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.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

In It Together?

Almost everyone who grasps the absurdity of the intruder theory feels sure both Patsy and John were both involved, either as murderer and accomplice or as "dutiful parents" desperate to cover for Burke.

But if this were the case, then . . .

1. Assuming one of them is responsible for JonBenet's death, what could possibly motivate the other to cover for the person who killed a beloved and doted upon child?

2. Assuming Burke killed JonBenet, what could possibly motivate both parents to embark on such a complicated, risky and bizarre coverup that could so easily have backfired and sent one or both to the chair? If Burke had attacked JonBenet with a baseball bat, it could easily have been reported as an accident, such as a fall down the stairs, so why go to such elaborate lengths to make an "accident" look like murder?

3. Why would they have wanted to call 911 to report a "kidnapping," knowing that the body of the victim was still in the house?

4. Why would they have wanted to hand the police a "ransom" note hand printed by one of them, knowing full well the body would eventually be found, thus negating the kidnap staging set up by the note and providing the authorities with evidence that could potentially be used against the one who wrote it?

5. Assuming they expected police to find the body, why would they have wanted to hide it in the most remote room in the house instead of simply displaying it openly in, say, her bedroom? By hiding the body they only made themselves look more suspicious.

6. Why would they have resisted being questioned individually by the police for such a long time? If they were in it together, they could have gotten their story straight very early on and thus had no difficulty "cooperating fully" with the police, which would certainly have made them look much less suspicious.

7. Why would they have acted as though they knew nothing about JonBenet eating any pineapple? If they were in it together then what reason could they possibly have had to hide the fact that JonBenet was served some pineapple before going to bed?

The problem here is that those who accept the verdict that John could not possibly have written the note, but feel sure there was no intruder, have no choice but to conclude that Patsy must have written it. And since John's actions and testimony have been so suspicious, and since he supported Patsy so strongly, despite the lack of real intruder evidence, it's been hard to believe that they weren't in it together. This is the conclusion Steve Thomas arrived at, and this is the conclusion James Kolar arrived at. And this is the conclusion, I would guess, most following the case have arrived at.

And once we arrive at such a conclusion then it's easy to find evidence to support it. So, for example, Patsy was observed secretly watching a policeman between splayed fingers, and that's been considered evidence that she knew more than she claimed to know. Or she was seen in the same outfit the following day, leading many to see that as evidence she'd been up all night. Or fibers from her sweater were found entwined in the cords of the "garrote" -- how could they have gotten there if she wasn't the one who constructed it? Her fingerprints were on the bowl containing pineapple, so, obviously, she must have been the one who served it to JonBenet. She claimed to know nothing about JonBenet being redressed in panties much too large for her, which many have seen as suspicious, for some strange reason. And, of course, some handwriting "experts" enlisted by Darnay Hoffmann for the explicit purpose of implicating Patsy, dutifully gave him the results he wanted and concluded she must be the one who wrote it -- despite the very different conclusion arrived at by the official document examiners, who for the most part saw little evidence of that.

If we look at this case dispassionately, without assuming ahead of time that Patsy was involved, then it becomes clear that none of the above constitutes real evidence, just as so much of the intruder "evidence" is so clearly either bogus, questionable or inconclusive. There are many reasons why someone might innocently look at someone else through splayed fingers, many reasons for wearing the same outfit, many reasons why someone's fibers might be found in the vicinity of her daughter's dead body (most likely via indirect transfer from the victim herself), many reasons why her fingerprints might be on a bowl that she had probably placed in a cupboard at some point, etc. There is also no reason to assume she wrote the note simply because the manner in which she formed certain letters might resemble certain formations found in it, which could be coincidental -- such similarities mean little unless one uses other exemplars, from other individuals, as a control, which none of Darnay's "experts" bothered to do.

Once you decide to zero in on a suspect, then I can guarantee it, you'll be able to find all sorts of things that make that person look suspicious. And when you add them all up, you can easily delude yourself that you've made a solid case against him.

The seven points I've presented above are very different. Unlike all the pseudo evidence supposedly implicating Patsy, which can be interpreted in just about any way one might please, they go to the heart of the logic behind the case. They in fact reveal the absurdity of any attempt anyone might want to make that links Patsy and John together as co-conspirators. What they tell us is that both John and Patsy could not have been in it together, because such a theory makes no sense.


  1. Nicely presented. I would like to remark on the size 12s. Not that it's more important than the other points, but it simply makes no sense that PR doesn't know about the 12s if she was in on it with JR. Nor does it make sense that she'd tell police that the 12s were in the underwear drawer if they never were. She knew, at the time of the police interview, that the issue would come up in questioning. She knew by then that JB had been found in size 12s. She must have known the police had already checked the drawer. If they were in on it together she'd have a better answer ready.

    1. Good point. She'd have had a reasonable sounding answer to their questions prepared in advance. Instead, she was clearly confused. I think she herself was trying to figure out what was what with those oversized panties.

  2. WRT #2.

    I don't think this ever gets enough consideration from BDI adherents. Once does not implicate oneself in a capital crime when there is no need for it.

    BR couldn't be prosecuted, so there was no need to cover for him. Even if they didn't know that when they staged, they certainly knew it shortly after they lawyered up. Evidence tampering charges are very much prefereable to murder charges. First time offenders aren't likely to get much for evidence tampering. First time offenders get the same sentence for murder as repeat offenders - life in prison, or possibly death. There's just no way they put themselves at that much risk to "protect" Burke.

    Also if it was BDI why is it staged as a kidnapping yet the body is still in the house. BDI still doesn't explain this. In fact your theory is the only one I'm aware of that explains it.

    A minor quibble, I don't think if BDI it could be passed off as a fall down the stairs or some such. The doctor/coroner would know what sorts of accidents did or did not produce certain injuries. But it could have been passed off as kids horsing around and things got out of hand. If BDI, that's how it would have gone, not staging a phoney kidnapping, then ruining the kidnapping by calling the police before the body was disposed of.

    1. A sensible post. Thanks. As I see it, BDI is just not a convincing theory no matter how one tries to spin it. Yes, kids do fight, and I can see the little boy maybe grabbing his little sister and pounding her head repeatedly on the wall or against a radiator or something like that. But that's not what happened. She was struck with a single tremendous blow to the head, a blow that cracked her skull from end to end. Not a series of blows, but just that one blow. And the evidence points to the maglite with the hard rubber tip, which means the killer had to wield that thing like a weapon. I just don't see a nine year old doing that. That's not the way children fight. And judging from the photos he was far too frail to inflict such a wound.

      But as you say, the clincher is the motivation of the parents to cover up for him in such a complex, bizarre, over the top, and dangerous manner. I think Kolar went with Burke because he was convinced both Ramseys engineered the coverup, and he couldn't think of any reason why Patsy would cover for John -- or an John would cover for Patsy. Yet in his mind, Patsy wrote the note, so in his mind she was definitely covering for someone, and the only one she'd be likely to cover for would be her remaining child. And yes, if it's a matter of providing an alibi or closing a window or getting rid of some incriminating evidence then yes, it might be a viable theory, because parents have been known to cover for their kids. But staging a full scale kidnapping? writing a 2 1/2 page note? devising a "garrote"? penetrating your dead child's vagina? Sorry, but that does not compute.

  3. Kolar goes for BDI for the reasons you state, which are the reasons most everyone does - they can't figure out who did what, when, why, so it's just easier to include everyone and the kitchen sink.

