an intruder was responsible or Patsy is involved in the fake kidnapping. I completely reject the intruder theory for a number or reasons, which I will not list here, so for the purposes of this discussion, that means Patsy was involved in the fake kidnapping.

    The answer is why? In answering this question, I thought of a scenario that I had never thought of before. There are really two possibilities.

    1. The fake kidnapping was a plot to cover up the death, and Patsy was protecting the killer. If true, that would mean that Burke is responsible since Patsy would not cover for John.

    2. Patsy was responsible for the murder and was trying to frame John. This is the scenario I hadn't thought of before, because of the sexual assault evidence, but very well may be what happened.

    A very strong case can be made that Burke is responsible, which I had done and was convinced of, but I have changed my mind. I am not so convinced anymore.

    I believe a very strong case can be made that Patsy acted alone. If she discovered that John had been molesting JonBenet she would have been in a tough spot. She very well may have afraid to confront him or contact the police. Maybe she did confront him and he threatened her. So, in an effort to protect JonBenet from the abuse, and in an effort to have John arrested, she killed her and tried to frame him.

    If this scenario is true, the purpose of bludgeoning JBR was likely to kill her. Patsy could do it from behind and Patsy likely believed there wouldn't be any suffering. That would account for the severity of the skull fracture. Unbeknownst to her, though, it didn't kill her. Patsy either thought she was dead and staged the crime scene with the garrote, or because she couldn't bring herself to striking JBR again with a blunt object, used the garrote to finish the job. In an effort to frame John, aware of the sexual assault, Patsy likely used the handle of the paint brush. She then addressed the ransom note to John trying to further frame him.

    Her efforts failed because all of the evidence implicated her more than John. She probably struggled with the fact that she caused pain and suffering for her daughter and that her plan didn't work. I am more convinced at the plausibility of this scenario than any other.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To expand on why John never considered turning her in, because he likely suspected her, he didn't because she could expose him. Both parties maintained their silence to protect themselves.

      Delete
    2. Unless Patsy was totally out of her mind, I doubt she would have killed JB just to keep her from being victimized by JR. Patsy was intelligent, and with the type of money they had, why not just pack up JB and Burke and head for her folks' house?

      She could have damaged JR much more by exposing him to the public by filing for divorce because of incest. The ONLY reason she would not have done that is fear for her or the children's lives, and that puts JR in the crazy category.

      If Patsy had gone over the edge, and killed JB for the reason you theorize, why no death bed confession, knowing it would permanently remove Burke from any suspicion, and she could finally have full revenge against JR?



      Delete
    3. Those are some valid concerns. I just thought of this theory today so the theory will need more work. Lets try to address your concerns, though. There are a few things that need to be considered.

      First, for my theory to be plausible, Patsy would have had to feel completely trapped with no options. Perhaps she brought up the idea of divorce and threatened to expose him. Maybe she tried to leave. He could have threatened to have her committed and promised her that he would fight those claims and get custody of the children. That would be her worst nightmare. He was a powerful man. You can't forget about that.

      Second, she was a very religious person. If she was convinced that she could carry out her plan without inflicting any pain or suffering, she would have believed she was sending her to a better place. That is how she would have justified her actions.

      Third, her plan would have been two fold. To protect JBR from John and frame him for the murder.

      Another concern that I just thought of was why not just kill John instead? Well, it is much more difficult to kill a grown man. How would she do it? If she murdered John, there is no way she could expect not to be arrested for murder. That would mean that the children would be without both parents. I believe she already had cancer prior to this. Perhaps she was afraid of it coming back and dying. John was not a threat to Burke and he would have needed a father.

      Does anyone believe that this theory is outside the realm of possibility? No. The issue is accepting whether or not it is plausible. What concerns to people have related to its plausibility?

      Delete
    4. There are several things wrong with this theory, but we only really need to deal with your first point for you to see the error. John didn't want the body found for sure, but more important he did not want the police called, because he knew that once they were called there would be no way for him to safely remove the body. Once Patsy called the police, the entire picture changed. John then knew the body was going to be found regardless. And under such circumstances he may have realized it was better for him to be the one to find it rather than anyone else, since that would give him the opportunity to control and contaminate the crime scene.

      As for the rest, I'm amazed at how you've turned the whole situation around in your mind. Patsy is the one who called 911, yet you see HER as the guilty party. John is the one who went down to the basement that morning, closed a window he'd found open and reported it to NO ONE, noted the suitcase under the window and reported it to NO ONE, altered the crime scene after being told by Arndt to touch nothing, and went AWOL for a considerable length of time, which gave him ample opportunity to dispose of evidence.

      If Patsy was the one who wrote the note, then she would certainly have been unwilling to make that call. And if John told her to make it and she'd hesitated, then there's no reason to assume he would not have made it himself. He was a big boy. He didn't need Mommy to make his phone calls for him.

