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), 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.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013


Some years ago, I put together a list of what I called "Johnisms," i.e., characteristics of John Ramsey's speech that seemed consistent with certain details found in the "ransom note." I find it remarkable that so many of those who've looked so hard for signs of Patsy in the note, had never made any attempt to do the same for John. Yet as far as I can tell, there are far more "Johnisms" in the note than "Patsyisms." Here are some examples -- pay attention to the words in Italics (unfortunately many of the links I provided are now dead):

from the CNN Interview, Jan. 1, 1997 (
RAMSEY, J: I guess that's what concerns me because if we don't have the full resources of all the law enforcement community on this case, I am going to be very upset.
(“ . . . we are familiar with law enforcement counter measures and tactics.”)

from May 1, 1997 interview (
JR: We think we are a normal American family that loves and values their children, much like most of the families in this country,
(“We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction.”)

from 700 Club Interview part 1 (
JOHN: We tried desperately. Here is the situation. First of all, we are devastated, we can’t hardly lift a fork to our mouth to eat, so we are not making these calculating tough decisions. We had friends around that saw some very serious things going wrong with the police approach to this.
(“We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction.”)
So we had this conflict obviously of what we wanted to do.
(“Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter.”)

And the people who knew what was going on were telling us. It turns out that they were 100% correct.
(“You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter.   Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.”)

from 700 Club Interview part 2 (
JOHN RAMSEY: It has been very difficult for us to keep silent while all these accusations were being leveled at us, every day, every hour, for 3 years, but we were trying to respect the justice system.
(“We respect your business but not the country that it serves.”)

from Nashville TV Interview (
"... You're rendered as low as you can possibly be without dying. Our focus was laying JonBenét to rest properly and that's all that mattered during that time."
(“You will also be denied her remains for proper burial.”)

Barbara Walters interview (
John Ramsey: We respected the justice process as best we could, although it was very difficult not to respond to all the false accusations.
(“We respect your business but not the country that it serves.”)
John Ramsey:
First of all, 100 percent of the time, the police focus on the parents.
 (“You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter.   Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.”)

Newseum interview, Oct. 12, 2000 (
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.

(“. . . and hence a earlier pickup of your daughter.”)

And, a friend of ours, came up with an analogy that I thought was perfect: he said it was like you're the red fox, and you're being pursued by the dogs, in an English hunt…and the dogs are the tabloid…uh, media. And the more proper hunters, on the horseback, are the mainstream media.
(“You will also be denied her remains for proper burial.”)

J: But the police don't…if I can use our experience as a…as applying to the 18,000 police jurisdictions that are out there, which
isn't fair, but…they make a decision, they decide guilt, and try to prove it.
(“You will withdraw $118,000 from your account.”)
And…bring pressure on the police to do the right thing. That's what we hope to do. And, that's  the only…there's no…you know, we've got 18,000 police jurisdictions in this country,


 all of which are autonomous…authorities, in their local communities. There's no higher authority.
(“If you alert bank authorities she dies.”)

And, that's the problem in our situation. And, there…and we…I've always said we can find, convict, and…uh, uh…execute the killer…and there'll still be 15% of the people walking around there, who still believe the parents did it.
(“You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter.   Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.”)

What's been interesting, and thankfully it's given us a lot of faith in humanity, is that…uh, people that have approached us,
(“We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction.”)

 when we're out…you know: traveling or grocery store, or whatever…100% of the time…not one exception…100% of the time have been kind …sympathetic…apologetic.
(“You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter.   Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.”)

In Their Own Words
John and Patsy Ramsey Chat Live on, March 20
John Ramsey:
You have to realize that an investigation was going on and a grand jury was in progress and it simply wasn't proper for us to speak out. It became appropriate at the conclusion of the grand jury to speak out and that is exactly what we have done. An investigation of this seriousness should not be a public spectacle and is certainly not entertainment. We respected the justice process as best we could, although it was very difficult not to respond to all the false accusations.
(“You will also be denied her remains for proper burial.”)
(“We respect your business but not the country that it serves.”)

John Ramsey:
First of all, 100 percent of the time, the police focus on the parents.
(“You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter.   Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.”)