    To be fair, PR's behavior does allow for the interpretation that she was involved. It's not hard to see why people believe that. Yet they never seem to ask themselves why the 911 call would be placed with the body in the house.

    1. Yes, that 911 call is the key. I feel sure it was that call that prevented Hunter from going along with the Grand Jury and indicting the Ramseys. A defense attorney would have had a field day with that call: "Why would my clients have called the police first thing in the morning if they were guilty of staging a kidnapping? Why would Patsy write a phoney ransom note if they weren't planning on getting the body out of the house before calling the police? What good did writing that note do her?"

      My guess is that the judge would have tossed the case out the window at that point.

  4. Actually the phony ransom note and the discovery of the body in the house has done the killer a world of good. No one could figure this case out, no one has ever been prosecuted and the Ramsey's have even been cleared and apologized to by the DA. Seems like it worked perfectly.

    1. Ironically, there is some truth in that. If Patsy had not called the police and John had been able to carry out his plan, chances are he'd have made a fatal mistake somewhere along the line that could have sunk him. As it turned out, the failure of his plan created so much confusion that the police were never able to get a handle on what happened. And with no theory of what happened, no prosecution has ever been possible.

      However, I would not say things worked out perfectly for John, because he wound up losing his business and his reputation, and even today I'd say most people following the case feel sure he was involved in some way. If his plan had gone perfectly he'd now be seen by most as a hapless victim.

  5. I have not read all of your blog yet (but I will!!), but I did want to throw one tidbit out there about JR. Forgive me if this has already been brought up by yourself or someone else.

    I always remember this. Upon questioning about what transpired after they got home from dinner that night, JR states he carried JB to bed as she was already asleep. He then states he took an Ambien and went to bed himself. Why would he feel the need to say that except to maybe convince everyone that he was sound asleep all night? It just seems like a very intentional remark to make. I frequently take Advil before I go to bed and would never think to tell detectives that if I were in a position where I had to recount what I did the night before. Also, my understanding is they had an early flight to catch the next morning and, in fact, I believe they said that's why they went straight to bed. So why would you take Ambien the night before you had to get up early, especially if you are already tired from a long Christmas day? Ambien would surely make it difficult to wake up the next morning. Also, if he could convince everyone that he was sound asleep, he would have the explanation for not hearing noises made by the "intruder" or JB if she screamed.

    I love your blog. You write masterfully and the points you make are key to solving this case.

    1. Thanks for your positive comments. As I recall, John said he took some melatonin, not Ambien. I agree that this sounds a bit suspicious, especially because it's so unlikely that he wouldn't have gotten up at all during the night.

    2. I believe you are right --- melatonin. Thanks for the correction. Maybe it's nothing at all, but sometimes those little "pieces" put together make the big picture.

      Off to read more of your blog!

  6. I'm just curious if you have ever viewed this case from the perspective that the killer never saw removing the body from the home as a viable option?

    I have been playing devil's advocate with you a bit in my recent posts on your blog, not because I totally disagree with your theory. At this point I am not PDI or JDI. I'm still trying to work it out in my mind. I have no problem believing either one of them might have done it. By that I mean that nothing would surprise me should the undisputed truth ever come out. Neither of them fit the profile, so to speak, so one of them did something that night that was completely out of character, as least so far as what we know of their character. But one thing I have learned being a school teacher for many years is that you never really know what goes on behind closed doors. Outward appearances can be and often are very deceiving.

    Anyway, I do certainly believe that there is good reason to suspect John. But where I am differing with you is in the scenario that you have created basically out of whole cloth regarding what would have happened had Patsy not called 911. John would have sent Patsy and Burke away... Let's just start there. How could he even be sure Patsy would go! I can assure you that if it were me, I wouldn't go anywhere! I would refuse to leave the house. I would want to be there when the kidnappers called. I would want to speak to my child. I would have refused to leave the house empty (while John went to get the ransom money, for instance) for fear that the kidnappers might try to call. What if no one answered the phone! I would also want to know exactly what was the plan once the kidnappers did call! Where is John going to deliver the money? What did the kidnappers tell him to do! I would need to know every detail because what if John never came back...!!

    And as if that isn't enough of a potential problem for John, from there you have him crawling through the basement window, getting money from the bank, making phony phone calls to the house, disposing of the body, burning the money, disposing of the blanket, making a copy of the ransom note on his computer, destroying the original for absolutely inexplicable reasons, and having to come up with a story for what the kidnappers said, where they told him to go, and what they made him do that was so exhausting that he needed a good rest to do it! I mean GEEZ! To me that just screams a million different ways of getting caught! And even IF this is the plan, the whole thing depends on preventing Patsy from calling 911 yet John is confident enough that she won't to be in the shower when she goes down stairs!

    You say "just the facts" but none of the above is a fact. It is a scenario that you've created in your mind to fit the "facts" as you see them.

    So back to my original question. What if the killer didn't see disposing of the body outside the home as a viable option? What if killer doesn't see how it's possible? Killer has a dead (killer believes) child on their hands, dumping the body isn't an option, so now what does killer do? Killer knows that a dead child found in home, which killer knows is going to ultimately be the case, points to parent as killer so killer has to do something drastic to point to an intruder...

    If you play that scenario out in your mind, it becomes more difficult to rule out Patsy, imo.

    1. Whether you see Patsy or John or an intruder as the killer, you have to assume that this person had some sort of plan in mind, and in order to evaluate the likelihood of one or the other being guilty, you have no choice but to speculate regarding the nature of that plan. As I see it, the logic points only to John, so I feel sure he's the one. But when attempting to reconstruct his plan, I have no choice but to speculate. I can't prove this was his plan, and some details may well be wrong, but regardless, the facts tell us it must have been John.

      You are assuming the plan would have been perfect, but there is no reason to make such an assumption. He was in a desperate situation and must have been hoping all would go well, but there are certainly many things that could have gone wrong. I've tried to get inside John's head to recreate his thinking at the time, and I do think that what I've written is reasonable. But I could be wrong and maybe he had some other plan in mind.

      The main point is that we can rule out and intruder, we can rule out Patsy and can rule out Burke, but we cannot rule out John.

  7. "You" can rule out an intruder, Patsy and Burke, but I don't know about "we". The truth is that all any one of us can do is speculate and create scenarios in our mind according to whatever makes the most sense to us. This case will never be "solved" as I'm sure you agree, because of the mistakes made in the first 24 hours by the BPD and the Ramsey's decision to lawyer up and their refusal to cooperate with the investigation. All this combined with the unbelievable decision by the District Attorney to share information with the Ramsey's while the murder was still being investigated and the Ramsey's were still considered suspects, this case was a lost cause from the get go.

    I appreciate your commitment to your theory. I understand that your mind will not be changed and I have no intention of trying to change it. I wish I could be as convinced as you. It would be really good to know what really happened to this little girl.

    For me, I just can't rule out Patsy in my mind. There is too much that points to Patsy that I feel deserves serious consideration and an explanation, an explanation that will never come. It was Patsy's paint brush, Patsy's fibers found on the tape and entwined in the garrote. Patsy's notepad, inadvertently given to the police by her husband. Patsy's pen. Patsy that may have purchased the same tape and rope from a hardware store. Patsy's handwriting that cannot be eliminated...

    And in my mind, Patsy that just comes across as so very hard to believe. Patsy that almost vehemently shakes her head "no" when saying "yes" she will take a lie detector. Patsy that expresses concern during her police interview that the world will know about her breast implants... seriously?