      Delete
  8. I didn't turn anything around in my mind. There is a divergence in possible theories depending on whether or not John was involved. My theory, as stated, was based on my interpretation that John finding the body indicated that he was not involved. You disagree with my interpretation.

    Lets ignore what John finding the body means for a moment and work under the assumption that John was acting alone. There are a few questions that need to be answered.

    First, don't you find it odd that the purpose of the fake kidnapping plot was designed to mislead Patsy and not to mislead authorities? It's possible but not normal in fake kidnapping cases.

    Second, you stated above that the primary purpose of the ransom note was to convince Patsy not to call police. Isn't it odd, then, that this key point isn't obvious and emphasized? Instead, the threat is concealed in the middle of the second page of a two and a half page ransom note, completely surrounded by text. Go look at a photo of the actual handwritten note to see exactly where it is.

    Third, John's plan only works if Patsy does not call the police. Isn't it odd, then, that he was so careless with this key point? John didn't make it obviously clear in his note, allowed Patsy to find the note without him present or nearby, and trusted that she would read the note and either take the threat seriously or come and get him upon discovering the note before calling police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "my interpretation that John finding the body indicated that he was not involved. You disagree with my interpretation."

      It's not so much that I disagree. I fail to see how anyone could possibly assume that John finding the body meant he was innocent. You took what I said regarding John not wanting the body found and applied it very literally to a totally different context. Of course John would have wanted to remove the body before the police were called. But AFTER the police were already in the house, he would have realized the body was going to be found anyhow. So his finding it has a totally different meaning in this totally different context.

      "don't you find it odd that the purpose of the fake kidnapping plot was designed to mislead Patsy and not to mislead authorities? It's possible but not normal in fake kidnapping cases."

      I said ONE purpose was to mislead Patsy. Obviously it was also intended to mislead the authorities. I thought I'd made that clear.

      "Instead, the threat is concealed in the middle of the second page of a two and a half page ransom note, completely surrounded by text."

      Well, I suppose if you'd written the note you'd have done it differently. The note contains some very dire warnings about calling the police. John must have assumed Patsy would read the whole thing, and be too frightened to make that call. Obviously that isn't what happened.

      "John didn't make it obviously clear in his note, allowed Patsy to find the note without him present or nearby, and trusted that she would read the note and either take the threat seriously or come and get him upon discovering the note before calling police."

      Once again, I suppose you'd have done it differently. It looks to me as though John wanted Patsy to be the one to discover the note, probably because it might look to obvious if he was the one to discover it. There is no way he could have controlled every single detail of what happened. He assumed she'd want to consult with him first -- and maybe that's what she did. We have no way of knowing. All we know is that she made the call anyhow, despite the threats in the note. And if you want to believe she wrote the note, then that has to be explained.

      Delete
    2. "First, don't you find it odd that the purpose of the fake kidnapping plot was designed to mislead Patsy and not to mislead authorities? It's possible but not normal in fake kidnapping cases."


      I find it very unlikely that the plan was to mislead authorities into thinking there had been a kidnapping when the body was still in the house and would be found. The only way it makes sense is if there was a plan to dump the body - a plan that was ruined by the 911 call. Since the plan originally had to include dumping the body, it's obvious that it's intended to mislead PR, not the police.


      "Second, you stated above that the primary purpose of the ransom note was to convince Patsy not to call police. Isn't it odd, then, that this key point isn't obvious and emphasized? Instead, the threat is concealed in the middle of the second page of a two and a half page ransom note, completely surrounded by text. Go look at a photo of the actual handwritten note to see exactly where it is."


      The note is in 3 paragraphs. Para 1 tells the reader JB has been kidnapped and that she'll be killed if instructions are not followed. JR must have thought that anyone reading it would obviously want to read the instructions.

      Para 2 is the instructions.

      Paragraph 3 is a laundry list of warnings and threats of what will happen if the instructions are not followed and if police are called. I don't think there is anything buried or hidden about it.

      "Third, John's plan only works if Patsy does not call the police. Isn't it odd, then, that he was so careless with this key point? John didn't make it obviously clear in his note, allowed Patsy to find the note without him present or nearby, and trusted that she would read the note and either take the threat seriously or come and get him upon discovering the note before calling police."


      Looking at it after the fact, yes, it does appear he was careless. But, how could he have done it differently? He could have "found" the note himself, but he could hardly have refused to show it to PR. So what real difference does it make who finds the note? He could have placed himself between PR and the kitchen phone, but i'D imagine they had several phones in a house that size. He had to count on PR not calling - you are correct about that- but he probably assumed that others would be rational and logical, as he himself would be had the note been real. Instead of reading the entire note PR runs for the phone. Once 911 is called there is no taking it back.

