I suppose just about everyone reading here has seen the news. The Grand Jury formed back in 1999 voted to indict Patsy and John Ramsey, a decision that was kept under wraps by DA Alex Hunter, who decided to abruptly end the process without taking any further action. This tidbit has been splashed over headlines in a great many news venues, but it originated with an article in the Boulder Daily Camera, by a reporter with a long history of reporting this case: Charlie Brennan. Incidentally, Brennan collaborated with Lawrence Schiller on what is probably still the most definitive book on the case, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.
Many of us following the Ramsey case assumed the GJ must have come to more or less that decision, because there was no other reason for Hunter to so suddenly end the proceedings. So this is not really news. I have the impression Hunter was hoping for a decision not to indict, or a deadlocked jury, which would have gotten him off the hook, giving him the perfect excuse to do nothing. But it didn't turn out that way, and many of those convinced there could have been no intruder smelled the truth behind the GJ's dismissal and accused him of either cowardice or outright corruption.
I don't see it that way. While there is definitely no reason to take any intruder theory seriously, there was, and is, no reason to believe Patsy Ramsey played any part in this crime. Given the assumption held by just about everyone that John could not have written the note, Hunter and his team were faced with an intractable dilemma. To prosecute the Ramseys, it would have been necessary to go along, more or less, with Steve Thomas's theory that Patsy "accidentally" killed her daughter in a rage over bedwetting, and then sexually assaulted and strangled her to stage a brutal intruder attack. Or wait, no, she staged a phoney kidnapping, writing a 2 1/2 page "ransom note" as evidence. Or wait wait, since she was so "over the top" she actually staged both a sexual assault and a kidnapping. And then called the police on herself with the body of the "kidnap" victim hidden in the house, waiting for the police to discover it. Thomas saw John as not directly involved at first, but capable of figuring out, in retrospect, what Patsy had done and then deciding to go along with her coverup, to protect the family's "good name." My oh my!
While many following the case have taken this scenario very seriously, in the cold light of day it makes absolutely no sense at all and would surely have been laughed out of court, assuming any judge would have allowed Hunter to go to trial with it. When brought before Judge Judy Carnes in a civil suit brought by Darnay Hoffmann, this theory fell completely flat and for good reason. It is patently absurd. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to cover up an accident by staging a sexual assault and murder. You cover a murder by staging an accident, not the other way 'round. Nor any reason to then supplement the assault staging with a staged kidnap attempt. Nor any reason to write a phoney ransom note and then not arrange to get the body out of the house before calling the police.
There was no case to be made against, Patsy, no evidence connecting her to the crime whatsoever. The fact that she was wearing the same outfit the next morning actually exonerates her, though it's been presented as evidence against her. If she'd been up all night murdering her daughter and staging a bloody vaginal assault, she'd have been an unholy mess by the following morning. But she presented herself to the police freshly dressed, coiffed and made up. She would certainly have changed her outfit, since its messy state would have been a dead giveaway. But she did not change. And her dress was not messed up but perfectly in order. This tells me how unlikely it is that she'd been up that night doing all the things she is supposed to have done. If she'd done all that then either she'd have changed or she'd have been a mess, but she did not change and she was not a mess. It says a great deal about the nature of people's thinking about this case that her wearing the same dress the next day is seen by some as proof positive of guilt whereas clearly it constitutes strong evidence pointing to complete innocence.
A few microscopic traces of fiber from Patsy's sweater were found intertwined with the knots on the garotte ligature, and also in the paint tote. But as Thomas himself admitted, there is no way to prove these were not the result of indirect transfer, which is in fact by far the most logical explanation since the fibers could easily have been transferred via the victim herself, with whom Patsy had been in close contact the previous day.
The handwriting evidence has of course gotten the most attention, but Judge Carnes very wisely dismissed the opinions of Hoffmann's "experts," and for very good reasons. For my analysis of the various reports written by these "experts" see the group of posts on this blog, starting here. Patsy's writing looks very different from that of the note, but it will always be possible for a determined person to find certain similarities between just about any examplars and that's what seems to have happened.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the most likely suspect by far, and in fact the BPD's initial suspect, John Ramsey, was ruled out very early on as writer of the note, a decision that was never questioned by the authorities, although none of these "experts" ever presented any real science to back up what looks to me like an outrageous conclusion. For my take on this decision and the "experts" who made it, see this post and the ones immediately following it.
In view of the impossibility of going after Patsy, and the absurd decision to rule John out, Hunter's reluctance to prosecute is completely justifiable. What was not justifiable, and remains unjustifiable to this day, was the naive unwillingness of literally all the investigators to even consider the possibility that the "experts" could have been wrong and that John wrote the note after all. Once we accept that as a possibility and review the case, then suddenly everything else falls neatly into place. If you don't believe me I invite you to continue reading here.
So glad I found you:
ReplyDeleteI could never shake the belief that there was no intruder, and that the only adult male in the house was the one with the strength, knowledge of garrotes, and sexual interest to have committed the crime. This was a guy who had married a beauty queen, so looks mattered to him. Then she got older and fought with cancer while his daughter became gorgeous; he was used to getting the best.
The foreign DNA confused me more than the hokey ransom note. But, now I read that fresh panties from a new package were pulled on JBR after she was washed down. Well, hell, those undies had never been laundered! The tiny male DNA fragment could have been from some poor Chinese worker with a cold; no wonder it didn’t match anyone in Boulder.
I'm glad you found me too. There was never any really good reason to rule John out, but protocol, apparently, had to be followed, and so when he arranged to hire his own experts, who then teamed up with the other experts to decide John could not possibly have written the note, I think Hunter must have felt he had no choice but to go along, even if it meant tossing any possible case into the garbage. The DNA evidence gets a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that innocent transfer of tiny amounts of DNA happens all the time and can be found almost anywhere. If an intruder had attacked JonBenet, his DNA would have been all over her, it would have been obvious and a match would certainly have been found, sooner or later. Unless he'd been wearing gloves, in which case NONE of his DNA would have been found.
DeleteDocG, would you be satisfied to see John arrested and charged with Felony Murder?
DeleteIf so, what would you see as the one most irrefutable piece of evidence that would convince a jury of his guilt?
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure, but offhand I'd say it would be best to charge him with murder one. That will get his attention, and he might possibly then be willing to talk about exactly what happened that night and why. If he could convince the DA that he didn't really intend to murder JonBenet, but struck her "accidentally" then I suppose felony murder could be considered. But I'd think it would take a lot of convincing, with evidence to back it up, since John would not be a particularly credible witness.
DeleteI don't think there is one irrefutable piece of evidence in this case, no smoking gun -- although it's clear he lied about the broken window that just concerns the coverup and doesn't directly implicate him in murder. But I do think it possible to build an airtight circumstantial case, based on the overall pattern produced by all the various pieces of evidence. And, as I've demonstrated on this blog, there IS a chain of inference that nails it down pretty clearly.
The key would be his testimony about breaking the window the previous summer, I would start with that. Once it's clear he lied, then boom, the intruder theory becomes toast. Next would be the 911 phone call, which would not have been made if both John and Patsy were in it together. The combination of the window lies plus the 911 points to John and John alone. No intruder. John implicated in the window staging. Patsy ruled out because she called the cops. All that's left is John.
Finally, would be a step by step explanation of all the various elements in the ransom note, to reveal the plan behind it, and how John (and not Patsy) would have been able to use the note to his advantage.
If John then wanted to implicate either Patsy or Burke in the actual murder, claiming he was only trying to maintain "the family honor," let him. And see if the jury buys it. I doubt that any jury would.