    But as much as I can't help but dislike Patsy, I don't see her lying for John if in fact she was just an innocent victim. All I can do is put myself in her place. It's very difficult for me to believe that if John had been molesting JonBenet, Patsy never had even a twinge of suspicion. Patsy was her mother, the one that bathed her, changed her, cleaned her up when she had accidents. It just seems to me that even if she (Patsy) was able to exist in a state of denial while her daughter was alive, deep down inside she would have had to have known! Something would have "clicked" after JonBenet's death. Combined with John encouraging her to lie about the 911 call, lie about the window, in great detail btw, lie about the pineapple... I don't know. If Patsy was that gullible then how easy it should have been for John to convince her NOT to call 911!!

    As difficult as it is to believe that a mother would do something like this, the fact is that they do. Statistically, women kill their own children at least as often, if not more according to some studies, as men. I am not swayed by the emotional argument made by some on your blog that there's no way this mother could have done THAT to her baby. She not only could have, but my gut tells me that she did.

    1. You make some excellent points, but imo opinion when we take all the evidence into account it makes no sense to see Patsy as either the killer or the writer of the note. If you want to argue that Patsy would have wanted to call the police knowing that the body of her victim was lying dead in that house, and knowing that the police would be poring over a patently phony note hand printed by HER, then why not accept all the absurdities of the intruder theory?

  8. Dear Doc,
    How I wish that the current DA would read your analysis in its entirety. The theorists who say that Patsy is not believable, that mothers can and do kill their children, etc. etc. are in as much denial as Patsy herself may have been. Given the evidence of chronic sexual abuse, there is no need for the outrageous theories in this case. This one single fact should drive the investigation down a path of finding out who abused Jonbenet. I find it downright sexist, in a way, that so many theorists can easily accept Patsy as some sort of crazed mommy killer, yet ignore the sex abuse. It is not believable to me that Patsy or any female for that matter would have sexually abused Jonbenet. As you have stated, it is much more plausible that an adult male was doing this to her over a period of time. Since an intruder is easily ruled out for all the reasons you and Kolar gave, all one has to do is consider that that most child abusers will go to a number of extremes to cover up actions that will destroy their own lives if found out. While its hard for me to accept, as a mother myself, that anyone could have been doing this to my little girl without me finding out, it is much more possible for John to have sneaked in on Jonbenet at opportune times (for example, in the middle of the night), than it would be for a "family friend" or some other male in her life to get her alone. Especially given that Jonbenet was so young and was likely around adult supervision at all times whether at school, dance lessons, or elsewhere outside the home. While it is a huge leap to conclude that it was part of Patsy's personality or is the MO of an obsessive pageant mommy to club their child on the head and then strangle her; it is not a huge leap to conclude that the abuser of Jonbenet had a motive to silence her for good. I do not understand why so many people can turn a blind eye to the sex abuse and the obvious motive for silencing Jonbenet, EVEN if it was done with no premeditation. The evidence points to John Ramsey; the circumstances of Patsy calling 911 herself and her inconsistent support of John's version of events all point away from her being in this. Rather, she was put in a position to support John's statements and it is no surprise to me that she came across as lying because she was indeed forced to lie. Whether John manipulated her or she was following a script given to her by lawyers hired by him, she lied and was not particularly effective at it. In any other city besides Boulder, I have to believe that good detectives would have followed the sex abuse angle first and seen that all the behaviors of both parents led to John as being a manipulative, lying pervert who had enough clout, brains, and money to try and confuse this case. He was obviously willing to throw Patsy under the bus by steering the bogus handwriting analysis in a way that would cast doubt on Patsy -- all part of his manipulation. I agree with you that John should be put on trial and allowed to defend himself. Besides, let’s face it, he seems to be drawn toward younger, attractive women, he was not the most trustworthy of husbands, we know little of his personal life and what he did during his travels abroad, so why not look at that vs. Patsy as a overly doting mom who’s life revolved around her children – a common preoccupation for women who are in an unhappy marriage. I’m betting Patsy had some good reasons to be unhappy with John but loved his money and the lifestyle. At a minimum, she probably knew he had difficulty controlling his lusts. That’s the denial part, but she would have a hard time accepting that his lust would go so far. Your work is complete - now the DA needs to do some real work on this case.

    1. Thanks so much for your supportive, and eloquent, remarks. To be fair to the investigation team, John appears to have been their leading suspect from the start, and, of course, with very good reason. It was the decision to rule him out as writer of the note that sent this case into a tailspin. Let's hope the ones who came to that outrageous decision will some day be forced to explain themselves.

  9. You're right, Doc, they did have John as their primary suspect. How in the world Steve Thomas and certain colleagues could choose to summarily accept the handwriting analysis, yet go down some ludicrous path of suppositions about Patsy, is beyond me. And the fact that no one played devil's advocate to question the handwriting analysis is the biggest injustice of all. Stan Garnett should revisit every single conclusion and decision, build the case, and try John Ramsey. Ramsey would be forced to explain himself or take the fifth. Garnett could be a real hero if he wanted to be. My guess is that he not that interested in justice for a little girl to take risks with his career.

  10. Ran across a variation of your theory today, on WS. I take it from the posting that it originates from the days of "Jamesson" (SP?)

    It tracks with yours for the most part. The variance is that instead of PR unilaterally calling 911 in response to the RN, the "spoiler" is BR waking up.

    I don't quite go along with it because it's hard to see why they couldn't still dump the body. PR takes BR to a friend's house for safety then JR "delivers" the ransom, actually dumping the body.

    The theory was just an outline, not fleshed out in detail. I'm not quite sure exactly why the plan had to be abandoned due to BR waking up.

    If BR woke up and didn't see the body, then the dumping could proceed as per your plan. If he did see the body that might be a reason for abandoning the plan and making BR think an intruder did this to his sister.

    One thing that intrigues me about the theory is that, like yours, it recognizes that RNs and bodies should not be found together.

    Some other aspects of the theory which are appealing are; one, it allows for PR involvement. While I personally do not need to see PR involved, for many (probably most) this is an insurmountable obstacle. And I think you'd agree it's very difficult for people to accept PR is not involved. It would also allow for PR's handwriting, which is almost an article of faith. It also allows for why BR's voice is on the enhanced 911 tape.

    The main thing is it recognizes the silliness of staging a kidnapping then offering the body to the police, thus destroying the plausibility of the kidnap staging.

    I'll stick with your theory for now, but I found it interesting that someone else had considered that there had to be a plan to dump the body and that the plan was foiled.

    1. After reading your comment, I went over to WS and was able to find the thread you're referring to, and the post by SeekingJana, which, I presume is the one you have in mind. (

      SeekingJana is confused about Jameson, who was a staunch Ramsey supporter and would never have come up with any theory where they were involved in any way. The theory itself is interesting, though.

      However, everything depends on WHEN BR woke up. If he woke up early enough to see the body before it was hidden, or even if he saw the body after it was hidden, then they'd have had to convince him to go along with their plot, or else he'd have spilled the beans to the cops when they arrived. If they were able to involve him, then there would have been no reason to change their plans, the body would have been dumped prior to the police being called, and Burke would have just played dumb.

      If he'd awakened AFTER the body had been hidden in that basement room, and never saw the body, then there would have been no reason to change plans at all, since he'd have been unaware that his sister was already dead. They could have showed him the note, explained that they were going to go along with the "kidnapper's" demands, gotten him out of the house to stay with friends, "for his safety" and then followed the plan outlined in the note.