      Delete
  9. Regarding JR finding the body, remember the trouble Roy Kronk was in when he found the remains of Caylee Anthony? The police were on him like ants at a picnic. When a body is found police are often more suspicious than not about the finder. I would imagine they have those suspicions with good reason. Perhaps killers "discover" bodies more often than the general public might think or perhaps it's only wishful thinking on the part of police because, well, that would make things a whole lot easier from their end.

    I have read some killers get very antsy when the person they kill isn't found, and some resort to being helpful by "finding" the body. This kind of killer can't rest until the body is found. Seems to drive them up a wall. They want the murder sensationalized in the papers. Pushing the crime to the next level where the body is found eliminates the agony that kind of killer might suffer, and gives them a chance to play catch me if you can with the police at yet a newer level. Some killers are quite arrogant.

    my two cents

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make an excellent point. There IS a good reason why investigators tend to suspect the person who found the body. But the opposite has also been argued in this case. I.e., if John knew about such suspicions, one would assume he'd have avoided finding the body, and let someone else find it. So his finding the body could be a sign of innocence.

      These two lines of thinking cancel each other out. Meaning we can't really use John's finding of the body as either incriminating or exonerating evidence. Like so many other aspects of the case, this episode is inconclusive.

      Delete
    2. I agree John finding the body thought it would be a better chance to clear his name , had he left the body and had the police find it it would of looked bad on his part since he went to search the house how could he have missed it? Would of been the main question, I highly doubt Patsy would kill JB she loved her child dearly and would of eventually broke down from all the guilt but how ironic is it that the first place John looks is in the basement& finds JB

      Delete
  10. Who told Arndt about his daughter hiding which prompted Arndt to have John & friends search the house??

    Why would someone suggest "hiding" when the house had been searched by everyone and there was a RN?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fleet White might have said something to Arndt about his daughter hiding at some time in the past. But I don't think that's why Arndt asked Fleet and John to search the house. As I recall, she said she did that mainly to give them something to do, as they were getting restless or something.

      The police had initially searched the house looking for entry and exit points, not for JonBenet, whom they assumed had been kidnapped. Which is why no one checked out the windowless room.

      Delete
    2. Correction, White did in fact check the windowless room that morning. But he couldn't find the light switch, and saw nothing unusual in the dark.

      Delete
  11. DocG: You MUST listen to an analysis of the 911 call done by Peter Hyatt (an expert in statement and linguistic analysis) on a Crime Wire radio show from January. It is fascinating and it's his view that the 911 call was staged and its purpose was to establish an alibi based on what PR says. He says do not listen to the emotion in her voice, just listen to her actual words. I know you think that PR did not write the ransom note, but if the RN was staged, the 911 call was probably staged as well. And since PR did make that call, and Peter Hyatt's analysis is very compelling that it was rehearsed and planned, she could have written the note as well. They must have gone ahead with the 911 call for the purpose of establishing an alibi even though JBR's body was still in the house (well hidden from view, obviously), and whatever plan they had for removing the body from the house was foiled. They were thinking on the fly since her death was not premeditated and couldn't plan for all of the possible scenarios that would enfold. To get to the actual analysis of the 911 call go to about 28 min:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/insidelenz/2013/01/23/crime-wire

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. I just listened and I have to say, this is an excellent example of why it's so important to stick with the known facts. Mr. Hyatt is only one of a huge number of "experts" with theories about this case and the theories are all over the place. There is no scientific basis for the sort of interpretation he is offering. It's interesting and it might possibly have some statistical significance over a wide range of instances, but to apply this sort of cookie cutter thinking to a specific case is, imo, irresponsible.

      There are any number of reasons why Pasty might have expressed herself the way she did, and certainly it is impossible to predict the actions and words of someone under extreme stress. Hyatt is clearly biased, but refuses to take his own bias into account. So instead of presenting these theories as interesting possibilities they become, in his mind, certainties. Again, that's irresponsible. Science works on the basis of statistics, i.e., probabilities, NOT certainty.

      A clear example of overreaching is his take on Patsy's describing JonBenet as "blonde," which he finds grossly inappropriate. If your child has been kidnapped then one of the reasons you are calling the police is in the hope they might spot her, and to do that you need to give them some sort of description. Obviously Patsy was too upset to give a detailed description, but her use of the word "blonde" is completely understandable in such a context. But Hyatt is convinced she's lying, so anything she says that seems unusual becomes some sort of "indicator."

      As far as content analysis is concerned, let me offer my own content analysis of Hyatt's spiel. As I see it, one sign of someone truly sure of himself and honestly expressing his ideas is that he is brief and to the point. Hyatt wanders all over the place. It takes him 30 minutes just to get around to discussing the issue at hand, the Ramsey case. And once he gets there then one waits endlessly for him to make his first point, after which he goes all over the place trying to convince his listeners that he has to be right, because so and so did such and such a study. Then on to the next, again with a long pointless preamble followed by a rambling explanation. What could have been pointed out in a few minutes takes almost a full hour. To me, this sort of presentation is a sign of someone who doesn't really know what he is talking about, but badly wants to convince us that he does.