You really believe Patsy didn't write that note? I'm no handwriting expert, but to me they look pretty spot on. I cant let Patsy off the hook that easy. Let's go through it. You wake up at 5:00 a.m., you find a ransome note. All I can do is put myself in her shoes, and say " what would I do, if this had happened to me". The first thing I'm gonna do is search for J.B. and she does this. Let's assume from 5-5:45 Patsy is searching the house for J.B. Can you honestly believe she never found her? C'mon. If my six year old daughter were missing, I would've torn that house apart looking for her. Yet she searches the house yet neglects to look in the wine room. I'm not buying it. I wouldn't have called 911 till I was absolutely sure J.B. wasn't in the house. In an interview in 2001 Patsy claims to have never read the rest of the note before calling 911. Very sketchy. If I've just searched the house and can't find J.B., this immediately gives validity to the ransome note, and insures that I would not only read it, but that I would follow its instructions to a T.
DeleteIf Patsy wrote the note she would not have called 911 at that time. It's really as simple as that. You don't stage a phony kidnapping and then call the cops on yourself with the body of your victim still in the house. You don't present them with a note that could be used as evidence against you. And you don't include all sorts of horrible threats about calling the police and then call them anyhow, ignoring the threats you yourself just wrote.
DeleteYes Patsy didn't turn the house upside down looking for her daughter. Neither did anyone else, including the police. Everyone took the note literally, assuming she'd been kidnapped. I don't see anything suspicious in that at all.
And why would ignoring the threats make her suspicious? What would be suspicious would be if she used those threats as an excuse NOT to call.
I have to believe that if JR was a house painter making $30K a year, with all other facts of the case the same, he'd have been prosecuted, and PR right along with him.
ReplyDeletePR's lawyers should have been able to explain to a jury why it made no sense to think PR was involved. I can't agree that Hunter was justified in not bringing them to trial as per the GJ's decision.
What about the judge? Surely he had the power to order the prosecutor to continue the process and to bring the Rs to trial. If the GJ voted to indict, there really wasn't much process left anyway. This suggests to me corruption at more than one level.
I share your frustration. However, in order to prosecute a case, or even indict, you have to be in a position to make very specific accusations. You can't just tell the judge (or jury) "We know at least one of them did it, but we're not sure which." The ONLY path Hunter had through that mess was to rule John back in as writer of the note and re-investigate from that standpoint. Any other course was literally unprosecutable and he knew it.
DeleteThe real problem for Hunter was Patsy, because the prevailing view at that time, and even today I'm afraid, is that Patsy must be the one who wrote the note, and why would she do that if John sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenet? So the only explanation that seemed remotely acceptable was that Patsy did it all, with John as her protector (for John's motive very hard to explain, but Thomas tried) and Patsy wrote the note. Hunter must have realized there was no way he could make such a case. For every "expert" convinced Patsy wrote the note, there were others, actually better qualified, who thought that unlikely. The Secret Service guy said there was no evidence she wrote it.
DeleteAnd with nothing else to go on, how was Hunter expected to make a case? He did the right thing. But imo he was a fool for naively accepting the decision to rule John out. If he'd looked into the sad state of the field at that time, with NO science to back up such a pivotal decision, he might have figured it out.
If I had not read Thomas's book, in which he details how info on the investigation was being leaked to team Ramsey by the prosecutor's office, I might be able to believe Hunter did the right thing for the right reasons.
DeleteUnder the circumstances the mind (or at least my mind) goes to pay-off/corruption before it goes to the idea that Hunter was interested in justice.
If Hunter had it figured out then it would have been wrong to prosecute Patsy.
We can only speculate whether JR would have let Patsy go down with him or whether PR would have placed herself at such risk to try to save JR. A GJ proceeding is round one. A trial has a certain finality to it that calls for different strategy.
I too am disturbed at the way in which Hunter handled this case. Sharing information with the Ramseys and their legal team was outrageous, I agree. John was even allowed to hire his own handwriting "experts," who, after a cursory examination of exemplars HE provided to them, decided to rule him out. What a laugh. But I don't see Hunter as corrupt. I think he was simply intimidated by the very high powered legal team John so quickly put together.
DeleteImo there was no way Patsy would have been willing to assist John in any manner at all if she knew what he'd done. I think he very cleverly manipulated her into believing he had to be innocent, but that he felt forced to be deceptive about certain thing to protect both of them from a police dept. out to get both of them.
I couldn't agree with you more. Everything in this case fits your "solve", right down to the actions of the DA, if JR had not been effectively 'ruled out', by non-scientific evaluation of the ransom note.
DeleteIf JR is arrested for Felony Murder, I suspect there would be enough established evidence to convince a jury. However, to place him under arrest for Murder, the challenge in getting a conviction would be to show that JR could have very easily authored the ransom note. All one has to do is consider his complete career history connected to the use and development of computer software and his overall complete knowledge of computer usage.
Hi DocG
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your blog, this theory is the only one that makes any sense. If only more people would wake up and quit blaming patsy!
What are you thoughts on John making sure he was the one to find the body? Arndt said he seemed agitated when he was reading the mail and I wonder if he manipulated the situation in some way to have her suggest he search the house. Maybe he wanted it all to be over with by then.
Thanks again I truly love you!
I love you too, rae. :-)
ReplyDeleteJohn certainly realized the body was going to be found sooner or later, and probably figured it would be best if he found it, because that would give him an opportunity to contaminate the crime scene. And in fact he thoroughly messed it up by removing the body from the scene of the crime and probably in some other ways as well that we don't know about. I suspect the body could have been hidden in a corner of the room and covered with a blanket, which could be why White didn't notice it when he checked that room earlier. Since a body completely hidden from sight would have been extremely suspicious, John may have needed to find it so he could claim, as he did, that it was in plain sight as soon as he opened the door. If that was the case, then why hadn't White seen it?
Even when I was an IDI believer, there were things about JR's actions that stuck out to me and didn't sit right. Like many IDIers, I explained them away as the irrational yet understandable behavior of a panicked, frightened father. One of the major ones was that, once told by Arndt to search the house, he IMMEDIATELY went to the basement and directly to the "wine cellar." In Arndt's words she said she told them to search the house "top to bottom." He went "bottom to top," immediately to a room he had already been to.
DeleteAnd I always thought, for an intelligent man, a CEO of a billion dollar company, he should have and must have known better than to carry her upstairs. Go to her, take off the tape, etc, I guess that makes sense for a shocked father who just discovered his daughter's body... But considering she was obviously very dead - witnesses including Arndt said she was ice cold (dead in the basement for ~12 hours, in Colorado, in Dec., I'd say yeah - ice cold) and there was already decomp odor - I think even a shocked father who was an intelligent man would realize his daughter was dead and call for an ambulance, maybe sob, maybe even begin to think about the fact that this was now a crime scene and any contamination could keep the killer from being caught.
To me the last thing an innocent father woud do when encountering this situation is grab her and carry her upstairs. With her arms locked above her head due to rigor. It's just... it's so weird.
The Ramseys' cheerleaders say he was in shock and this odd behavior proves it. If he had really staged the crime scene or been involved in the staging, he would have taken care to preserve it.
Except, if you consider that he was acting alone and intended to remove the body, and her body being found was not part of his staging, you realize why he did what he did. He WAS smart. He WAS in control. He did exactly what needed to be done to "erase" the crime scene as it was. He immediately covered her, grabbed her, moved her. No one got to see exactly how she was lying there but him. No one got to see exactly how her hair and body were arranged but him. All that crucial evidence - eradicated in one act, the act of a "shocked" father. Not even Fleet was able to see her clearly.
He also made sure that any fiber evidence would be accounted for by picking her up and carrying her, touching the tape, touching the cord around her wrist...
Patsy was by all accounts a total wreck. She had a mixing bowl in between her knees because she was sick to her stomach. Her husband was not there with her comforting her. They spent all morning in different parts of the house. If our child was missing my husband would be glued to my side. I think most women can say that.
KH
Exactly. You make some excellent points.
DeleteI believe (as do many others) that Patsy had no intention of killing JonBenet. It was a tragic accident. I believe that Patsy had so much going on during that holiday period, they were going on vacation early the next morning, and the kids were playing up, annoying her. Patsy may have pushed JonBenet and the child fell against a hard corner of something. The loud crack to her skull would have told Patsy that irreparable damage had been done. Patsy may have assumed that she had killed JonBenet.