      So sorry, but I don't see any reason why Burke's getting up early would have caused them to change their plans in any way.

      And as far as Patsy's handwriting is concerned, I realize that for most people it seems "obvious" she wrote it, however, I see no reason at all to accept that verdict. If you look carefully at the reports of the "experts" who came to that conclusion you'll see how inept they were, and what a powerful role cherry picking played in their assessment. And if you look at the evidence itself, it's clear as day that Patsy's style is totally different from that of the note, both in terms of handwriting and also content.

      I also see no motive for Patsy murdering her daughter on purpose, nor do I see a motive for her wanting to stage an elaborate coverup if it was an accident, either on her part or Burke's. The only one who could possibly have had a motive for both the murder and the coverup was John.

    2. One more thing. It looks as though the theory presented by SeekingJana is based on an assumption that the Ramseys were planning on dumping JonBenet's body on the same night she was murdered, and Burke waking up made it impossible for them to do that. This is not at all the same as the scenario I've presented, which is based on a plan to dump the body the following night, under pretext of delivering the ransom. Dumping the body the same night as the murder would have been extremely risky, since their car might well have been spotted and they'd have had no explanation for why they were on the road on the night their daughter had been "kidnapped."

    3. Here is my theory, I think JB was forced to do something and she resisted. What could be possible in the middle of night but sex. So she got whopped in the head with an object because that would stopped her from screaming. Yes I do believe the person did that was her dad JR. Now he has to finished her so she wouldnt tell anyone about it. The only thing that make sense why patsy acted the way she did is she was involved "she was at the killing scene". The killing scene probably took place at upstair not basement. After JB died they wrapped her in the blanket and carried her down basement. I think JR AND PR were up all night, remember that PR still wearing the same outfit from previous night when cops arrived. I do believe JR strangled JB with the garrote because I remember seen one video JR was driving a boat with PR on it. So he should familiar with how to tide a rope as when you park the boat you,ve got to know how to tide. Also reason I think JR killed JB is because he was not the one called 911. When you,ve just killed someone you're in shocking mode so that's why PR CALLED 911. PR also wrote the ransom note but JR was the one told her what to write. For why they didnt dispose the body problably because PR didn't want to or maybe both of them didn't want. Because after all it was just an accident and of course they loved their child, they dont want to bury or dump her body out there in the cold wood swamp. My last theory would be PR killed JB because of rage, wetting the bed etc.. But if she did killed JB then wrote the RN and called 911 she got to be crazy. How can a person had just killed someone and still could write a 3 pages RN, called 911 that's unbelievable. Lastly for the intruder part, no I don't believe it was intruder. It was too smooth for an intruder to committed a crime like that. Something in my mind kept questioning could all 3 PR JR JB were up late that night together and something went wrong. I guess nobody knew but them, I also want to point out something money was I involved and corruptive that's why case unsolved.

    4. You've obviously given a lot of thought to this case, but as with so many of the theories I've read, your theory leaves too many questions unanswered. To get a better sense of all the issues involved in this very confusing case, you need to do more research.

  11. Hello Docg, I agree there are alof of theories and believe me I've read alot about this case. It's like a very interesting puzzle that everyone wanted to solve. I think it's all come down to which theory makes the most sense because obviously this case went banana, all the evidences they've screwed up. This case remind me about Jeffery McDonald case, they're very similar. Accident killing and then cover up, staging the scene, make up intruder etc..

  12. PR wrote the ransom letter dictated by JR. The reason for the letter was to make a convincing and panicked 911 call. Without the letter they would have to call 911 and say they just noticed their daughter missing, and they'd surely be asked if they looked through the house everywhere for her, and how could they say they have, with a JBR dead in the wine cellar? If you ask yourself then why did they not just call 911 and say they found JBR dead in the wine cellar, then the logical answer is that they thought it would look suspicious for them to have found her there especially when you consider why would parents check to see if their child was still in their bed in the wee hours of the morning?

    1. The problem with this theory is that there is nothing convincing about a ransom note when it's accompanied by a dead body, hidden IN the house. Once the body is found, then it looks like that ransom note is phoney, thus casting very strong suspicions on those living inside the house, i.e., the parents. And if Patsy is the one who penned that note, then we have to assume she is pretty stupid, because that note then becomes evidence pointing to HER.

      As far as the wine cellar is concerned -- if both Ramseys were in it together, they would have been in complete charge of the crime scene -- and there would have been no need to hide the body at all. They could have placed it on her bed and reported an attack by an intruder, who entered via the broken basement window. No need for a note.

      The note makes sense only if the one who wrote it was NOT planning on calling the police right away, but intended to get the body out of the house first. Since that didn't happen, we can only conclude that something must have gone wrong. And since Patsy is the one who made the call, we can only conclude she must be innocent.

  13. It would be much harder for the Ramseys to explain how they did not hear JBR being murdered in her bedroom, as opposed to down in the cellar where it's plausible that they could have slept through the noise. As for the ransom note, the Ramseys just figured that if the body was found in the cellar, then the perpetrator's intention was to get paid off with the ransom money before the body was found in the house. The Ramseys don't need to explain why the kidnapper would choose to kill JBR but only to say that it must be some loon. When no phone call comes in from the kidnapper about further instructions to get the ransom money to him, then it could be that he got scared and did not follow through. The Ramsey's imaginary kidnapper does not have to be a person of sound mind, and since he's just killed a child, how can anybody expect him to be logical and sane. When you consider these things, I don't think the Ramseys thought that the RN would point to them. A final point I'd like to make is let's not assume that the Ramseys had a lot of time to think completely rationally, in fact the ransom note idea may have been something they decided on the fly without much thought to how it would play out later.

    1. "It would be much harder for the Ramseys to explain how they did not hear JBR being murdered in her bedroom, as opposed to down in the cellar where it's plausible that they could have slept through the noise."

      Good point! That does make sense, I admit.

      "As for the ransom note, the Ramseys just figured that if the body was found in the cellar, then the perpetrator's intention was to get paid off with the ransom money before the body was found in the house."

      Yes, that also makes some sense. In fact it's a scenario I've already considered -- but rejected. For the full scenario and my response, see

      " The Ramsey's imaginary kidnapper does not have to be a person of sound mind, and since he's just killed a child, how can anybody expect him to be logical and sane."

      It's clear from the note that the killer was not someone out of his mind. It is very far from being a mindless scrawl. The writing is largely consistent, the spelling is correct (with only a couple minor exceptions), the grammar is correct, and the whole thing is carefully thought out, with a clear beginning, middle and end. He was also aware that John's bonus was $118,000, which suggests someone who worked for or with John, not some derelict off the streets.

      And if the ransom note was some last minute, illogical decision on their part, it would have been much shorter and much less detailed. The person who wrote it definitely had a plan in mind. Regardless of the circumstances in which the note was written, it would clearly make no sense to write such a note and then call the police, while the body was still in the house.

    2. Respectfully, it does not really make much sense that the "kidnapper" expected to get paid off before the body was found.

      Fist, a normal (but not universal) reaction would be to hope it's all some sick joke and search for the missing child. A thorough search shortly after the note was found should have turned up the body.

      Second, once the police were called, had the police acted professionally, the body should have been found very quickly. That the police didn't find the body was a bit of a fluke.