      Early in the case, Donald Foster, a man widely believe to be an expert on content analysis, wrote to Patsy telling her he knew for a fact that she could not have written the note and would stake his career on it. Yet a few months later, after John had been ruled out and everyone was starting to suspect Patsy, he completely reversed himself. This time he wrote the DA claiming that, based on his "scientific methods," he could prove Patsy wrote the note. Of course, he never mentioned his earlier letter to Patsy, but the truth ultimately came out and the DA had to drop him as a witness -- for obvious reasons.
      The guy was simply looking for attention, and since everyone now seemed sure Patsy wrote the note he was happy to hop on the bandwagon.

      Delete
  12. Some additional comments:

    I think the fact that PR called 911 so quickly after "finding" the RN on the stairs suggests that she knew it was a fake, and the fact that during the call she said "we just got up.." also suggests she was trying to establish their alibis. If she read the note through (as she claims she did) and believed it to be genuine, she would NEVER have made that call so quickly after finding it at the risk of having her kidnapped daughter beheaded, as it was made very clear what would happen if they called the police by the many references to "she dies" in the RN.

    IMO this is what could have happened:

    -JR killed JBR accidentally in the process of you know what

    -PR woke up or was already awake and discovered it or was told about it by JR

    -they decided to cover it up because if they took her to the ER or called 911 then their gooses were cooked

    -JR borrowed what he had read about kidnappers from that book by John Douglas ("Mind Hunter" - I believe it was found on a table in their bedroom) and movies he had seen recently and dictated at least part of the RN to PR, they wanted to sound like genuine kidnappers/criminals

    -Patsy was so busy wiping down the flashlight (including the batteries), writing the ransom note, etc., etc., while JR staged the body and hid it that she never had time to change, but didn't necessarily get mussed up doing those things so she looked presentable enough a few hours later (I don't think she had anything to do with the molestation and murder)

    -wrote a few crib notes before calling 911 (notice that she says "we have a kidnapping.." and then starts to repeat that same line again later before quickly saying "there's a note left.." as if possibly she was repeating something she had written down; she also sounded convincing because remember she had performed dramatic speech at her own pageants (talent portion) so she was familiar with dramatic prose/acting

    -I think they originally planned to remove JBR from the house right away but something prevented that (some activity outside by passersby or neighbors, etc.) so they decided to establish alibis quickly with the 911 call and get rid of the body later, which may have worked if JR hadn't brought the body upstairs (how many police and Fleet White went over the basement and didn't find JBR at first??)

    Sorry for repeating the link but I urge you to listen to Peter Hyatt's analysis of the 911 call - makes a lot of sense and explains why the 911 call was made!

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/insidelenz/2013/01/23/crime-wire




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If she read the note through (as she claims she did) and believed it to be genuine, she would NEVER have made that call so quickly after finding it at the risk of having her kidnapped daughter beheaded, as it was made very clear what would happen if they called the police by the many references to "she dies" in the RN."

      She has claimed she didn't read it through but simply glanced at it. So she might not have read the threats.

      "-they decided to cover it up because if they took her to the ER or called 911 then their gooses were cooked"

      You mean HIS goose would be cooked, NOT hers. If your husband woke you in the middle of the night and announced that he'd just murdered your daughter, what would YOU do? I'd think Patsy would have high tailed it out of the house as soon as possible and asked the neighbors to call 911 immediately. I see no reason whatsoever for her agreeing to cooperate to cover for HIS crime against HER beloved and much doted upon daughter. Not to mention agreeing to write a phoney note for his benefit. In sum, if John did this crime I see no reason for Patsy to help him cover it up.

      You say Patsy never had a chance to change, but I have no idea what you mean. She had all the time in the world to change, and if in fact she'd been up all night why wouldn't she take some time in the morning to shower and change? That's what John did, by the way. There was no deadline she had to meet for calling 911. If she and John were in it together that would have put them in complete control of the situation and they could have called the police whenever they were ready.

      "-I think they originally planned to remove JBR from the house right away but something prevented that (some activity outside by passersby or neighbors, etc.) so they decided to establish alibis quickly with the 911 call and get rid of the body later, which may have worked if JR hadn't brought the body upstairs"

      If you read the note carefully you'll see what John's plan was. It would have been very foolish to try to remove the body that morning, in full daylight, but if he waited till night he could have placed it in his trunk and dumped it in some remote place. If anyone had spotted him or his car, he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom as instructed. If Patsy hadn't called 911 nothing would have prevented him from carrying out that plan.

      If we assume they wrote it together, then they'd have followed the same plan. But there is NO way they'd have called 911 that morning. The body was still in the house. There would be no way to get it out of the house without the police noticing. And besides, John was the one who found it, which is not consistent with a plan to remove it after the police left (which they wouldn't have done in any case). Also, if Patsy wrote the note, why would she have wanted to hand it over to the police with her handwriting all over it?

      Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "establishing alibis quickly." What alibis? What could they have possibly gained by calling the police so early? With the body still in the house, the ransom note becomes pointless and in fact becomes evidence against them, since at that point it becomes clear the "kidnapping" was obviously staged.

      You don't need scientific research on statement analysis, handwriting analysis or any other field to help you reach this conclusion. All you need is simple common sense.

      Delete
  13. I just found the written text of the 911 call analysis by Peter Hyatt - (I found the radio show's host rather annoying and disruptive when trying to listen to Mr. Hyatt) - wish I would have seen this first! For your consideration:

    http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2012/08/statement-analysis-patsy-ramsey-911-call.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, which makes it easy to respond to certain details of Hyatt's analysis. He assumes Patsy is responsible for the "and hence" in the Christmas message, but the Ramseys said they wrote that together. Anyone familiar with Patsy's writings and her verbal style generally would notice how informal it is. John's style on the other hand tends to be rather formal and stilted. It's far more likely the "and hence" in the xmas message comes from John, but Hyatt simply assumes Patsy wrote it. Here's an excerpt from an interview with John:

      Newseum interview, Oct. 12, 2000 (http://64.225.95.82/dcf/Publicdiscussion/433.html)
      "The police as a gov-, …you know, the justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism, and, uh…and, uh…suspicion."

      I wonder if "and hence" could be found in any of Patsy's interviews. I doubt it, because that very formal, academic term is not consistent with her style.

      "It is difficult to imagine a stronger bond than mother to child, which is why "my" is the expected."

      Sorry, but in what universe would the above observation be considered scientific? I see no reason to assume that "my" rather than "our" is what would be expected under such circumstances and I wonder whether there's ever been any really controlled scientific study of that? (Even if there were, it would be a statistical study, which deals only with what is normal in most cases -- there is NO way to correlate the use of any such term with deliberate deception in all cases, that's absurd.)

      Hyatt's analysis depends very heavily on his ideas of what is or is not appropriate, but even if these ideas are correct, what can that tell us about deception? One could as easily conclude that Patsy said what she said because she is a narcissist, for example, or because she bears some hidden resentment toward JonBenet, or even because she is parroting something John just said.

      She first refers to "our daughter," which he finds deceptive, but later she says "my daughter," which he also finds deceptive. So clearly she can't win. He has programmed himself to look for signs of deception so that's what he finds.

      In the recorded interview, he acknowledges that her extreme distress seems sincere, but explains that away by observing that if she had just murdered her daughter she would have been in distress anyhow, so the clear indications that Patsy is so upset that she can barely get her words out are "explained" by her distress over having killed her daughter. However, according to the timetable implied in Hyatt's thinking, JonBenet's death would have occurred hours ago. And in the meantime Patsy would have pulled herself together sufficiently to have written a 2 1/2 page phoney "ransom note," which would probably have taken a least a couple of hours to put together. So it seems highly unlikely that the acute distress clearly evident in the 911 call, where Patsy is literally hyperventilating, could be a carryover from her initial distress on "accidentally" killing her child. But Hyatt has no real interest in the emotions conveyed by that call -- because that's not his field.

      He claims that if Patsy were innocent she would not have referred to JonBenet as "our daughter," but he has nothing to say about her reasons for making the 911 call in the first place. Again, because that's not his field. As I've argued many times on this blog, if John and Patsy were in on this together, as he certainly believes, they would have had every reason NOT to call the police at that time, but would have removed the body from the house first. This has nothing to do with content analysis but everything to do with the basic logic of the case, which he totally ignores.


      Delete
  14. DocG:

    I know you think Patsy did not write the note but it's very hard to ignore the startling similarities between Patsy's handwriting and and the writing in the ransom note. If you look objectively with no preconceived notions at side by side comparisons of the individual letters you will see that too (consider Cina Wong's analysis for example and note the bend in the stick of the letter "d", her number 20, those curvy L's, there is at least one capital "U" from the word "Use" in the second to last sentence of the RN that is almost identical to Patsy's "U" in her version of the RN, etc. - you must be objective and check it out side by side to see what I mean). According to a former teacher of Patsy's she was ambidextrous. You can't deny the similarities. Your point that JR's handwriting matches and there is a study that shows this is possible - especially with the very similar "sey" of "Ramsey" - could show that they co-wrote it to further disguise the handwriting.

    Based on that it seems very plausible that she wrote it with John's help (I can see her asking - "what else should I say to make this sound like a kidnapping?" - or "here, you write some of it") - supposition I know, but plausible. It just doesn't make any sense at all for her to call 911 with that ransom note telling them they are being closely "monitored" and if they call police JBR will be killed/beheaded. That threat was made very clear and no mother under those instructions would have called 911 so soon (or even at all!) at the risk of causing her child's death.