[Added 11-3-2013: I happened to be looking through some youtube videos on the case and came across this one a few minutes ago:

JonBenet Investigation Part 2 ( 

This is part 2 of a 5 part series, narrated by someone named Bill Curtis. Looks like an excerpt from Michael Tracey's A&E documentary on the case, but I'm not sure. The A&E doc as a whole contains some interesting material, but is pretty heavily slanted toward the official Ramsey pov, so its usefulness is limited. What stopped me cold, however, is what John says 4 minutes and 28 seconds in. And I quote:   "To think that they would, uh, withhold her body for proper burial was . . . was barbaric." Yes, he used the exact same phrase found in the note, i.e.: "You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." It's been several years since that interview was taped, and no one has apparently ever caught that -- to my knowledge at least. Does it constitute a smoking gun? Well, no, because other people have certainly used that phrase. But I don't think we can ignore it either, because not all that many people would use that exact wording. One of them is John, who as we've learned from the examples provided above, really likes the word "proper" -- one other is the person who wrote the note.]


  1. What is interesting is those are the exact expressions I might use, and I’m a woman. HOWEVER, I spent many years working side-by-side with engineers, and that’s engineer-speak.

    Could Patsy have picked up engineer-speak from her husband, sure, but she was all about girly girls, herself and Jon Benet. Engineer-speak would have been 100 percent incompatible with the pageant crowd.

    If Patsy Ramsey had tried to write as a male from a foreign faction, that would have been a missive for the ages. (90 percent serious and 10 percent snark.)

    1. I have to smile when I read someone or other's conclusion that the note shows all these signs of having been written by a woman. Mainly because of the apparent "concern" expressed over John being "rested" prior to delivering the ransom. In fact there are a great many typically male expressions in the terminology of the note, not to mention the references to the sort of violent movies most women would gladly avoid if at all possible.

      Since all eyes were on Patsy, however, and John had been "ruled out," no one bothered to notice all the typically male terms and references. And of course everyone assumed the "and hence" in the Xmas message must have come from Patsy. Now we know it most likely came from John.

    2. This is great work. Maybe we should look at John's exemplar again to see how he misspelled the word, "occasions", which matches up with the misspelled double s words in the ransom note?

    3. There was thought that Patsy wrote the note but John dictated it to her, "and hence" the Johnisms and the not ruling out Patsy as the writer.

    4. Yes, that's one theory that's been popular and that would explain the "Johnisms" if it were the case. But there is also no reason to believe Patsy penned the note either. Her writing doesn't resemble the writing on the note and there would have been no logical reason for her to have written it in the first place.

  2. Fascinating! I would love to read of more discovered "Johnisms". Very convincing to me!

  3. There's no such thing as accurately judging a writer's gender. As much as amateur internet sleuths would like to fancy themselves the best gosh darn armchair psychologists with knowledge of BB code, not a single person on the planet can tell anyone with 100% certainty the mental source of something as weird as a fake ransom note.

    I actually agree that John Ramsey killed his daughter and wrote that ransom note. And the only reason for my opinion is the fact that he did not call 911. I think combing through John Ramsey's writings and speech to find similarities is just as facetious as combing through Patsy's. John Ramsey has incorrectly used pronouns at least once? Willing to bet we all have on some kind of record. Willing to bet Patsy Ramsey has too. Willing to bet Burke has.

    "In fact there are a great many typically male expressions in the terminology of the note, not to mention the references to the sort of violent movies most women would gladly avoid if at all possible."

    All due respect, DocG, but please. Patsy Ramsey was just as capable of watching Speed and Die Hard as anyone else with eyes, ears and a brain. Millions of women have watched those movies.


    1. Actually, Erica, I agree with you. The main reason I bring up this kind of stuff is to make exactly the same point you've made. My observations do not tell us the note was written by a male, or even by John. They simply serve as a corrective to all the assumptions by so many that the content of the note reflects a "female touch" or more specifically, Patsy's. Same with the handwriting comparisons I've presented. They are there as a corrective, a reminder that we can't judge simply on appearances, and also to illustrate what a huge mistake it was to rule John out. I've made the point elsewhere that this sort of evidence can't, in itself, tell us who wrote the note.

      What DOES tell us who is guilty are the circumstances of the case, as reflected in certain basic facts. So my reasons for focusing on John are more or less the same as yours. Patsy made the 911 call, John did not. If the two were in on it together, that call would not have been made at that time. And if John were the innocent party, and Patsy wrote the note, then no way she'd have made that call. John would have had to call 911 on his own.