      IMO a plan that has the phantom kidnapper expecting to collect while the body is in the house, fairly easy to find, isn't believable.

    3. I agree that such a plan is highly unlikely. But since it can't be ruled out completely, it must be at least considered. Which I did in my post titled "New Improved Intruder Theory."

      And as you can see from that post, there are serious problems with that theory, as with any intruder theory. There was no intruder in the house that night.

  14. " Regardless of the circumstances in which the note was written, it would clearly make no sense to write such a note and then call the police, while the body was still in the house. "

    This is a point you keep making and you seem inflexible on. Don't assume that the Ramseys would do what you would do under these circumstances. To me, given that the Ramseys were not going to extend the staging out as far as not calling police and instead delivering ransom money to an imaginary person (they realized that far too many potential obstacles could arise with doing this), the idea was to be on with this and get the police there to see the note and be on with their investigation, sharply steered in the opposite direction of the Ramseys.

    " It's clear from the note that the killer was not someone out of his mind. It is very far from being a mindless scrawl. "

    Some of the smartest people can have the most trouble with psychological issues. Think Ted Bundy here. The note concocted by JR and written by PR makes the kidnapper (then killer once the body is found) seem intelligent, familiar with the family, but perhaps with a bit of a screw loose. The part about the "foreign faction" is written to make the reader feel that the kidnapper is "off balance" enough to think we would buy it, so it plays up to us in this way so that we are to see that it's someone who is not a total stranger. I don't think they meant to portray him as insane but certainly someone who would kill without batting an eyelash. So you see, the note is written craftily in order that we should draw certain conclusions, it panders to us in that way. But if the body showed up which of course it did, then we are to think that this person was the type to have come to the house with the intention of leaving the note first and then abducting the child, but when things "went wrong" (perhaps by JBR screaming unexpectedly loudly) then was just "crazy" enough to kill her on the spot and dash out of the window,
    or some similar scenario, which would be consistent with the tone of his ransom note.

    1. The note could not possibly have steered the police away from the Ramseys once the body was found in-house. And it's impossible for me to believe that the Ramseys would make such an assumption. This is not just me assuming they would think the way I do, it's me arguing that anyone going to all the trouble of writing such a long, detailed note would then be willing to nullify its effect by allowing the police to find the body inside the house, thus demonstrating to the world that there was no kidnapping after all, and the note was a fraud. It's me arguing that Patsy would have never been so foolish as to hand the police a note obviously (as has been alleged) written in her own hand. If John had been able to carry out his plan that note would have been destroyed and no one would ever have known it was written on a pad from the house.

    2. " The note could not possibly have steered the police away from the Ramseys once the body was found in-house."

      The note did precisely that! Hundreds of hours were spent on examining the note, needlessly. And just because it may have been perceived (by investigators, by the public, etc) as a fraud on account of the body being found in the house, doesn't mean it points to one of the three Ramseys as being the author.

      I will reiterate what I proposed before, that this was not a family that was going to take the body of their child and go hide it or bury it somewhere, that's just not what "classy" and wealthy people do. They would have no part in that. Therefore the body was going to be found sooner or later, and better sooner in the eyes of the Ramseys. An alternative they probably discussed was to call police and say their daughter is missing, and let police find the body --- but how does this scenario make the Ramseys look any more innocent that they would opt for it? They already knew they'd be suspects, so in their minds, why not throw a ransom note into the works to muddle the investigation?

      It's been established beyond reasonable doubt that the note was written by Patsy, this is the main flaw in your theory that John Ramsey did this crime alone. But perhaps just as powerful is that neither of them alone could have done this crime without the other knowing and coming out publicly against the other one, or covering for the other one. You tell us that Patsy would not have been so foolish as to hand police a fraudulent ransom note in her own handwriting, yet you expect us to believe that she would be oblivious to her husband's commission of this crime, or crazy (or desperate) enough to stand by him knowing he's killed her precious daughter?

  15. Interesting. First you claim that the note steered the police away from the Ramseys. Then later you claim that Patsy's authorship has been established beyond reasonable doubt. If that were the case then obviously the note did NOT steer the police away from the Ramseys. And if that were the case she would certainly have been tried and convicted.

    The ONLY reason the note didn't lead to an indictment of the Ramseys was the fact that John was "ruled out" as writer by the "experts," a decision that was for some odd reason never questioned by anyone investigating the case. I have it on good authority that John was in fact the principal suspect at the outset and no doubt one of the main reasons was that note, which was clearly phoney. Once he was ruled out as writer, the investigation literally had nowhere else to go except on a wild goose chase after either an intruder or Patsy, both equally unlikely. Since there was no case to be made against Patsy, and no real evidence that she wrote the note, there was no indictment at all. The notion that there is some sort of overwhelming evidence she wrote it is a myth, perpetrated by one person: Darnay Hoffmann, the lawyer who hired his own "experts" with the express purpose of "proving" that she wrote it. The experts hired by law enforcement had a very different opinion, however, and for very good reason. There is no reason to link her with the note. If you do a search in this blog for "ransom note" you'll see why.

    "neither of them alone could have done this crime without the other knowing and coming out publicly against the other one, or covering for the other one."

    On the contrary, the notion that if one did it the other would want to cover for that person is highly questionable. JonBenet was a beloved and doted on child. If one of the parents killed her, for whatever reason, and the other knew about it, that person would certainly have turned him in.

  16. " On the contrary, the notion that if one did it the other would want to cover for that person is highly questionable. JonBenet was a beloved and doted on child. If one of the parents killed her, for whatever reason, and the other knew about it, that person would certainly have turned him in. "

    I fully agree with you, and you misread my statement, please re-read it. We already know that one did not turn in the other, so that leaves one of them covering for the other which is unlikely, suggesting that they were complicit in the crime and/or coverup (I suggest coverup only).

    As for the RN I know there were a lot of politics that went along with it, such as one expert agreeing to another expert's evaluation. I should have said "established beyond reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion". It turned out that the Ramseys were correct in assuming that the RN would not be proved to be PR's handwriting (sufficiently for an indictment).

    In the end, what the Ramseys did, worked. Of course much of it was due to lawyering-up and other tactics. If we ask ourselves how the case would have turned out if there were no RN, and they simply called 911 saying their daughter was missing, then I believe it would have turned out the same, in other words no indictment, given the same lawyering-up. The Ramseys no doubt felt their odds were better by going with the RN and as I suggested earlier, they weren't writing the Magna Carta: I believe it was a decision they made on the fly, and had plenty of time to craft it before calling police.

    1. "We already know that one did not turn in the other, so that leaves one of them covering for the other which is unlikely, suggesting that they were complicit in the crime and/or coverup (I suggest coverup only)."

      No, there is another alternative: one is guilty and the other innocent. Why would you assume that, if one of them murdered their daughter, the other would necessarily know about it? Patsy claimed that she was asleep all night, that John came to bed after she'd gone to sleep, and that she awoke to the sound of John taking a shower the following AM. If that's true (and I for one believe her) then how could she possibly know what happened that night? And if it's a lie, then what would have been her motive for either killing JonBenet or covering for John? Bedwetting? Family honor? Give me a break! The only motive I can see would be incest-related, which is consistent with the medical examiner's findings of chronic damage to the vagina. That points to John, NOT Patsy. And if that were the case I see no reason why Patsy would want to cover for him.