ReplyDeleteThis was the moment where a decision had to be made. Should she call 911? This would entail problems. She would be branded a murderer by everyone who knew her (and Patsy was all for appearances, remember?). I believe this feeling of what people might think over-rode everything else. In her panic she decided to make the death of her daughter look like a kidnapping. So she took her daughter's body down to the basement and hid it. That's when she sat down and wrote the ransom note.
Then....and this is what I believe happened next....Patsy thought she should embellish things by making the basement - and her daughter's body - more of a crime scene. She took some nylon cord and wrapped it around JonBenet's wrists, then another piece around her neck. This wasn't tight enough (Patsy wanted her daughter's death to look like death by strangulation), so she broke off a piece of a thin paintbrush and twisted it inside the nylon cord, like a garotte. Then she tore off a piece of duct tape and put it over JonBenet's mouth. (This was later proved to have been placed there after life was extinct). At some point afterwards Patsy took the remnants of the duct tape and the nylon cord and dumped them in a neighbour's trash can.
Then she covered her daughter's body in a fluffy white blanket, straight out of the tumble drier (the pink nightie may have been attached to this by static, that's why it was found with the blanket, no other reason).
Then.....after putting the ransom note on the steps of the spiral staircase Patsy ran upstairs screaming for John. The rest is history.
Yes, Louisa, what you've outlined is a very common theory of the case. However, if you spend some time reading in this blog you'll see why it doesn't hold up. Very strange interpretations of Patsy's actions have been made based on various bits and pieces of evidence, but in every case when widen our perspective to see the case as a whole, it becomes clear that Patsy could not have been involved.
DeleteFor one thing, it's very hard to understand why anyone would want to stage a murder to cover for an accident. And the condition of the body tells us this could not have been an accident, because a single very powerful blow to the head was administered, cracking her skull from end to end. That's not consistent with a fall. It is also bizarre beyond belief to assume that Patsy would then sexually assault her child and also strangle her, to stage some sort of crazed intruder attack. And it gets even less plausible when she then decides to stage a kidnapping, hide the body in the house, and then call 911, literally inviting the police to uncover her kidnap staging. Why bother to stage a kidnapping if you are staging a sexually motivated attack? Why hide the body if you are staging a sexually motivated attack?
The ONLY reason Patsy is such an object of suspicion is that John was ruled out as writer of the note. If that hadn't happened it would be clear that John, not Patsy, should have been the focus of the investigation.
I know what you're saying but my money is still on Patsy.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe for a moment that Patsy would cover for John in the killing of her beloved child. However, I do believe that John would cover for Patsy. The couple did not want the glare of publicity that a murder case would bring them. His body language thereafter says it all. He just couldn't bring himself to comfort Patsy, the killer of his child, not even for the cameras.
Yes, it's hard to understand why a mother would spend time doing these bizarre things to her daughter, but this was one rather bizarre mother, remember? She was all for appearances.
What normal mother wants to dress her 6 year old up like a 2 dollar hooker? She says it was 'just a Sunday afternoon thing'. Well, that's clearly not true. JonBenet had private dancing lessons, voice coaching, posture coaching and speech coaching. The costumes cost thousands, a lot more than she probably won in the contests.
Patsy wrote the ransom note - that has been established to the satisfaction of almost all the experts, even her own defence team could not rule her out. In fact she was the only person they were unable to rule out.
Picture this - Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet but there were no outward signs - no bleeding. She knew the police would have to be involved but couldn't bear the thought of her friends thinking she had killed her daughter (albeit accidentally)......so she decided to make it look like a kidnapping. She went to her pad and wrote the famous lengthy note, scrapping the first, maybe second, attempt before settling on the one she liked.
Patsy then hid her daughter's body in the basement, intending to remove it and hide it elsewhere as soon as she had a chance.
She then decided to complete the scenario of a vicious intruder by strangling JonBenet and she made a half hearted attempt to make it look as though this intruder had interfered with her daughter. The finger of suspicion would then point towards a man (or so she thought).
Maybe at this point she was going to remove the ransom note but John (who was unaware of any of this and had just got up) found it first, hence the kidnapping scenario had to go ahead.
I think most people would agree - the person who wrote the note killed the child.
Trying to understand Patsy's thought process during all of this is impossible because we do not know her.
If John was the killer/sexual molester then the child's body would have shown evidence of penal penetration. There would have been a lot more damage to her private parts than just a watery drop of blood. The shard of wooden paintbrush in the child's vagina says to me that a woman did this and only one woman was in the house that night.
Louisa, you are expressing the suspicions of a great many who have followed this case over the years, and I can understand why you feel as you do. John was "ruled out." Patsy was not. Clearly, there was no intruder. So it's logical to see Patsy as the writer of the note, and as you say, the writer of the note is most likely the one who killed poor JonBenet. Once that's established, then it's easy to come up with some sort of scenario, no matter how bizarre and unlikely, that can explain what happened and why. And no matter how bizarre such a scenario might be, yes, you can always insist that Patsy was a pretty bizarre and "over the top" person, so why not?
DeleteA major purpose of this blog is to demonstrate that the handwriting "experts" were almost all wrong, however -- wrong to rule John out, wrong to see Patsy as writer of the note. My conclusions are based on both the circumstances of the case AND the handwriting evidence itself. I urge you to read what I've written about the note and the experts who've analyzed it, in the following posts: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html -- http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/who-wrote-ransom-note.html -- http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/patsy-patsy.html -- also this post, and a whole string of posts following it, which go over the reports written by all of Darnay Hoffmann's so-called "experts": http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/patsy-patsy.html
It's important to remember that literally EVERY forensic doc. professional who became convinced Patsy wrote the note was in fact hired by Darnay Hoffman, for the express purpose of "proving" exactly that. These were not independent voices who spoke out in the name of justice but hired hands doing a job for their boss, the equivalent of the sort of "expert witnesses" hired by both sides in a great many jury trials. When one is convinced ahead of time that so and so is guilty then it's easy to find evidence that this person MUST be the one, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. This is called "cherry picking" and is a common problem in scientific research.
Also, sexual abuse does not necessarily mean penile penetration. John, especially if it only recently started, could have used his fingers as well and may be could have changed into penile later on. Many sexual abusers think that molestation is their "loving" a child. So him and JB appearing close does not rule out sexual abuse.
DeleteYes, thank you. I don't think penile penetration of a tiny six year old would have been possible in any case. And by the way, the "birefringent material" found in her vagina does not mean she was penetrated with that paintbrush handle, which would have caused much more bleeding. It was most likely due to indirect transfer. The medical examiner referred to "digital penetration."
DeleteWell I certainly had an open mind as to who committed this crime until I decided to find out about it and ordered 5 books on this subject from Amazon.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that for me, the best, and most convincing argument is written in the book by the lead detective on the case at the time - Steve Thomas. He goes into the handwriting aspect very thoroughly. I have seen for myself (on the internet) the samples of Patsy's handwriting - written first with her right hand and then with her left. For me it is quite conclusive and I have to agree with the experts that Patsy wrote the note. Everyone else was ruled out. Even her own defence team's handwriting experts could not rule Patsy out.
In my experience (as an armchair criminologist!) these type of wordy notes are penned primarily by women. Men are far more brief. The whole style of the ransom note has Patsy Ramsey written all over it and I suspect that John recognized her writing too, as soon as he saw it.
Also, I'd like to say that I have read that the answer to a puzzle is nearly always the most obvious one. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it most probably IS a duck.
I believe that John Ramsey was only guilty of covering up this crime.
One of the worst things about it is the way the Ramseys preferred to blacken the names of their best friends rather than own up to what they had done. And they called themselves Christians!
"I have seen for myself (on the internet) the samples of Patsy's handwriting - written first with her right hand and then with her left. For me it is quite conclusive and I have to agree with the experts that Patsy wrote the note."