      But that's just the beginning. If you continue to read here you'll see all sorts of other reasons why I'm convinced that John killed his daughter and staged a kidnapping, and Patsy is innocent.

  4. I've read your entire blog, DocG! For the sake of clarification I'm the same Erica who posted about not being convinced of past sexual abuse of JonBenet. I'm also the anonymous poster who's a recent convert to your theory, on the Burke blog post, though I didn't sign my name at the time.

    When I read this post's title, I was sure you'd point out how easy it is to cram one's own idea's into facts. You call it cherry picking, but in the amateur nonfiction writing world we call it confirmation bias. I thought you would cite it as an example, and if you did I apologize because too much wine make brain not think now.

    For shits and giggles I inputted my own past internet comedy writing into two different website engines that can supposedly determine a writer's gender. Both told me the writer is male. (I'm not.) The fact that it's comedy may have influenced the results, but how would code recognize comedy in the first place? I guarandamntee anyone who read anything I write, be it comedy sites to the Timbuktu of lesser known forums would assume I'm a young man.

    Things like that is what shies me away from crime forums, especially JBR forums. Everyone simply *knows*. Knows what? That every female born within a latitude south of Ohio behaves the exact same predictable way? "I'm form the South! Patsy is guilty! That's how Southern guilty women act!" Bullshit. I myself an affluent housewife, mother of four from Louisiana. The idea that I must therefor be able to somehow anatomize the inner-thinkings of Patsy Ramsey because she's from Georgia is insulting. Not only to me and everyone else from the south, but to Patsy Ramsey, regardless of her guilt or innocence. She was a fully functioning human being, regardless of what people want to read into her actions.

    I know you're not the correct target of my above ravings, DocG, but like I said wine make something not work and it's Lundi Gras. And I am a good Catholic. (Or is that not very Southern?)


    1. I'm with you, Erica. You make sense even when dead drunk. ;-/

      I've been carrying on for so long about cherry picking (aka "confirmation bias"), I didn't think I needed to mention it in every post. So I decided to let this one stand on its own without further comment. But, sure, these little excerpts from the world according to John Ramsey are certainly cherry picked. Where confirmation bias, or whatever, becomes a problem is when one uses it to claim one has proven something, not when all one has done is offer some evidence that might or might not be significant.

      I think also that it's unfair to dismiss this sort of thing merely as cherry picking, because cherry picked though it may be, it is also evidence. For example, when we see John using the phrase "and hence," we realize the "and hence" in the ransom note might have slipped in there as part of John's communication style and not Patsy's after all. To me, this is in fact significant. Not decisive, but certainly significant. Same with the percentage figures. If it's simply John vs. Patsy, which anyone not wedded to the absurd intruder theory would have to acknowledge, then as I see it, John's proclivity for percentage figures does count as significant evidence, yes. I defy anyone to find any example of Patsy's use of percentage figures in any of her letters or interviews.

      NOT decisive, no. Not proof, no. But not something easily dismissed either. Same with John's love for the word "proper," as in "proper burial." Sorry, but I find such "Johnisms" meaningful.

    2. Erica -

      Funny. I'm a writer and sometimes a comedy writer and sometimes a sketch comic and sometimes a standup comic. I've had multiple very similar experiences in which people were surprised to find out that I'm female.

      Part of this, though, is because people don't really expect women to be funny. Or if we are, we're supposed to be "funny" while talking about shopping and periods.

      However, I do agree with you: it's not really possible to ascertain gender with a high degree of certainty from a single writing sample. I'm guilty of it, too - assuming gender while reading, to get to the byline and realize I was assuming incorrectly.

      Cheers to you and good luck with your writing, from one good Catholic lush to another.


  5. I found the "Johnisms" meaningful as well. I have never used or ever heard the phrase "and hence" in a conversation to my best recollection. Perhaps because I live "in the North?" I'm wondering if "and hence" is a common phrase in other parts of the country, because it sure isn't in my neck of the woods.
    I found another misuse (by John) of the word "that" instead of "who" in a verbatim transcript of an interview that I found online recently.
    I am wondering if there are other examples of John's misuse of the word "of" that have been noticed. The misuse of the word "of" is to me a more obvious and unusual syntax error than the misuse of the word "that". Just wondering--because I really believe these "Johnisms" are quite unique and in my view, significant.