      While it's true that Patsy bent the truth to support John's version of what happened, that does not mean she suspected him of the murder. It looks to me like he (and possibly the lawyers as well) manipulated her into going along with the "official" story. I discuss this situation on this blog, for example here: A key factor was the decision to rule John out as writer of the note. Since this verdict has been universally accepted without question, then Patsy would have been convinced that the note could only have been written by an intruder. This made it particularly easy for John to manipulate her into telling some "white lies" to support his version of what happened. They were, after all, "in it together" as far as the police were concerned so they needed to support one another.

      If John had not attempted to stage a kidnapping, but had taken more trouble to concoct a convincing window breakin and reported a home invasion, then I have a feeling he might have fared much better, because it has always been the existence of the note that has made so many so suspicious of "the Ramseys." Without the note there would have been no evidence at all to link either of the Ramseys to the crime. The authorities would certainly have been suspicious, but without solid evidence they would have been stymied. As it turns out they were stymied anyhow, but that is ONLY because John was "ruled out" by those "experts." If they had not ruled him out then I think it would have been clear as day that he was the only one who could have written that note.

    2. Vern, I want to add that I understand why you and so many others are convinced that John and Patsy collaborated on this crime, and that Patsy must have written the note. I admit that aspects of my theory do seem to stretch the bounds of credibility. As I see it, there are two aspects that are especially difficult to swallow: my insistence that John wrote the note, despite his being "ruled out," and my insistence that Patsy's lies are due to her being manipulated rather than her being complicit in the crime.

      I wish the case were more clear cut and that there were no such grey areas, but all attempts to treat this case in a straightforward manner have gone nowhere. There is in fact NO clear path through this thicket. Those convinced that "the Ramseys" did it have no trouble seeing the huge holes in the intruder theory, and those convinced of their innocence have no trouble seeing the huge holes in the case against Patsy. So if we are ever going to get to the bottom of this very mysterious case, then something has got to give.

      Which is why at a certain point I decided to get dogmatic and insist on focusing on the facts of the case rather than any of the opinions offered by "the experts" or anyone else. If we stick to the facts then as I see it, the truth becomes clear.

      In the words of Sherlock Holmes: "Once we rule out the impossible, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable it might see, must be the truth."

  17. Haven't there been multiple handwriting analysts, including those from the FBI & Colorado authorities who identified Patsy as the likely author of the ransom note? Or at least who couldn't exclude her? I'm open to your theory that John wrote it, but it doesn't seem anyone else has gone in that direction so far.

    1. The handwriting analysts hired by the investigative team concluded it was unlikely that Patsy wrote the note. The Secret Service analyst saw no evidence at all that she wrote it. But they couldn't rule her out. However, they DID rule John out. What has always bothered me is the fact that this decision has been accepted without question despite the fact that the report of these "experts" has never been made public, nor do we know any of their reasons for ruling out the person who at that time was the most likely suspect.

      If you give this matter some thought it might occur to you to inquire regarding the scientific basis for such a ruling. Because to rule someone out, essentially claiming this person could not possibly have written that note, strikes me as extreme to the highest degree. I wonder whether there is any precedent for such a decision and I also wonder what possible science could be behind it? We are talking not about a forgery, but about a document written in such a manner as to deliberately deceive. Without knowing what methods were used to produce such a deception, how can anyone possibly tell for sure that any given person could not possibly have written it? Also I don't know of any modern science that operates on the basis of absolutes. Scientists work with percentages, and 100% hardly ever emerges as the result of any scientific test.

      And yes, hardly anyone else has ever questioned that decision, certainly no one involved in any of the investigations. And as I see it, this is the reason that case has gone nowhere. SOME thing in this case has to give before we can understand who did what, and in my view the decision to rule John out is that thing. Once we rule him back in then everything becomes clear.

    2. It just seems like John Ramsey has always been untouchable. This has been one of the themes in the investigation from the very beginning. He was so wealthy and well-connected. I've read on other sites that DA Alex Hunter even had real estate & business dealings with some of the Ramsey attorneys?

    3. Well, what happened was that the investigators were overly intimidated by John and his high end legal team, that's for sure. As a result he was able to stonewall the investigators for months. And even when he and Patsy were questioned, it was done with kid gloves. John hemmed and hawed and "couldn't recall" over and over again and was never pressed to provide any details. What a sham!

  18. I'd like to point out that some reports say that JBR had chronic damage to the vagina, whereas others say that all of the damage could have been done that night, depending on which medical professional you talk to. And recall that most reports said that penile penetration was not likely. Recall Patsy was growing increasingly frustrated with JBR because she was acting up and not obeying Patsy's wishes, including wetting her bed and soiling her underpants. Patsy supposedly regularly cleaned JBR's genitals abrasively with a wash cloth and may have penetrated her digitally in this way. The housekeeper notes that Patsy was increasingly frazzled and marks her as the killer. I feel it's more plausible that Patsy did the killing and John covered for her, than vice versa (or both of them involved in the killing which is the least likely). John had no history of child abuse whatsoever and no pornographic material was found on his computers. More plausible is that Burke did the sexual abuse (either just once or chronically) and then the killing on Christmas, and both parents covered for him. Recall the body was dragged down the stairs, reportedly, which points to Burke. Much more is brought out in the book by Kolar entitled "Foreign Faction" which convincingly points to Burke as the killer of his sister. I've already explained why Patsy called 911 right away, which was because they wanted to get things moving along and there was no way they were going to remove the body from the home and dispose of it. I will concede one thing: and that is that the presence of the ransom note could be supportive of Patsy doing the crime alone because of the way the note is worded towards John, as if to say to him that she did this crime and he'd better cover for her "or else" (maybe she had some dirt on him related to something else). If you don't insist that the Ramseys used perfect logic and forethought in what they were doing, then these pieces start to fall into place. The Ramseys, though wealthy, were not brilliant minds or master killers; they were essentially ordinary people.

    1. There are many Patsy did it or Burke did it theories, Vern. None of them really make much sense when one tries to actually fit all the elements together in a convincing manner. That could be true of my theory as well. But at least I've attempted to address all the various possibilities in this blog and if you look carefully enough you'll see what the problems are.

    2. But is there not a risk that you are too focused on John Ramsey as the architect of the entire crime and the ransom note? I agree with you that it may be a mistake for people to focus on Patsy as the perpetrator, but I also think it is risky to assume John Ramsey did all of it.

    3. I never assume. You won't find a single assumption on this entire blog. If you do let me know and I'll correct it. And I did not focus on John, in fact I initially accepted the verdict that he'd been ruled out and could not have written the note. It was only when I first laid eyes on a sample of his printing that I began to suspect he might have written the note. And then as I retraced my way through the evidence with that possibility in mind it all came together.

      Of course, I could be wrong. But the purpose of this blog was to go through as much of the evidence as possible in order to check and see whether I missed anything essential. I don't think I have, but again I could be wrong.

    4. I must add that it isn't my interest in John per se that has motivated me, but the extreme unlikelihood that these two relatively normal individuals, neither of whom has any record of criminal behavior or mental illness, could both go insane at the same time, to the point of collaborating on the sort of bizarre and gruesome coverup that's been assumed by so many, complete with vaginal penetration, strangulation with a garotte-like device and the fabrication of a 2 1/2 page "ransom" note.

      Obviously one of them did it. But both together, working in tandem? That's one of the things that caught my attention and that's one of the things that has most influenced my thinking on this case.