DeleteAnd did you examine similar examples of John's handwriting, written with both the left and right hand? Of course not, because none of John's examples were ever even considered by people like Steve Thomas, or any of the tabloids. While every other aspect of this case has been debated, the conclusion of the "experts" who ruled John out has never been questioned. And I have to wonder why.
I urge you to take a close look at the examples provided in the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/who-wrote-ransom-note.html
Here you can see a copy of Patsy's left hand sample, and four words the Enquirer decided were "identical." As is evident from a closer look, what might seem like identity at a first glance is actually very different. Almost all the letters being compared were formed in a completely different manner. The text of the ransom note looks rather scrambled and odd and so does Patsy's left hand sample, because she was obviously uncomfortable writing it. That does NOT mean Patsy wrote the note.
You can't really compare only two documents, there must always be more documents written by others who can function as a control group. This is essentially what is taken into account in a police lineup, for example, where several individuals who resemble the suspect are lined up and the witness is asked to point to the one he/she saw. What the Enquirer did, and literally all the other "experts" did, was the equivalent of a police lineup with only the suspect in view. Such a practice would never stand up in court.
If you then proceed down to the comparison with John's exemplars that I put together, you'll see some examples from John's deposition that are far more similar to the note than any of Patsy's. And on a different blog post (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html) I scrambled John's exemplars with some from the note and challenged readers years ago to sort them out. No one has ever been able to do that.
I'm not saying my comparisons prove John wrote the note. But clearly they can serve to remind us NOT to jump to conclusions simply on the basis of a one to one comparison involving ONLY Patsy's exemplars and no one else's.
Patsy could write with both hands - not only did one of her former teachers state this but Patsy herself admitted this.
ReplyDeletePatsy's left handed sampler shows incredible matches to the real ransom note. You can practically superimpose certain words over the other.
The same is true for the word 'faction' in the fourth line of the sample and the third line of the ransom note the word 'that' in the third line of the ransom note, and the word 'letter' in the 13th line and the 10th line of the ransom note.
Also, several times when she writes 'will' in the sample, they show matches to almost all of the 'will' words in the note.
Most revealing are the percent signs in both Patsy's left hand sample and the ransom note. They are perfect little circles that match. You try to do that if you can't write with both hands. You can't do it.
Another 'signature' giveaway clue pointing to Patsy as the author of the ransom note is found in the sample letter she was asked to compose.
It's the big spaces she puts between the word 'I' and the word next to that personal pronoun. Look at the ransom note. When the pronoun 'I' is written, there are the same big spaces left between it and the next word. It was something she didn't think to fake - something that came out naturally.
The best graphologists in the USA found the above and I have to go along with their findings. To go against this is simply absurd, yet of course we all have our own opinions.
To put John Ramsey as the killer is, in my opinion, another absurdity. His writing does not match the ransom note. Notes of this type are nearly always the work of women, men tend to be far more brief.
The police very quickly ruled John out of the killing. I feel certain that if they had any evidence pointing to him then they would have wanted to prosecute him, every bit as much as they wished to prosecute Patsy.
You say you have solved this murder....yet you haven't. Not by a long way. At least you haven't gone with the ridiculous 'intruder' theory, so that's something.
Are we supposed to believe that John Ramsey came home, after a tiring day, and decided to sexually molest his daughter? He hardly left a trace and no DNA. He knew he had to be up a 5.30am the following morning so would have had precious little sleep anyway.
He would have had an interest in kids sexually long before this, surely? Yet nothing resembling pornography was found in the home and nothing can connect him with it in any way.
For my money, if Patsy didn't do it then the culprit must have been Burke who killed his sister by accident, then the parents covered up for him.
Not John though....no way! You can tell from reading about the family that although John made the money, Patsy was the dominant force in the family. What she said...goes! She wore the trousers. There is no way that she would have meekly covered up for her husband if he had killed JonBenet.
I hope this doesn't sound rude but I hink you should listen and look at the obvious evidence instead of going off on an idiotic tangent.
"Patsy's left handed sampler shows incredible matches to the real ransom note. You can practically superimpose certain words over the other.
DeleteThe same is true for the word 'faction' in the fourth line of the sample and the third line of the ransom note the word 'that' in the third line of the ransom note, and the word 'letter' in the 13th line and the 10th line of the ransom note."
Well, let's take a good close look. All these words are blown up in the National Enquirer article: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CUljIlHmxGE/UBQnLWYLKfI/AAAAAAAAAfE/hgUCtJvERJM/s1600/patsy+left+hand+comparison+Nat+Enquirer.gif
With the exception of the "i" every single letter of the word "faction" is completely different in the two examples highlighted. Patsy's "faction" actually looks more like "foction" since it was written with a cursive "a" rather than the manuscript "a" of the note. The following letter in Patsy's sample looks almost like an "x" until we realize it's supposed to be a "c". Patsy's "c" is huge, while the "c" in the ransom note is tiny. And if you look closely at the blowups of the letters "t", "o" and "n" you'll see they are totally different.
Moving to "that," we see similarly striking differences in the blowup that might not have been apparent at first glance. I don't see any similarity between any of these letters. The vertical of the ransom note "t" is perfectly vertical while Patsy's is slanted. The bottom part of the ransom note "t" is sharply angled and emphasized, while Patsy's is curved and barely noticeable. Patsy's "h" is lumpy and irregular while the ransom note "h" is not. Patsy's "a" is cursive and bears no resemblance at all to the manuscript "a" of the ransom note. Finally, the horizontals of the two final "t"s are angled in opposite directions. And if you look closely at the blowups of the word "letter," you'll see similarly striking differences, with the possible exception of the letter "l." Note that Patsy's second "e" is longhand, while that of the note is in manuscript style.
So please explain to me how these words could be superimposed on each other? Explain also what we are to make of all the many, many even more obvious differences among all the other words in both documents.
"It's the big spaces she puts between the word 'I' and the word next to that personal pronoun. Look at the ransom note. When the pronoun 'I' is written, there are the same big spaces left between it and the next word. It was something she didn't think to fake - something that came out naturally."
In the note there is an unusually wide space between ALL the words, in a very consistent manner throughout, not just between the "I" and the following word. In that respect Patsy's samples are very different not at all the same. But if you are cherry picking, you'll pay attention only to what's the same and ignore all the many differences.
"The best graphologists in the USA found the above and I have to go along with their findings."
These were NOT the best graphologists. These were the graphologists hired by Darnay Hoffmann with the explicit intention of "proving" that Patsy wrote the note. And if in fact the resemblances are so clear, then why wouldn't the "experts" working for the DA's office have come to the same conclusion? NONE of them did. True they weren't able to rule Patsy out, but that is VERY different from what you are claiming. On balance, the best that can be said is that the handwriting evidence is "inconclusive." Certainly not strong enough to build a case against Patsy, not nearly.
Continued from my last post:
Delete"To put John Ramsey as the killer is, in my opinion, another absurdity. His writing does not match the ransom note."
If that's the case, then you should have no trouble sorting out the exemplars in the graphic I put together some years ago: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aPOScVDYtPo/UA1kZVM-y2I/AAAAAAAAAes/0v4sf5EztwQ/s1600/Ramtest-.jpg
Letters taken from John's legal deposition are intermingled with letters of the note. Can you tell which is which?
Your bias against Patsy is evident in the remainder of your post, Louisa. You think you've figured John out and you think you've figured Patsy out, but in fact you are speculating, based on your own personal views as to how married couples relate to one another and to their children and how males and females differ. Everyone has such views, and they are all over the place. And whether or not Patsy "wore the trousers" has no bearing whatsoever on whether she murdered her daughter. There is no magical "profile" that's going to solve this case. We have to be guided by the facts.
Well you must be seeing something different to me then.