    1. I actually say "hence" all the time, though I gotta say I've heard it said by others a scant few times. I just say it because it sounds important and makes me seem smarter than I actually am.

      I really don't mean to sound argumentative. But I'm a skeptic at heart in all things, hence my need to frequently play devil's advocate. (See what I did there?)


    2. Very clever, Erica. Glad to have you on my team. :-)

  6. You need to study up on your grammar...John's use of "that" and "of" is correct.

    1. We live in an age where the standards for English grammar have loosened considerably, so technically I'd have to agree. Nevertheless, John's usage is certainly idiomatic -- not everyone uses "that" instead of "who" in such passages, and his use of "of" may be considered technically correct by today's loose standards, but it's nevertheless awkward -- NOT something someone with a journalism degree, like Patsy, would be expected to write.

    2. Someone needs to learn pronouns. I, as a person, do not appreciate being called "that". Perhaps - it is a way of "dehumanizing" someone to call them "that" rather than "who". I see this from guys on internet dating all of the time. I do not date men who use the wrong pronoun because they are ignorant and possibly objectify women. Does John Ramsey this? He "who" married a beauty queen.

    3. Apparently he does, yes. Or at least he did. So did the person who wrote the "ransom" note.

  7. You are the one using loose standards, not John.

    1. It would be more helpful if you could find examples of any of these "Johnisms" anywhere in Patsy's discourse. That was my point in compiling this list. Whether or not John's English is correct or not correct doesn't really interest me.

    2. I was reading an interview transcript of Patsy to look for her use of "that" instead of "who" when she spoke, as in the ransom note. I found a sentence in which she said "they're our friends WHO called us early that morning".
      She did NOT say "they're our friends THAT called us..." similar to what was written in the ransom note.
      Yep--its a JOHNISM all right.

    3. Thanks, that's a very helpful observation. Patsy graduated magna cum laude as I understand it, and was a journalism major. So it doesn't surprise me that she'd have used "who" instead of "that" in such a sentence. On the other hand, the note is clearly deceptive, so we can't jump to conclusions solely on the basis of grammatical structure.

  8. In the Newseum interview, after he said "And hence," he then said, "and uh, and uh..." I wonder if the stutter was due to him realizing he'd just said "and hence." By that time, a lot had been made of that phrase, and I doubt sincerely it had escaped him.

    I'm a woman who has watched a ton of the type of movies that are referenced in the note, and I know I'm a rarity. When I read it, it makes sense that it would be written not BY someone with an unsophisticated grasp of how kidnappings work, but FOR someone with an unsophisticated grasp of how kidnappings work. In other words, what makes sense is a very sharp guy (John) writing it for a reasonably bright but intellectually uncomplicated woman he is trying to scare and control (Patsy). He knows Patsy doesn't watch Dirty Harry movies, but he knows Patsy well enough to know that over-dramatized boogeyman schtick will work on her. "She dies" x3. "Don't try to grow a brain, John." To us, it sounds silly. To a woman like Patsy, in that situation, it's terrifying. As he knew it would be.

    These examples are incredibly telling, Doc. Well done.

    Btw - I'm a writer by profession, and the grammatical errors stood out like sore thumbs to me. Patsy was a journalism major and graduated Magna Cum Laude. She might have made a lot of mistakes staging a murder, but using "that" and "of" in the way they were used in the note most likely wouldn't have been among them.

    As you can tell by my rash of comments, I recently discovered your blog and can't stop reading it. My husband is wondering what I'm absorbed in over here... :-)


  9. Keep reading, KH, and commenting. Your comments are appropriate, intelligent and most welcome. Thanks.

  10. "In the Newseum interview, after he said 'And hence,' he then said, 'and uh, and uh...' I wonder if the stutter was due to him realizing he'd just said 'and hence.' By that time, a lot had been made of that phrase, and I doubt sincerely it had escaped him."

    I like that observation, KH! I think if I'd written a fake ransom note I'd not only take pains to not say similar phrasings, but I'd probably have emotional flashbacks when I'd eventually slip up.

    "To us, it sounds silly. To a woman like Patsy, in that situation, it's terrifying. As he knew it would be."