      I was also struck by their reluctance to be interviewed separately by the police. If they were in on it together, they'd have been able to get their story together and would have had no problem talking to the police. It's only if one is guilty and the other innocent that there would be a need for a delay.

      These are the sorts of issues that occupied my attention, NOT simply my suspicions of John.

    5. Vaginal penetration would have been part of the perpetrator's crime, not the coverup.

      I don't think it's insane to think that both parents went to these lengths to cover up the crime committed by their son. If however, the crime was committed by JR, I think it unlikely that PR would have assisted him in a coverup (assuming she knew he did it). However if PR did the crime, it is more probable that JR would assist her in a coverup (assuming he knew she did it).

      I don't think both parents committed the murder, but certainly both of them participated in the coverup (for either Burke, or one of the parents). Therefore regardless of which scenario, there would be no situation where they would feel comfortable being interviewed separately, except if the intruder theory is true, or Burke did the crime unbeknownst to them, or the following unlikely scenario is true:

      If JR did the crime and PR believed it was an intruder, or PR did the crime and JR believed it was an intruder, then they should have no problem being interviewed together because there is no story to keep straight and the killer only needs to recite his/her recollection of what happened (minus his or her diabolical act).

      It's only where they're both lying that they need to keep their stories straight and would be hesitant to do interviews separately.

      Therefore if what you suggest is true -- that JR did the crime and PR believed it was an intruder, then why did they resist being interviewed separately?

    6. That should read:

      "If JR did the crime and PR believed it was an intruder, or PR did the crime and JR believed it was an intruder, then they should have no problem being interviewed SEPARATELY because there is no story to keep straight and the killer only needs to recite his/her recollection of what happened (minus his or her diabolical act). "

    7. Yes, vaginal penetration was clearly part of the crime, not the coverup. Which implies sexual molestation, which in turn implies a mature male, NOT a female, NOT a nine year old child. In order to implicate Patsy, it was necessary for Steve Thomas to insist that the vaginal injuries were part of the coverup, so he would not agree with you on that score. Of course there is some possibility Burke could be responsible for the vaginal attack, as Kolar argues, but it's far more likely to have been John, who Kolar essentially whitewashes.

      As for the rest, we obviously think along very different lines, Vern, so what seems likely to me seems unlikely to you and vice versa. I can't imagine two otherwise sane people collaborating on such an elaborately extreme coverup plan, certainly not for one another, but also not for their son either. And I can't imagine why John would want to cover for Patsy if she is the one who killed JonBenet, accidentally or on purpose. But hey you have a right to your own opinion.

      My way of getting around such differences of opinion is to focus mainly on the facts and logical inferences based on those facts rather than get bogged down in endless disputes over the psychology of the Ramseys and their son.

      As far as the interview with the police is concerned, your take on this really puzzles me. If one is guilty and the other innocent then the innocent one might innocently reveal something the guilty one prefers to remain secret. So the guilty one would NOT want the other to be interviewed on her own, no way. I'm thinking specifically of the question regarding whose idea it was to call 911 and also the story about John breaking that window the previous summer. If Patsy's story varied from John's he'd have been in serious trouble.

      On the other hand if they are in it together, it would be easy for them to concoct a story to tell the police and then they'd have "fully cooperated." Hard to see why you can't understand that.

    8. "I don't think it's insane to think that both parents went to these lengths to cover up the crime committed by their son."

      It's almost a clinical definition of insanity. Both parents implicate themselves in murder to "save" their 9 year old son who by law cannot be charged with jaywalking, much less murder. That would be absolutely insane.

      BDI exists as a theory because people figure both JR and PR are in on it together, and they can't figure out why that would be unless they are covering for someone else. The only other person in the house is BR so BDI becomes the theory that seems to "fit", unless one considers the insanity of it.

    9. I feel it was not so much saving Burke from prosecution, as they probably knew he couldn't be prosecuted. However, they would have wanted to protect Burke from knowing that he killed his sister, because this could mess him up for life, and he was already a bit messed up. Having someone else be responsible for her death would take care of this, though it still would be shocking for Burke to realize that his sister was killed in an attempted kidnapping. I think the Ramseys got a lot of psychiatric help for Burke probably to make him realize that he didn't kill his sister. And as for the Ramseys risking themselves going to jail for murder, they surely felt it was worth the risk, because this was their last child, with Elizabeth, and now JonBenet, both being dead. They figured if they stood together in the coverup, and lawyered-up nicely, they should be able to make it fly. And they realized that for a conviction of murder against either or both of the Ramseys, hard evidence would be needed and they knew that would be very lacking (and, after all, neither of them killed her). So, it makes sense to me!

    10. If Burke had killed his sister, how on earth could they have protected him from remembering what he had done?

    11. " If Burke had killed his sister, how on earth could they have protected him from remembering what he had done? "

      It's called buying good therapists. After the wallop to the head, Burke was not sure what he'd done, or if JB was wounded or not. The parents made him go back to bed, and they took over from there. The next day or soon after, Burke would be told that his sister was kidnapped and killed, and probably did not connect the two events together. I wonder what he thinks today, he can't be serious when he tells a friend that he remembers nothing of that night, unless his therapy was that good - even the best money could buy.

    12. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that. A science fiction fantasy is NOT evidence.

    13. " If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that. A science fiction fantasy is NOT evidence.":

      Speaking of evidence, you have little to NONE of it to show that John was abusing his daughter, let alone killed her on the night of Dec 25. It's all supposition, and it's majorly flawed.

    14. The key evidence in this case is presented in the first two posts, and this and other evidence is discussed further in many places on this blog.

      The 911 call is evidence.
      Patsy's explanation of that call, as presented in the documentary film, is evidence.
      The acute vaginal injuries are evidence.
      The chronic vaginal injuries are evidence.
      The ransom note is evidence, informing us as to the nature of John's plan. Such a plan would have done nothing for Patsy. It was tailor made for John.
      The broken window is evidence.
      John's testimony regarding that window is evidence. Same with many other statements and prevarications in his testimony generally.
      John's fibers in the victim's crotch is evidence.
      The fact that the body was hidden in the basement is evidence.
      The fact that the body was redressed in panties much too large is evidence.
      The gaping head wound, which could not have been inflicted by a child, is evidence.
      The wiped down maglite is evidence.
      The knotting in the "garotte" is evidence. It's unlikely either Burke or Patsy would know how to tie such a knot. John was an ex-Navy man and sailor.

      What you are saying is that there isn't any "smoking gun." But even there I would disagree, as John's story about breaking the window earlier is clearly a pack of lies. And since an innocent man would have had no reason to lie about that, this is the smoking gun.

      Put it all together and you have a compelling case based on circumstantial evidence. That's good enough for me.

    15. " Put it all together and you have a compelling case based on circumstantial evidence. That's good enough for me."

      The problem is, save for one or two of those items you list, the same could be said of Patsy instead of John. So it goes back to that it had to be John because Patsy called 911. And that an RN would be incriminating with a body in the house. Both assumptions are not necessarily true. You have too many eggs in too few baskets in showing that John was the killer, yet you're so convinced he is that you're ready to send him to the chair. I suppose that if that could be done, it would take some heat off the real killer, Burke. But it seems he probably doesn't care, as he's created a little life for himself and is doing fine. Unfortunately for JonBenet, however, it took him awhile to work out of his growing pains.

    16. "The problem is, save for one or two of those items you list, the same could be said of Patsy instead of John."