ReplyDeleteI am not swayed by other peoples' opinions regarding the author of the ransom note, it seems as though it's you against the rest of the world. You seem to think that everyone is a follower, happy to go along with the majority. Some of us can work things out for ourselves. After reading about this case intensively, in books and on the internet,I have reached my very own conclusions, which just so happens to coincide with that of the police force who thoroughly investigated this murder.
You are completely INCORRECT when you say that all the graphologists were biased for the prosecution. This is obviously nonsense. The defense went all out to hire their own team - at great expense - to investigate the author of this note. Are you saying that the defense were FORBIDDEN to hire their own people? If so, then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
By the way, it's always good to hear another person's take on something, but in your case, it's frankly preposterous.
"it seems as though it's you against the rest of the world."
ReplyDeleteNot any more. If you leaf through the comments on this blog you'll see there are many reading here who've come to agree with me. And I must say, that's very gratifying, because for a long time I did feel I was alone.
I didn't say all the graphologists were biased, but those hired by Darnay Hoffmann were hired specifically with the intention of "proving" that Patsy wrote the note, and that's what they did. I can't prove they were consciously biased, but I've studied the reports they presented to Darnay and in every case there is strong evidence of cherry picking, which reflects bias, probably unconscious, but nevertheless there. I already gave you the links to my findings in this regard so won't repeat them here.
As for the others, yes, two were hired by team Ramsey, and they both conveniently agreed to rule John out. They also ruled Patsy out, by the way. But they too were hired hands, so their findings have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. The other "experts," hired by the DA's office, concluded that Patsy could not be ruled out, but that it was "unlikely" she wrote the note. The fact is that forensic doc. examination is NOT science, and the history of the Ramsey case is a perfect illustration of that. Other "experts" concluded that Chris Wolf or John Mark Karr wrote it. Bottom line: I know of NO science capable of determining whether anyone can be ruled out in a case such as this. The decision to rule John out clearly had no scientific basis and simply reflected the opinions of so-called "experts."
As for John being ruled out, the strong resemblances between his court document and the note, as presented by both myself and Italian forensic doc. examiner Fausto Brugnatelli, tell us there is something VERY wrong with that conclusion. As do so many other facts of this case.
DocG, your analysis and conclusions sum up for me all the random thoughts I've had over the years and even validates my gut instinct about Patsy. I'm from the south and I know her type. These stage moms aren't as obsessed as they're made out to be, though they are bored, overly involved, and sometimes even co-dependent. I could never get from her body language, interviews, or writings a sense of guilt. I did sense that she might be covering for somebody or something. I speculate that it was early on when she figured out something was up with John and his behavior. I do think John's agitation was due to her foiling his plan by calling the police. If that truely is Burke speaking in the background on the 911 call, John was clearly already agitated when he spoke harshly to Burke. Who, in the middle of a child abduction, would speak to their other child harshly? I would be hugging him and holding him close, thankful that he had not been harmed or taken, too. I also think that a "small foreign faction" (laughable, really, but go with this), would have abducted both kids .It is far more plausible to consider incest, a common crime against children, than the unheard of pattern of upper class moms going berserk over bedwetting. Patsy had no such history of being a mommy-dearest type. In fact, her practice had been to let the housekeeper deal with the wet sheets, so why go berserk? Steve Thomas got over-zealous and did not complete his homework. I cannot believe all the people out there who think that his book is the definitive answer to all the questions.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'm glad you agree. And no, I don't think Patsy ever figured out what was what. I think she was thoroughly manipulated by John into accepting the intruder scenario. After all, John had been "ruled out," and she knew very well that SHE hadn't written the note. So in her mind, there had to be an intruder, nothing else was possible. The decision to rule John out truly had a devastating effect because it both prejudiced so many against Patsy AND because it made it far easier for him to manipulate Patsy. Poor Patsy, she never had a chance.
DeleteI agree that way too much was made of Patsy's personality by a lot of elitist armchair psychologists who think being a wealthy housewife from the South is a character flaw at best, pathological at worst.
DeleteI don't like pageants and I wouldn't let my child be in one. I see them as over-sexualizing children and putting them at risk.
But I live in the South, and I know people who have their children in pageants. They're normal, loving parents who like the competition and the drama. It's similar to cheerleading down here: it's all about prettiness, popularity, and, well, pageantry.
So while it's not something I would engage in, and it can definitely be taken too far (see Toddlers & Tiaras) having your kids in pageants does not make you a bad mother automatically, nor does it make you jealous, insane, or any of the other things Patsy's been accused of being.
Ditto her wealth, her lack of a "job" outside the home, her history of pageants, her struggle with cancer, etc. Patsy may have been a lot of things, but all the speculation that any of them are clues to her secret weird Southern repressed murderous sexual tendencies is just that: speculation. And not very intelligent or informed speculation, at that.
Why has the same scrutiny not been turned toward's John's personality traits and idiosyncracies? Millionaire introvert who had a two-year affair while married to his first wife, divorced, married a beauty queen more than ten years his junior... No red flags there?
His recent book, I'm told, is all about his relationship with God, and he talks about it a lot in DOI. I can't speak to the contents of anyone's soul, and I sincerely pray JR, like all of us, finds forgiveness, but I have a father in LE who worked in prisons for years as well, and I know that talking about how you saw the light and came to Jesus does a number on the naive. People love to hear that sh*t, true or not.
If we really cared about JR's soul we'd encourage him to confess this sin rather than go to his Maker an unconfessed murderer.
I wonder if Patsy ever wondered, deep down, about John. I don't think she was a terribly sophisticated woman. Not unintelligent - she did graduate magna cum laude - but maybe not terribly complicated. She would have called herself a simple southern gal. I think she wanted to believe, and maybe did for a long time, but part of her had to wonder.
I know firsthand what effect the mind can have on the body. I have no doubt the grief and stress of what happened to her daughter contributed to Patsy's relapse and death. May she rest in peace.
KH
Thanks KH. Again: well said.
Delete"I didn't say all the graphologists were biased"
ReplyDeleteAccually, yes you did.
"Your bias against Patsy is evident in the remainder of your post, Louisa. You think you've figured John out and you think you've figured Patsy out, but in fact you are speculating, based on your own personal views"
Isn't this exactly what you yourself are doing? I have studied the evidence, as I am sure you have, and that is what I am basing my opinions on. Yes, I certainly HAVE ruled John out, as I believe any right thinking person would do. The only thing I think he is guilty of is assisting his wife in the cover-up.
You have also stated that the evidence was not strong enough against Patsy to support a trial (or words to that effect).
Are you forgetting the recent disclosure that the Grand Jury DID in fact wish to indict Patsy for the murder of JonBenet?
Alex Hunter decided that he could not risk going to trial. In the case of failure it would cost his department hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they just could not afford. I imagine he's been regretting his decision every since.
I said the graphologists who fingered Patsy were biased. Those who ruled John out weren't biased, they were simply wrong. One look at the comparison displays by myself and Brugnatelli and that becomes obvious.
Delete"Isn't this exactly what you yourself are doing?"
No. I've been very careful to base my conclusions strictly on the known facts, as outlined in the first two posts of this blog. Also my analysis of John's story about the broken window, which is clearly a pack of lies. Putting all that together it becomes clear that John and John alone both murdered his daughter and staged the patently phoney kidnapping. In view of the known facts, minus all the amateurish "profiling" attempts, and other dubious "evidence" such as the DNA and the fibers, no other conclusion is possible. But over time, the simple facts of the case have been obscured by all the red herrings tossed out by both sides, and as a result the case has become a hopeless morass. The scenario you favor has been out there practically since day one and has led nowhere. I go to the JonBenet forums and still read posts where everyone is still going around in circles rehashing all the details and never ever coming up with anything new or interesting.
Unlike Steve Thomas, Darnay Hoffmann and so many others, including yourself, I refuse to accept that the handwriting evidence in itself can be conclusive. And that goes for my own analyses of the handwriting as well as anyone else's. It's not very difficult to find what appear to be striking similarities when one sets out to look for them. The only time an analysis of that sort would be meaningful would be if it were done in a strictly scientific manner, i.e., using a control group, with all exemplars tested double blind. Since nothing of that sort has ever been done, ALL the handwriting comparisons must be regarded as inconclusive.