    I think anything would be terrifying in that situation. No matter what the note read, it would be pretty horrifying to a woman who just discovered her daughter missing.

    I don't think the note was meant to only fool Patsy. I think he intended to either share the letter, summarize, or show copies to friends and family and eventually the police once he disposed of JonBenet. Before 1996, I don't think many people knew how long most ransom notes were. I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem like information within the realm of common knowledge. Before the internet and the JonBenet case schooled many people, I think most smart people would just go with what they remember from popular culture. Personally, I would have cut out letters from magazines because I'm that stupid. But I'd swear it seemed like a good idea at the time.

    What gets me is the language. When reading it it truly does sound like wealthy, educated, intelligent, technically savvy foreigners who may or may not be socialists. I think in the frame of mind that John was in, the highly emotional fight or flight situation he was probably feeling, pinning this on the bad guys from Die Hard seemed like a good idea at the time.

    And good luck with your comedy career too, KH! Also, what's the deal with tampons?! Amiright?!


  11. It seems to me that John Ramsey could have dictated the ransom note to Patsy. In one of the books (or articles) that I read, one language expert opined that two people had collaborated on the note.

    It is my understanding that the Ramseys were scheduled to meet John Ramsey's adult children (from his previous marriage) in Minneapolis, where they would take John's private plane to the family's second home in Charlevoix, Michigan, that very morning. His two older children had already left Atlanta, early that morning.

    The Ramseys had to come up with some kind of explanation as to why JonBenet was missing. Since the Ramseys were due at the airport, they had to come up with an explanation, FAST.

    Since JonBenet was dead, calling 911 and pretending that she was kidnapped looked better than confessing that one of them had murdered her.

    According to many friends and acquaintances of Patsy, she always had to keep up the pretense that she and her family were absolutely perfect, with no faults or problems whatsoever. It's called "keeping up appearances." To confess that one of the three remaining family members had molested and murdered JonBenet would have absolutely horrified Patsy, who was known to be extremely religious, excessively self-righteous and inordinately egotistical.

    They also could have received the death penalty, if convicted of JonBenet's murder.

    The pretense of a kidnapping could have been an effort to keep the Ramseys out of prison; an attempt to protect Patsy's "perfect family" reputation; and also an attempt to protect John's ability to continue making a (very wealthy) living.

    By completely contaminating the crime scene, the Ramseys ensured that none of them could be convicted of the crime, as no jury could actually know, beyond a reasonable doubt, WHICH Ramsey did WHAT.

    Then, when John "discovered" the body, they could claim that the would-be kidnapper murdered JonBenet, for some reason.

    The Ramseys had to come up with some kind of explanation as to why their six-year-old daughter was missing.

    The two alternatives seem to be either claiming that JonBenet was kidnapped or saying to John Ramsey's adult children, "Hey, one of us molested and murdered JonBenet. That's why she won't be joining the rest of the family, today, in Michigan."

    1. As I believe I've demonstrated, if both John and Patsy were in on this together, the 911 call would never have been made while JonBenet's body was still in the house. So no, I find it impossible to accept that John dictated while Patsy wrote. To me, it's clear as day that the note is entirely John's work. And if you think logically about this case you'll realize that if John is the one who molested, sexually assaulted and murdered his daughter he'd have had every reason to keep that information from his wife. And if Patsy figured it out, she'd have had no reason to assist him in a coverup. Any more than John would have wanted to assist Patsy if SHE'd been responsible for his daughter's death.

      Unfortunately, speculation about this case became so rampant so quickly that logic and common sense went out the window during the first few weeks of the investigation.

      And yes, the Ramsey's were scheduled to rendezvous with John's older children -- but a quick phone call could have easily cancelled those plans. They could have said someone was feeling sick, or they could have told the "truth," that JonBenet had been "kidnapped" and they were awaiting the kidnapper's call. There was nothing that would have forced them to call 911 at that time. The note would have given them ample reason NOT to call, and that very clearly was the plan in the mind of the person who wrote it.

  12. Hello DocG. I've just recently become interested in the Ramsey case and I am only now beginning to sift through all the facts, details and opinions. I certainly remember all the media attention at the time. I am currently reading Schiller's book and just found your blog yesterday. I am enjoying your site so far and plan to read through it all as time permits.

    As of now I don't agree with your conclusion that John killed JonBenet. When I have the chance I will share my opinion on where your conclusion is flawed.