    So either she did not read past the first couple of lines (I know she claims she just "glanced" at it - hard to believe IMO) or she knew that there was no risk of JBR being killed because she was already dead. Virtually everyone knows that with the "classic" kidnapping scenario the idea is to hand over a ransom without contacting the police in order to get your child back unharmed or else. PR would have thought of that too, panicked or not. Her first thought would have been for JBR's safety if she truly believed she had been kidnapped. So the purpose of the 911 call (despite the body still being in the house) was to establish the phony kidnapping as soon as possible. That makes a lot of sense - calling 911 and risking your daughter's life does not.

    To be continued in next post...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything in your post is the sort of thing that's been claimed or argued for years, and of course I am well aware of all these arguments and discuss them at some length in this blog. If you actually take a look at a sample of Patsy's hand you'll see that her writing style is totally different from that of the note. However, when any two people share the same overall approach to handwriting, then it's often possible to find "striking" similarities when comparing isolated letters, as Cina Wong and most of Darnay Hoffmann's experts do. When one is already convinced ahead of time, and is therefore looking only for such similarities and ignoring all the differences, that's called "cherry picking" and is a commonly known problem in scientific research.

      I analyze Cina Wong's comparisons here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-1cina-wong.html And in the following posts I examine the claims made by her and the other "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffmann, who was determined to "prove" Patsy wrote the note. In all cases, there is clear evidence of cherry picking, alongside other obvious problems with the approach each one takes. I urge you to read all these posts carefully in order to understand why someone who's writing is so different from that of the note is nevertheless so widely regarded as the one who wrote it.

      With respect to the list of similarities offered by Cina Wong, unfortunately I was forced to remove all those comparisons due to a complaint regarding copyright infringement. However, if you read my analysis you'll get a pretty good idea of what the problems are. One good example: She compares two letters "D," which do in fact look quite a bit alike at first glance. However, on closer examination of a better quality copy than the one usually posted on the Internet, it's possible to see that one of those was formed with two strokes while the other was formed with three. Since Wong is supposedly an expert you would think such a difference would matter to her -- but she ignores it. All that matters is that they look alike. But if they were formed differently, then the visual similarity is beside the point. Clearly she was interested only in similarities and not differences, which means she was cherry picking.

      Another example: one of the similarities she pointed to was based on her observation that some of Patsy's examples exhibited margin drift, which she also saw in the note. However there is NO margin drift in the note. What she saw was a crooked xerox, and she never even bothered to check for that, she just saw what she wanted to see -- a similarity. I.e., cherry picking.

      Delete
    2. As for the note being written with John's help, the writing style in the note itself is very consistent throughout. If two people took turns printing it, there would be inconsistencies, but there are not. I posted my own comparisons between John's printing and that of the note here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html As you can see there are many striking similarities. But I too was cherry picking, so I wouldn't say this proves John wrote it. However, I invite you to put this beside Wong's comparisons and ask yourself which set looks more convincing.

      Yet another set of comparisons has been made between Chris Wolf's writing and the note, and again one finds some striking similarities. See here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/big-bad-wolf-or-dangers-of-cherry.html

      "It just doesn't make any sense at all for her to call 911 with that ransom note telling them they are being closely "monitored" and if they call police JBR will be killed/beheaded."

      Maybe -- but it makes much less sense for her to literally call the police on herself, so they can find the body of her victim and thus completely nullify the effect of the note she'd just written. It also makes no sense at all for her to then hand over to them a note she wrote on her own pad and in her own hand.

      I can understand why she might panic and be so desperate for police assistance that she would ignore the warnings in the note and call 911 anyhow. After all, the kidnappers could still be in the house or lurking around the premises, so she might well have felt she herself was in danger. Call her selfish, call her a narcissist. That doesn't make her a criminal.

      "So the purpose of the 911 call (despite the body still being in the house) was to establish the phony kidnapping as soon as possible. That makes a lot of sense"

      What do you mean by "establish the phony kidnapping"? How does calling the police with the body of the supposed kidnap victim hidden in the house establish a phoney kidnapping? Once the body is found the phoniness of the kidnap staging is exposed, not established -- which means the note was almost certainly written by one of the Ramseys.

      I admit it's hard to understand why Patsy would ignore those threats in the note (unless, as she claimed, she never read the whole thing, which is certainly possible). But claiming she made that call only because she knew JonBenet was already dead isn't really an explanation. If the body of her victim is in the house, and she has just written a "ransom note" giving her an excuse NOT to call the police and giving her an opportunity to get the body out of the house, then why on Earth would she undo her staged kidnapping by calling the police so soon?

      Delete
  15. If the RN was fake, the 911 call could be a fake just as easily, and PR could be convincing because (as mentioned before) she was good at "dramatic speech" since that was her pageant talent. Neither the RN nor the 911 call make sense with the body still in the house, yet both are facts in this case.