The Grand Jury came to the conclusion they did because the intruder theory was so unconvincing. And no, the jury did NOT wish to indict Patsy alone, it voted to indict both John AND Patsy. If they'd accepted Thomas' theory they'd have voted to indict Patsy for murder and John as an accessory, but that isn't what happened. They clearly had no idea who did what, but they DID apparently agree there was no intruder.
Hunter didn't go to trial because he too had no idea who did what and was afraid to go after the wrong person.
I just want to add one thing to my last post. Bias is present when the facts are ignored and one bases one's thinking on prejudice, i.e., on pre-judging the suspects. I am not ignoring the facts, and if you think that's what I've done, please show me what I've ignored that could make a difference. And by the way, the opinions of so-called "experts" are NOT facts, nor are they evidence -- they are simply opinions.
DeleteI have no opinions whatsoever regarding the personalities of Patsy or John or Burke or anyone else. It is such opinions, of the sort expressed by you when you attempt to characterize Patsy and John as certain psychological types, that lead to bias.
That said, I must add that I fully understand why people like Steve Thomas, and yourself and so many others have become convinced of Patsy's involvement. As I see it, the error of the "experts" in ruling John out produced in many people's minds a strong bias toward Patsy as writer of the note, and also murderer of her child. And literally every aspect of the case has been colored by that bias. So when you see the length of the note as reflecting a typically female tendency to overdo things, that's a clear indication of bias. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the length of any document reflects the gender of the author, and certainly no scientific evidence to that effect. But since you already have a bias against Patsy, it's natural for you to think that way.
As for me, I refuse to express an opinion either way on such matters, because such opinions mean nothing.
And what do you think my 'bias' towards Patsy is based on, if not the facts?
ReplyDeleteAll I have are facts, and I have all of them. There cannot be many amateur criminologists who are as clued up on this crime as I am, so please stop telling me that I do not know what I am talking about.
As for you having no opinion regarding the personalities of the two main suspects, that is something that I regard as strange.
The personality of a killer is what makes them kill. The human psychological aspect of crime is the reason I developed an interest in criminology, which I have been studying for the last 40 years.
Everyone has a bias - as you yourself have - in favour of John Ramsey being the killer. Don't give me this 'I know the facts better than anyone else' business because clearly you don't. Or maybe you are misinterpreting them to fit your bizarre theory.
The fact is that it IS women who primarily write these rambling notes. That is not bias but fact.
Detectives base their cases on facts, yes, but also on gut feelings and these should not be ignored, especially when a detective has had many successful years on the force.
By your reasoning when a suspect is arrested for a crime, the officer must be biased to have looked at this particular suspect in the first place!
It seems to me that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your strange theory is 'biased'.
Anyone with a theory of their own is following the herd and does not have a mind of their own, either that or they do not know the full facts.
Well as far as this crime is concerned I happen to know ALL the facts, the ones that have been in print and on the internet at any rate. That is how I have arrived at my judgement - NOT through any kind of bias.
By the way your last sentence made me laugh out loud. You have given nothing BUT opinions on this case.
Presumably you would not have started this website unless you had an opinion.
The fact of the matter is that you are now out of your depth. You know you have not 'solved' this case any more than I have.
You may like to think that you have solved this case, where the greatest minds in the USA have failed. Wrong! You have simply tried to make the facts of your bizarre theory fit the crime.
And yes, that is my opinion and it's as valid as yours. Ooops, I forgot - you have no opinions do you?
If you believe it's a fact that women are more likely to "write these rambling notes" then, I'm sorry, but you are wrong, that is an opinion, not a fact. A heavily biased opinion, by the way. And if you can't tell the difference then you are blowing hot air, sorry. If you believe it's a fact that Patsy wrote the note simply because a bunch of "experts" hired by a lawyer have said so, then, once again, you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. And if you believe it to be a fact that the examples of Patsy's hand presented by a tabloid as "exact matches" actually are exact matches, in spite of the very clear differences I just pointed out, then you have simply demonstrated a preference for your own biased view of the handwriting evidence. And if you think you can simply overlay one with the other to demonstrate that "fact" I invite you to try.
DeleteI'm not perfect, so it's possible I've missed some important fact that deserves consideration. If that's the case then please inform me regarding what I've missed and I'll correct myself. As it is, I see no fact of the case that implicates Patsy, only lots of conjecture.
I am NOT biased in favor of John's guilt and would happily declare him innocent if conclusive evidence of an intruder ever came to light. In fact, after John Mark Karr confessed, I read an erroneous report on the Internet that his DNA was a match, and immediately, and publicly, apologized to Jameson, on her forum. I was in fact relieved to learn that JonBenet had been killed by a stranger and not her own father, though I was also very puzzled, because no intruder scenario had ever made any sense to me. Jameson explained my mistake, but up to that point I was fully prepared to admit I was wrong.
Nor am I biased in favor of Patsy. Why would I be? I never knew her, and never particularly admired her either. I don't think highly of dressing one's six year old daughter up to look like a Vegas showgirl either. However, such shortcomings do NOT tell us anything either way about her guilt or innocence in this case. Lots of people couldn't stand Patsy, and that became very clear on the forums, and it wasn't difficult to see that their biases with respect to her behavior were influencing their opinions regarding her guilt.
"Ooops, I forgot - you have no opinions do you?"
I have no opinions regarding the likelihood of a woman or a man writing a long rambling note, no. Nor do I have opinions about the sort of issues most people fixate on when they discuss this case. But I DO have opinions, obviously. They are all over this blog -- I make no secret of them. Not all of them are strictly based on facts either. But my feeling of certainty that I've solved the case IS based on facts. Very simple and incontrovertible facts.
My sense of certainty is based on the following:
Delete1. No intruder theory is consistent with the facts of the case, nor does any such theory even make sense logically -- I won't elaborate because I feel sure you agree.
2. Simple logic tells us the call would not have been made if they were in on it together as you believe. If that was their plan, then they wouldn't have bothered with a phoney "ransom" note, because the phoniness of that note became apparent as soon as the body was found. And I'm sorry, but a plan involving calling the police and THEN dumping the body is no plan at all, it would be far too risky. Not to mention the fact that once the note is handed over to the police, it becomes evidence against the person who wrote it. Why on Earth would that person have wanted to hand the police evidence against him or her self? That's doubly true if, as you claim, the handwriting is so obviously Patsy's.
3. Fact: Patsy is the one who made the 911 call. This tells us she must be innocent, because if she wrote that note or even knew about it, she would not have wanted to make that call, for all the reasons given above. And if John were innocent, and told Patsy to make that call, then obviously she'd have refused. At which time there would have been nothing to prevent John from calling 911 himself. But he didn't. And that's a fact.
The above is absolutely basic. But of course there are lots of additional facts and evidence pointing in exactly the same direction, which is what I've been writing about here. All we really need, however, are the very simple stark facts outlined above. And I'm sorry, but these are facts, not opinions. No amount of handwriting analysis will ever change these facts and the very simple straightforward logic connecting them.
DocG, again I thank you. I wish you were in law enforcement. If Louisa has a case, she could present it here, right? She seems more interested in letting you know that you've ruffled her feathers. A serious person who has studied criminology for 40 years has no need to be defensive or offensive. They know how to work with scientific methods. I for one, with my educational background being in science and engineering (and I hold degrees), find that your case is totally logical and very plausible. It reminds me of the Perry Mason show, when there is that aha moment ... what IF the one conclusion, about John's handwriting, is an erroneous conclusion? If Louisa would look at that conclusion, as you suggested she should do, I wonder if she could step away from her opinions, which I noted she gleaned from internet "facts." Seriously, if she thinks everything on the internet is true, then she not even an armchair sleuth.