    For now, just to comment on your Johnisms, I'm not that impressed. I believe many people misuse "that" and "of", so I'm not seeing anything too convincing there. As for the 18,000 figure he uses regarding police jurisdictions, well, a brief internet search shows that the figure is accurate and not something JR just pulled out of his head because "he just happens to like" that number.

    John's fondness for percentages and his use of "and hence" are the only two things that raise an eyebrow, imo. And raise an eyebrow they do. But it still isn't nearly as convincing as the similarities in Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note, most notably her letter "a". At this point in my study of this case I am still convinced that Patsy wrote the rn, but I am looking forward to reading all that you have to say.

    1. I agree that not everything I've found is equally important. And I would certainly never claim that one could positively identify the writer of such a document simply on the basis of any of these comparisons. But I do think it important to recognize the many elements in this note that reflect John's linguistic style, especially because I see many more of these "Johnisms" than "Patsyisms." And when we add to that all the terms and expressions that males are more likely to use than females, such as "monitor," "execution," "scanned," "electronic devices," "countermeasures and tactics," "constant scrutiny," then I must say if we have to choose between John and Patsy on this basis, I would certainly opt for John.

      As for the similarities with Patsy's handwriting, that's a mirage. I invite you to inspect the comparisons I've put together here: and here:

      I've also carefully examined the reports of the "experts" who fingered Patsy as the note writer and in every case I've found serious flaws in their methodology. As should be evident from one look at Patsy's London Letter, her writing style is completely different from that of the note. John's, on the other hand, contains some striking similarities. Only no one has wanted to "go there" because that would mean challenging the expertise of the "experts" who ruled him out.

  13. DocG,
    I've been trying to catch up on your blog, all the replies and your comments to all the replies. Great reading!

    Regarding the "Johnisms" you point out, at first I was skeptical, thinking that it was a stretch to connect JR's post-murder choice of words to those in the RN. Many people use percentages in their speech, or mis-use the word "that" in their sentences, or use words such as "authorities" or "law enforcement", but one word definitely jumped out at me: "proper" How many people really use that word, especially WHEN TALKING ABOUT A BURIAL??? You hear "lay to rest" all the time, but "proper burial"? Not so much. That just sent chills down my spine.

    You need to write a book DocG. I'd be the first to buy it.

    1. My intention was not to use those similarities to "prove" John wrote the note, but to get people to put the assumption that Patsy wrote it into perspective. While it's true that many people use percentage figures, I can't think of a single instance where Patsy ever used even one. Same with all the other instances in those examples.

      And I agree, John's use of "proper" is especially telling.

      As far as a book is concerned, I'm afraid there is no longer enough interest in this case to warrant yet another book. I think the blog format is just about right for what I want to convey. But maybe that will change, we'll see. Thanks.

  14. I found this from the transcript of 48 Hours, October 4, 2002. They are talking about verifying for sure that the marks found on Jon Benet's body were made by a stun gun. Erin Moriarty is asking Lou Smit if having the body exhumed would help prove that:

    Erin Moriarty: "Wouldn't that have been or the best way to know or come the closest to knowing, is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see if it matches those injuries?"

    Lou Smit: "Sure, I believe that would have probably been the most accurate way to do it."

    Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenét's death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it."

    John Ramsey: "We had buried our child, she was in peace, that was just an abhorrent thought"

    Erin Moriarty: "But John, that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue, because if a stun gun was used, it was not the parents."

    John Ramsey: "Certainly, and we've got people who told us who know what they are doing that with 95% medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question."

    Erin Moriarty: "But you would have known with a hundred percent certainty if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been."

    John Ramsey: "That's my child you're talking about, it's not a body. It's different."

    I can't believe the Ramseys (or was it just John?) would not have agreed to exhume her body if, assuming it could prove a stun gun was used, it would finally lift the veil of suspicion off of them. From what I've read, it was primarily John that was against exhuming the body. Apparently even Lou Smith felt it would be the "most accurate" way to prove what caused those marks.

    Oh, and there's John's use of percentages again!

    1. The "stun gun" theory was always a Hail Mary pass. Not only wasn't there a 95% chance of a stun gun there was hardly even a 1% chance. Smit went shopping for a gun with the right measurements and predictably enough he found one. If they had a suspect who owned a stun gun, and that stun gun turned out to match those wounds, that would mean something. But just going shopping for anything that might fit, that means nothing.