    It makes sense to me that since they weren't able to remove JBR's body from the house, they were due to be leaving soon for a trip to Michigan (wasn't a plane being made ready for them?), they would have to explain to someone soon why JBR wasn't with them, THEY WOULD WANT TO ESTABLISH A KIDNAPPING as soon as possible in the morning (the only reason for the 911 call and the RN) so the police wouldn't search for a body - there would be no reason to. And we know that was in fact the case. They would search her bedroom or the main floors but would have no reason to give the basement a thorough search, especially a small relatively unused out-of-the-way basement room with no windows.

    Also note that the first thing Patsy said when she called 911 was "we have a kidnapping."

    So only JR knows why he brought up JBR's body many hours later, he could have just as easily pretended to open that door and not see anything and move on. Maybe he knew the chance of their getting her out of the house was getting smaller and smaller and knew they couldn't hide the whole thing much longer..

    I think Patsy may not have killed JBR but I find it hard to believe she had no clue her daughter was being molested. Chronic irritation or inflammation in that area has symptoms that JBR would probably have mentioned to her mother. After all, PR did make many trips with JBR to the pediatrician other than for sinus infections. Maybe PR lied when she explained that the irritation was due to bubble baths. She could have been an enabler, I think many mothers of child abuse victims look the other way. Maybe she didn't want to believe the husband she loved was doing that to JBR so was in denial. So when she was finally faced with the truth and a dead daughter IMO she decided to go along with the cover-up of the accidental murder out of guilt or in lieu of facing scandal or having her family torn apart by a murder conviction. She wouldn't necessarily run out of the house yelling for help from the neighbors, especially if she loved her husband despite all that happened and wanted to protect him or her family unit.

    Kay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your contributions, Kay, especially because one function of this blog is to hash through all the various different interpretations of this case and subject them to critical scrutiny. And this goes for my interpretations as well.

      However, as I said, I am already familiar with most of the arguments you've presented. For example many of your questions are dealt with here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-911-call-part-2.html and I urge you to read that post.

      "THEY WOULD WANT TO ESTABLISH A KIDNAPPING as soon as possible in the morning (the only reason for the 911 call and the RN) so the police wouldn't search for a body - there would be no reason to. And we know that was in fact the case. They would search her bedroom or the main floors but would have no reason to give the basement a thorough search, especially a small relatively unused out-of-the-way basement room with no windows."

      The only way to be sure the police wouldn't find the body in their house would be to get it out of the house before calling them. And that would have been very easy for them to do -- if you read the note carefully you'll see how it would have given them the perfect excuse to dump the body while claiming to be delivering the ransom. Once the police are called, there is no way they could remove the body without being observed. And as of course you know very well, John found the body. Why would he find it for the police if the purpose of the 911 call was to discourage them from looking for it?

      "So only JR knows why he brought up JBR's body many hours later, he could have just as easily pretended to open that door and not see anything and move on."

      Yes, exactly. If his plan was to somehow remove the body under the noses of the police, then why didn't he pretend he'd searched that room and found nothing? Sorry, but nothing you say convinces me that calling 911 could have been part of the staging. Once the police arrive at that house, the house is going to be under observation until the victim has been located, and sooner or later the smell emanating from that room is going to be all too evident. John found the body simply because it gave him a chance to contaminate the crime scene. But his plan had already been blown and he was simply improvising at that point.

      Everything else you say is simply speculation, Kay. Patsy may or may not have guessed that John was molesting JonBenet. We have no way of knowing. But if she had, it's hard to see why she would take such huge risks to cover for him, even after he'd murdered their child.

      Delete
    2. "Chronic irritation or inflammation in that area has symptoms that JBR would probably have mentioned to her mother. After all, PR did make many trips with JBR to the pediatrician other than for sinus infections. Maybe PR lied when she explained that the irritation was due to bubble baths."

      If Patsy Ramsey believed that JonBenet's history of vaginitis was caused by her husband abusing JonBenet, and Patsy was desperate to keep it a secret, why would she bring JonBenet to the doctor for it in the first place?

      -Erica

      Delete
    3. Excellent point, Erica. I see no reason to suspect that Patsy knew anything about either the sexual abuse or the murder.

      Delete
    4. Once the 911 call was made, there was frickin way, not in a zillion years, not even with the keystone cops presiding initially, they were EVER going to be able to move that body. The FBI would be involved in a very short manner. And that's that.

      Delete
    5. Yes, and I'm sure John was well aware of that. Which is why the note contains so many dire warnings against calling in the police. The 911 call was definitely NOT part of the plan -- it ruined the plan, forcing John to improvise, which he did very well, I must say.