ReplyDeleteYour words - "Simple logic tells us the call would not have been made if they were in on it together as you believe".
ReplyDeleteI do not believe they were 'in it together'. I believe Patsy killed JonBenet - and her husband covered up for her in the aftermath - simply by stating that neither of them were guilty and that an intruder must have killed their daughter.
You should read my posts a little more carefully because you are ascribing theories to me that I have not stated.
Your words - "but a plan involving calling the police and THEN dumping the body is no plan at all, it would be far too risky"
I certainly did not state this. I said that (in my view) Patsy at first staged it to look like a kidnapping, perhaps with the intention of disposing of the body later. Hence she hid JonBenet in a far corner of the basement. Then she wrote the ransom note. Then she realised the police would of course find the body before she had a chance to hide it, so.......decided to make it all look like a horrendous sex crime committed by some (male) sex fiend.
She may have intended to return to her ransom note and dispose of it but maybe John saw it before she had that chance. This is supposition and events may not have exactly been in this order.
Your words: "Fact: Patsy is the one who made the 911 call. This tells us she must be innocent".
This is one of the most laughable comments you have made so far and I'll tell you why....
During police interviews Patsy reiterates over and over again (because the police ask her this question over and over) that she only read the first few lines of the ransom note before freaking out. The police interviewer asked her again and again if this was true (because presumably, he was lining her up for the question he was aiming to ask.
Then the question came "If you only read the first part of the ransom note, how come you told the Despatcher (in the 911 call) that the note was signed SBTC, victory?"
This is just point that I've pulled out, from memory, about the discrepancies in Patsy's 911 call and her subsequent statements.
Your words: "...because if she wrote that note or even knew about it, she would not have wanted to make that call, for all the reasons given above. And if John were innocent, and told Patsy to make that call, then obviously she'd have refused"
This is a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously Patsy (or John) was going to have to make a 911 call at some point after their daughter died.
And to Anonymous (who I suspect could also be DocG). I doubt if any person with a degree would boast about (quote) "my educational background and I hold degrees". That sounds like an uneducated person trying to convince others. Degree is spelled with a capital D by the way.
My feathers are not ruffled because I have had quite a laugh reading the nonsense that DogG has written. I stated in my first post that I didn't know much about this case so I decided to research it by buying 5 books on the subject from Amazon. So you see, I don't glean all my facts from the internet.
If you re-read the last few posts you'll see that DocG is the one on the defensive. I don't know if it is a he or a she but this person certainly has their knickers in twist!
Why would I wish to 'step away from my opinions' any more than anyone else should.
All I can say is that you'll be glad to hear that this is my last post on this quite barmy website.
If anyone seriously believes that John Ramsey killed his daughter, despite the factual evidence to the contrary, then, quite frankly, they need locking up in a padded cell.
I'll leave you to talk to yourself. I'm sure you'll be used to doing that.
Goodbye.
"I said that (in my view) Patsy at first staged it to look like a kidnapping, perhaps with the intention of disposing of the body later. Hence she hid JonBenet in a far corner of the basement. Then she wrote the ransom note. Then she realised the police would of course find the body before she had a chance to hide it, so.......decided to make it all look like a horrendous sex crime committed by some (male) sex fiend.
DeleteShe may have intended to return to her ransom note and dispose of it but maybe John saw it before she had that chance. This is supposition and events may not have exactly been in this order."
Why do you think she'd write such a ransom note in the first place? What do you think she expected it to do for her? If you read it with some degree of care you'll see that it's consistent with a plan to get rid of the body BEFORE calling the police. And in fact it provides a perfect excuse to get rid of the body before calling the police. Instead, Patsy calls the police anyhow. What's the point of making it look like a sex crime if she's planning on handing a phoney ransom note to the police? In her own hand???? Written on her own pad? Why would she have been foolish enough to do this? If she'd changed her mind and decided on a sex crime staging then she'd have gotten rid of the note and never mentioned it to the police. Instead she hands it over to them. Why? You say that maybe John saw it first, so she didn't have a chance to dispose of it? Any evidence of that? Sounds pretty contrived to me.
"Then the question came "If you only read the first part of the ransom note, how come you told the Dispatcher (in the 911 call) that the note was signed SBTC, victory?"
Well, obviously she must have had it in her hands, and when she was asked "did it say who took her?" glanced at the salutation at the end. Sorry, but I don't see any discrepancy. If she said she only glanced at the note, I see no reason to doubt her. You are basing your thinking on really tenuous "evidence."
"Obviously Patsy (or John) was going to have to make a 911 call at some point after their daughter died." Yes, of course, but I was referring to the call that was actually made, which came while the body was still in the house. If all had gone according to John's plan, Patsy would not have made that call, and John would have had an entire day, and the following night, to get rid of the body under the pretext of delivering the ransom. After the body was safely dumped, he would then, and ONLY then, have called the police, reporting that he'd followed the "kidnapper's" instructions, but they had failed to return his daughter. He would almost certainly have destroyed the note by then, claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned to them (for obvious reasons), but he would have made a copy so they could see how he'd followed their instructions "to the letter."
"If anyone seriously believes that John Ramsey killed his daughter, despite the factual evidence to the contrary, then, quite frankly, they need locking up in a padded cell."
There is no such factual evidence, just various opinions by various self appointed "experts" for whom Patsy-dunnit always looked like a sure thing.
I seriously think John Ramsey killed his daughter, and I can assure you I do not need to be locked up in a padded cell. Of course, that is my opinion, but I could probably round up a few witnesses to support it, if necessary.
DeleteJust an observation regarding handwriting analysis.....our family was recently subjected to learning a relative had hand-written his will and signed it without the signature being witnessed or validated. This is an accepted legal practice in our state.
Sad to say, though, there were some in our family who could not believe that an entire estate worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was left to only one family member. There was talk of having the signature validated by graphologists, aka handwriting experts. To arrive at a validation, they required 20, count them, 20 different documents which contained proven writing of the deceased. A few notarized signatures would not have been sufficient.
So, how did the ransom note examiners arrive at their conclusions with what seems to be so few exemplars, especially in the case of John?
DocG, its Anonymous here. I haven't set up a blogger profile, but wanted to assure Louisa that I'm not you. I'm a female, and I am guessing that you are male but have no "evidence" (smile). The point of bringing up my degrees (its not capital D in this context), is that I've been schooled in the principles of logic and the scientific method. I guess if my only goal was to boast, I could go on about my career and qualifications, but I have no reason to boast here, I just wanted to say that DocG's logic is sound, to me. I used to think Patsy did it, but it was just an opinion then. I could never make any theory tie out, and it bugged me that I could not find consistent facts to support any version of a PDI theory. Again, if Louisa has a fully vetted analysis, she ought to be willing to post it here. Hmm, I wonder if Louisa is really John Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your support, Anonymous. It's nice to find someone who understands about scientific method and the difference between that and the sort of subjective methods used to "prove" Patsy wrote the note. By the way, I see so many "Anonymouserati" here that it's hard for me to keep track of yall. It would really help if people signed their posts, if only with a nickname.
DeleteHi Anonymous,
DeleteThanks for "identifying" yourself. I didn't think you were DocG, as the writing styles were different, and with all the traffic on his blog, I really don't think DocG needs to masquerade as other posters.
Thanks also for pointing out that you spelled degrees correctly. If you hadn't, I was going to. :) Not fair of Louisa to call you out for mentioning your education and then being outright wrong in the same statement.
To DocG, I don't understand the people who say the 911 call was part of the staging because the call was needed to provide the reason JB was killed. That is, they say the "kidnappers" killed JB because her parents disobeyed the RN's instructions by calling 911. How could this possibly make sense? This would mean they expect us to believe the killers were still in the basement when the call was made -- as this is where the body was ultimately found -- and also that she died AFTER the call was made, around 5:45am. The autopsy showed she had already been dead at least 4-5 hours by the time the call was placed.