      John knew very well that exhuming JonBenet's body would destroy that theory, so why go along with it? The uncertainty alone would make a great argument for reasonable doubt, if he were ever tried.

      And yes, no question John loves percentages, uses them every time he gets the chance.

  15. check it out--john also uses VICTORY just like the ransom note author

    J. RAMSEY: Well, we were at some friends' house in Boulder. They had their television on. We were sitting on the couch.

    I felt that the system would work, which it did, but had been fully prepared for it not to work and to be indicted. It was a -- it felt kind of like you had just gotten out of school for the summer. You know, how you felt as a kid when you -- the last day of school, you had just finished an episode of your life, and you had kind of a -- nothing on the agenda for a while. And that's kind of how it felt.

    We were certainly relieved. We were grateful to the grand jurors for doing what they were tasked to do. We got in the car and started driving for home.

    P. RAMSEY: I mean, it was not a feeling of joy.

    J. RAMSEY: No, this was not a victory.

  16. J. RAMSEY: No, no. Greta, the key point, people say that 80 percent of the time (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is the parents. In every case, I will bet, where a parent has murdered or harmed a child, there has been a previous history of that. They are known to the social service agency. They are known by their teachers to be abused children. There was none of that. People do not turn into a monster.

  17. CALLER: Hello. I'd like to know, John and Patsy, why is December 25th the date of death on JonBenet's tombstone, not December 26th?

    J. RAMSEY: Well, that's a question we've been asked, and I have -- I chose that date, and I'll tell you why. And I debated that, because I didn't know for sure when she died.

    But I picked December 25th because I wanted the world to remember what happened to my daughter on Christmas day. I can't imagine a more horrible crime than a child being murdered on Christmas night. That was the main reason I picked December 25th.

    I knew we'd be criticized. I knew it would raise suspicions, but I wanted the world to remember what was done to my daughter on Christmas night.

    KING: Was the actual date the 26th?

    J. RAMSEY: We don't know. I don't know. I don't know what's on the death certificate. I do know, when I found her, her body was cool. Her arms were rigid.

    KING: So you're making a statement there?

    J. RAMSEY: We were making a statement. The world went mad on December 25th, 1996.

  18. more percentages from John ( I NEVER use percentages! who does that as often as John and the RNW does? ) quote---JR: Well, what I’ve been told is that, and I felt tremendous guilt after we lost JonBenet, because hadn’t protected her, like I failed as a parent. And was told that that’s, with that kind of emotion you shouldn’t take a lie detector test because you did have that guilt feeling, and, but, so I don’t know about the test, but I did not kill my daughter if that’s what you want to ask me. She was the most precious thing to me in the world. So if the lie detector test is correct and it was done correct, I’d pass it 100%.

    now here is John on the lie detector issue--lie lie lie---from April 1997---ST: John, let me tell you this, I feel like an encyclopedia salesman sometimes, because I‘ve gone to a number of people in this thing, and it’s hard to convince somebody to take a polygraph test. But I’ve been successful on occasion with some people that I’ve been concerned about, and used what I’ve been told, is one of the ten best FBI calligraphers to do that. And I’ll ask you point blank, at some point in this, would you take a polygraph?
    JF: I would be insulted if you ask me to take a polygraph test, frankly.

    now from the LKL show in 2000===JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We have -- we were asked, "Had we been asked to take a lie detector test?" We said no. We were asked, "Would we?" We said certainly we would. We would expect it to be fair, and we would expect the results to be public.
    J. RAMSEY: But in the right -- we have nothing to hide. And if they work and if it will advance the cause of finding the killer of our daughter, we'll do it. Simple.

    1. John continually slants or bends the truth, when he isn't lying outright. While technically it's true he was't asked to take a polygraph in so many words, Steve Thomas did, in effect, ask him -- and he obviously refused. And I love how he uses "we." Patsy said she'd take ten if it helped the investigation. John said he was insulted.

  19. This blog was made 6 years ago and is probably not looked into anymore, but yesterday I was watching youtube videos of Ramsey interviews on CNN and Larry King. I don't know which interview it was, but I think it was a 2000 interview for the press. John states that the police were denying the family the body for "proper burial."