      Delete
  16. Another thought:

    Beheading and multiple threats of "she dies" if they contacted anyone was specifically emphasized in the RN so when PR made that 911 call it would insure that the "kidnappers" would "kill" her. They had to make that 911 call - it was the reason why JBR would not be found alive. They just never got the opportunity to complete their plan, probably not foreseen by them during their staging.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In the Simpson case his lawyers' analysed the Simpson-Goldman fight to its 9th degree with the aim being to show that the fight would have taken too long for Simpson to have returned to his house.

    How about this. The guy was in a hurry. Catching a plane to establish his alibi. Like maybe he set a record.

    Analyzing the micro to refute the macro (multiple, independent evidence chains overwhelmingly pointing to Simpson) is like analyzing a butterfly's moves to determine if a hurricane hit. How about this. Crawl out of the baement and look.

    The ransom note has always been highly undervalued with regard to evidence against the adult Ramseys. It's nothing less than a confession. It's almost directive toward a guilty verdict. To presume that someone besides one of the Ramseys would have written it wonders into the realm of fantasy land. Generous kidnapper, mere 100K, Dr. Zhivago book length, having to stay at the crime scene liked they owned the place, Ramsey's social circle included a psychotic, what have you ...

    Ok maybe that last one. Someone in the social circle who had intimate access to JonBenet. Someone who knew the lay of the house intimately. Someone who felt at home.

    Nevermind ... that would be JR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure I completely follow you, but thanks for this interesting take.

      I think the investigators got confused because, while it wasn't hard to see this note as part of a staged kidnapping, it WAS hard to understand why "the Ramseys" would have written such a note and then called the police with the body still in the house, thus negating their staging. It's only when we separate "the Ramseys" into two different individuals, one of whom is innocent and the other guilty, that the point of the note becomes clear. What they were dealing with was not simply staging, but staging gone wrong, but they lacked the imagination to consider such a possibility.

      Delete
  18. Well, what I'm saying is the macro in this case is the ransom letter. All this analyzing of perceived reactions, other aspects, etc. should take a back stage. It signifies guilt of one or more of the Ramsey's period. Every detective worth his salt working on the case has always attested to this, forget about that Smith character.

    For instance, analyzing the 911 call. ALL kidnappers warn not to call the police or dire consequences will result, but probably most people end up calling anyway, instinctively feeling their chances are better relying on the experts. People know the police aren't going to pull up in black and whites wearing blue uniforms for a kidnapping case.

    But the note means ONE of them for sure. You know what. You're right on with JR and probably PR being clueless. While PR was a hysterical mess. explaining her silence, the detective monitoring the call that was suppose to come between 8 and 10, said neither PE or JR said a word about the deadline passing with nothing from the kidnappers. A call of the utmost importance. JR knew the note was a fake because he wrote it.

    Too bad that the detectives / prosecution couldn't put a plausible scenario together like the one you've proposed to get this thing prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, now I get it. And thanks, I'm glad you see my take as plausible.

      Delete
  19. 2. Why would the Ramseys call 911 if they were staging a fake kidnapping?



    Do you realize how many parents kill their kids then call 911 to report them missing. It is called alibi building everyone.

    I didnt do it, see... I called the cops.

    And then the I am not speaking.

    It works. Look at how many cases we have kids missing that really dont have the ability to just get up and leave on their own and you have parents refusing to speak, not remembering.

    Trust me, Patsy and John believe they are smarter and had the money to buy out what their perceived intelligence could not.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "2. Why would the Ramseys call 911 if they were staging a fake kidnapping?"

      I kept the question short and to the point because I assumed readers were already aware of the details of this case. For your benefit, I will recast the question in a more complete form:

      Why would the Ramseys call 911 as part of a plan involving a staged kidnapping, knowing that the body of their victim was still in the house and would sooner or later be discovered by the police, thus nullifying the effect of their "ransom" note and making them look VERY suspicious?

      This is NOT simply a case of parents calling 911 to report a missing child. It is a case where someone in that house murdered a child and then wrote a phoney ransom note as part of a staged kidnapping. Why would that person want to undo his (or her) staging by calling the police before removing the body from the premises?

      Delete
  20. patsy says we have a kidnapping, but when the operator asks her about the note, she does not say its a ransom note. she has just reported a kidnapping, so, obviously the note is a ransom note.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In regard to # 9, I think JRs plan was put JBRs wrapped body in the Samsonite suitcase and put it in the car. If PR or anyone saw him with the suitcase, he would say it's for the money (the RN would call it an "adequately sized attache."). Then he'd go out and dump the body, go to the bank and fill the suitcase with money and either dump the money and suitcase (saying the kidnappers intercepted him and took the money but didn't return JBR) or bring the suitcase with money home and wait for the call that never came.

    As to # 14 exposure, I think that JR was molesting JBR for some time (PR probably had no sex drive due to her ovarian cancer and its treatment so JR turned to JBR for his sexual gratification). This last time, JR was too rough and accidentally injured her and caused her to bleed, which led to JBR screaming out and trying to seek her mother, and JBR bashed her on the head to silence her.

    ReplyDelete