I know you can't explain how others think, but I've seen a few people mention this theory, on this site and others, and I just can't get over how nonsensical it is.
"I said that (in my view) Patsy at first staged it to look like a kidnapping, perhaps with the intention of disposing of the body later. Hence she hid JonBenet in a far corner of the basement. Then she wrote the ransom note. Then she realised the police would of course find the body before she had a chance to hide it, so.......decided to make it all look like a horrendous sex crime committed by some (male) sex fiend. ..."
ReplyDeleteShe would not have had to "realize" that the police would find the body before she could dump it if she had not called police in the first place.
The crime was not changed from a kidnapping to a sex murder - the note remains a Ransom Note. A sex murder would not have had a note at all, most likely. If there was a note, it would be a sex murder note, not a RN. Also a sex murderer would not have any reason to redress JB, nor hide her body in the wine cellar.
It simply makes no sense at all for PR to have called the police if she was the killer and author of the note.
Yes, exactly. Thanks, you've made the point better than I did.
DeleteDocG, I wanna read your book, can you write one? I have followed this case from the beginning, read all the books, read all the forums...and your work is methodical, intelligent and your theories are backed up with clear , concise reasoning backed up by facts and evidence and , the most important thing missing from this whole case, COMMON SENSE!! Thankyou , for giving me , what I consider, THE most definitive account of this saga. My theory has always been, since day one, pretty much the same as yours...thank you for filling in a lot of gaps for me. As you said in your "Tips for the Prosecution" , If only they would just Prosecute!! I just want to see John Ramsey have his day in court...would be the trial of the century!!'
ReplyDeleteThanks. I keep thinking about writing a book. It wouldn't be hard, since I could draw on things I've already written, on the forums and on this blog. The problem is that there are already so many books out on this case, and also that interest in it has waned considerably with only the occasional flareup from time to time, which then quickly dies down. I would love to see John prosecuted, though. And when that day comes, there might be a market for a book explaining how he did it and how he got away with it for so long.
DeleteAs one of your Anonymouserati, I'll sign off this time. If this case dies down again this time after the recent news of the GJ vote that Hunter dropped, it will never go anywhere. I think you should write a book too! But I would suspect that the RST would be all over you with threats to strip you of everything but your life (?) if you come out and name names. But then, some others have done that, haven't they?
DeleteHowever, I wonder if a good crime/mystery novel, with a careful disclaimer included, might not fly? Count me in for some volunteer proofreading if it means I'd get a sneak peak. On the serious side, before I could ever reconsider John NOT writing the ransom note, I would have to see the resulting reports of the examinations done in the fair and unbiased manner which you previously outlined in other blogs.
Thank you for remaining steadfast in your belief that JR killed his daughter while some of the rest of us took the roller coaster ride that has done little more than make most of us ill and disoriented afterwards. Now that I'm off the roller coaster, my head is done spinning. Its JDI - Felony Murder, minimum charge. MWMM
If team Ramsey tried to sue me, I'd be delighted. Burden of proof would be on them, they'd have to prove I've been telling malicious lies, which they can't because everything presented in this blog can be verified, and I certainly have the right to offer an opinion regarding a public figure. And I would have the opportunity to make my case in public, which I can't imagine they would want. If John is innocent and he would like me acknowledge that I've been wrong, all he has to do is explain himself, by answering certain questions to my satisfaction.
DeleteThus, if I ever write a book it won't be disguised as fiction and there will be no disclaimers. Thanks for your support, MWMM, I'm pleased to see you've come 'round to my point of view.
Rock on! Sounds to me like maybe an author who has a scenario of facts which can be substantiated might have a better chance to get some resolve to this case than the Boulder law enforcement agencies have demonstrated. MWMM
DeleteIf not a book, what about... IDK, maybe a brief? Is that the word I'm looking for? Fifty pages to lay out your case succinctly? If you have friends who are attorneys they could maybe help you, or you could look at some online...
DeleteI just think it would be interesting to have something, in print, that said it all. Bam. Right there. So just in case you run into the DA in a bar and she says, "So, random private citizen, what's your theory?" you can say, "Funny you should ask..." :-)
I pride myself on my imagination and critical thinking skills, so the only think I don't like about your theory is the fact that I didn't come up with it first.
Seriously: kudos.
KH
The handwriting always did resemble JR's. Military references are male oriented. And anyone who uses "hence" a lot, is wordy, male or female. Another thing, why was the word "chronic" (old) used for the description of her injuries?
ReplyDeleteNot saying he did it, but your theory seems to be the most viable I've seen.
JonBenet was assaulted the night of the murder. Those injuries were "acute," obviously. But the medical examiner found other abrasions inside her vagina that appeared to be older, suggesting "chronic" sexual abuse. This at least is how the world renowned coroner Cyril Wecht interpreted the medical examiner's report in his book, "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" Having discussed this case with Dr. Wecht, I can attest that in his view she had been sexually molested prior to the night of the murder by her father, who was also responsible for her murder. I've never been able to convince Wecht that Patsy wasn't also involved in the coverup, but as far as John's involvement is concerned, we agree.
DeleteHow was it that you came to be in contact with Dr. Wecht? Did you just contact him and he replied? I wish Kolar had replied to your queries! I'd love to know what he'd make of your theory.
DeleteAnd for the record, I'd also enjoy seeing this blog in book format. I know the JBR field is pretty saturated, but I also know that people will always be interested in this case, and there isn't currently a JDI book out there. At least I don't think there is.
I don't know how commercially successful Kolar's book has been, but perhaps you might just consider an e-book to begin with. Most of the work is already done, after all! You just need to compile it. :-)
I emailed Dr. Wecht several years ago to make him aware of my suspicions of John and hopefully convince him to help me further investigate this aspect of the case. He then phoned me and we had a very interesting and pleasant conversation. More recently I contacted him again and again we spoke over the phone (I have a feeling he's not an email type of person -- maybe too old?). He's very accessible and also very helpful. But I could never get him to agree that Patsy didn't write the note. He has complete faith in the "experts" who ruled John out.
DeleteAs far as a book is concerned, I am in fact putting something together, and as you say most of the work has been done on the blog. I'm thinking of publishing at first via Kindle, at a very low price, in the hope that as many people as possible will be curious enough to buy it. If I do decide to go ahead with this, the book should be available within a few months. Thanks for your encouragement.
I don't think Patsy wrote the note -- you've convinced me! I think people making conjecture about how women write this way and men write this way are small-minded and have bought into a lot of pop psychology which is, to me, a little sexist. John Ramsey had just killed his daughter -- he was probably a little emotional and on the verge of freaking out!
ReplyDeleteAlso -- at the risk of sounding hypocritical for presenting some psychology-based conjecture -- I don't think that Patsy would have written a note where the motivation of the "kidnapping" was John's supposed business savvy. She would have, imo, written a note where the motivation for the "kidnapping" was her beautiful daughter, the beauty queen, the apple of her eye. They lived in two separate worlds, John's his business and Patsy's was the pageant world, and it is not out of the scope of possibility to suggest that JonBenet would have been kidnapped because of her pageant stuff, because a lot of the intruder theories are based on that very premise! A kidnapper would have had two potential motivations to take JonBenet, John's wealth and JonBenet's pageant work. The note was about John's wealth, imo, that makes him the more likely of the two to have written it.
Also, am I crazy or did I read that John had wanted the family to continue with their plans to go to Michigan?
You make an interesting point. The note does seem to be "about" John rather than the actual victim, who isn't even mentioned by name, incidentally.
DeleteAnd yes you are crazy! :-) But not crazy enough, because the truth is even crazier: shortly after discovering the body, John phoned his pilot, asking him to arrange a flight to Atlanta, where he claimed he had an important business meeting. So his business was definitely on his mind. Since the plan had been to fly to Michigan it's interesting that he suddenly recalled that he had to do business in Atlanta. Strange.
Is the case still unsolved and if it is are the police still working on it?
ReplyDelete