      Acute and chronic vaginal injuries are evidence pointing to John. Not Patsy, not Burke. Theoretically, the mother or the 9 year old brother could have inflicted them, true. But of the three, the mature male in the house is far more likely to have done this. Discuss this with anyone in law enforcement and I feel sure they'd agree. Just don't tell them you're referring to the Ramsey case, because too many following that case seem to have gone off into cuckoo land.

      The ransom note outlines a plan that would have worked for John but not Patsy. Also, by the way, the displays I've put together comparing John's exemplars with exemplars from the note are also evidence pointing to him. Unless, of course, you feel capable of distinguishing his exemplars from those of the note.

      If Patsy did it, she would never have redressed the body in oversized panties.

      It's unlikely that Patsy was capable of tying the knot in the ligature device. Same with Burke. John was a sailor, he'd have been familiar with such knots.

    17. " Acute and chronic vaginal injuries are evidence pointing to John "

      If that's so, there's no evidence of penile penetration. Also, some experts were saying that the injuries were consistent with a young person such as a boy, molesting her.

      " It's unlikely that Patsy was capable of tying the knot in the ligature device. "

      From what I heard, that knot is rather simple. And yes it could be tied by either Patsy or John, especially as they were staging the scene to look like a sexual assault. In that case John could have been the one to tie it, as he could probably do it quicker.

      The ransom note outlines a plan that would work for both Patsy and John: that is, present a kidnapping for ransom scenario, which leads cops on a wild goose chase for the kidnapper/killer. The fact that the kidnapper wound up killing is really neither here no there, but it does leave less work for cops as they don't also need to search for JonBenet.

    18. Penile penetration of a six year old would be painful for both parties if not impossible, and is unlikely.

      If John is the one who "tied the knot" then he is the murderer since the cause of death appears to have been ligature strangulation.

      The plan in the ransom note was for John to collect and deliver the ransom, NOT Patsy. That gave HIM, not her, a reason to be seen near the place where the body would ultimately have been found.

    19. " If John is the one who "tied the knot" then he is the murderer since the cause of death appears to have been ligature strangulation. "

      The murderer could be Burke with the golf club, with John or Patsy doing the "merciful" strangulation not knowing she still had a breath of life in her. That could put John with a charge of manslaughter, but not murder.

    20. If Burke is the one who struck her, but the blow didn't kill her, then he could not be charged with murder even if he was older than nine. If John's strangulation killed her, then he'd be the murderer. Whether that would be seen as manslaughter would be up to the prosecutor, judge and jury.

    21. It's true that it seems that since they were the adults in the home, they should have gotten medical attention to JB as soon as possible, rather than assuming she was dead. Also, they could be charged with desecrating a body or something like that, which of course would not be as serious as manslaughter or Murder 2.

      The case has never been about protecting Burke from prosecution, in my opinion. We can probably assume that the Ramseys knew that Burke could not be prosecuted for murder at his age. Therefore, the protection and covering up efforts must have been for the purpose of shielding Burke from the knowledge of what he had done. Which would be ironic if it was the parents who actually technically killed her.

      With such a scenario with the parents (or one of them, with the other in the know) actually being responsible for technically killing her, not to mention the failure to get her medical attention, they would have every reason to cover for themselves. So as I said before, it's not just Burke they were covering for, it was their own selves too.

      And to me it boils down to the pageant scene, the life of the pageant princess. Patsy's real life toy doll was broken, and she was going to have no part in the disgrace of having that be known. If that is true, she would be a very selfish person, as some claim.

    22. Sorry, but I fail to see how they could "shield Burke from the knowledge of what he had done." What's done is done, and one has to live with it. I doubt the Ramseys had ever had any training in brainwashing, so I have no idea what you mean.

    23. " Sorry, but I fail to see how they could "shield Burke from the knowledge of what he had done." "

      Oh yes indeed, you'll find this notion mention on quite a few forums. It makes the most sense. Burke was already very "messed up" in the head, and they feared this would break him, make him commit suicide, swallow Draino, what have you. They were trying to "save" their last child. Burke would have not known if he hit her fatally. The parents could tell him she's OK, go back to sleep, and then sometime later in the night (morning actually), the "kidnapping" takes place.

    24. All sorts of nonsense is discussed on those forums. And if that's what "makes the most sense" to you, then all I can say is that this explains a lot. If you can buy such a theory then you obviously can't tell the difference between evidence and conjecture, wishful thinking and logic.

  19. Actually, some experts have suggested that the sexual abuse looks like that of a young, immature person, not an adult

    If they were in it together, then there's a plethora of lies to keep straight, and it's too risky to be interviewed separately. If one is guilty and the other innocent, then certainly the guilty will not be thrilled with being interviewed separately, but he/she will probably go along with the request because you know what the other person is going to say since it's based on fact, you simply have to work around that.

    JR would cover for PR if she did this because JBR was Patsy's "toy", not John's. JR was not going to put his wife away for this because he knew they were negligent in having their son get psychological help. They also knew about their son's pattern of sexual abuse and hid it and tried to sweep it under the rug.

    Of course factual evidence is important but at some point you have to think about what motivated people to do what they did. That involves trying to put yourself in their shoes. The "JR did it" scenario would be more plausible if JR had a history (or even one prior event) of child or sex abuse, or if he had prevented PR from calling 911, or if there was any JR DNA evidence or clothing fibers on JBR (such as there was with PR's clothing fibers on the duct tape), or if he had any motive whatsoever, or if he had a history of losing his temper violently, or if he was not ruled out as writing the ransom note despite some writing similarities (which were not nearly as powerful as Patsy's), and on and on.

    In the end, we're faced with either Burke or Patsy as likely suspects, and though the case for Patsy is strong, it's stronger for Burke. A read of Kolar's book sheds a lot of light on this.

    1. "If they were in it together, then there's a plethora of lies to keep straight, and it's too risky to be interviewed separately."

      Not really: "I was fast asleep all night and so was my beloved spouse lying next to me the whole time. Neither of us heard anything." "It was John's idea to call 911, he told me to make the call and I did. We didn't even discuss it." "Yes, I remember cleaning up the mess from the window John broke into last summer." "No I don't know anything about any pineapple."

      Pretty simple, I'd say.

      "If one is guilty and the other innocent, then certainly the guilty will not be thrilled with being interviewed separately, but he/she will probably go along with the request because you know what the other person is going to say since it's based on fact, you simply have to work around that."

      Not if the facts reveal things that make look look suspicious. Not if the facts reveal that you lied. John claimed he broke that window last summer. What if Patsy said she didn't know anything about any broken window? Sorry, but John could not allow Patsy to talk to the police before he'd had a chance to manipulate her into lying for him

      You make some really far out assumptions, Vern. There was no evidence of sexual abuse on Burke's part, nor is there any reason to believe this 9 year old child would have any interest in his sister's vagina. Nor is there any reason to believe John and Patsy would risk the electric chair to cover for him. Yes, a parent will cover for a child by providing an alibi or possibly even by forging a letter -- but staging a kidnapping, complete with 2 1/2 page ransom note? Hiding their daughter's body in the basement? Strangling her with a "garotte"? That's way over the top. I've never heard of any parent going to such lengths to cover for a child, especially a child who was sexually abusing their daughter and then murdered her. It's easy to accept such nutty theories because they've been bandied about for so many years on the various forums and we're now so used to that kind of thinking that it sounds almost normal. Trust me, it's not. That sort of theory stems from law enforcement people (such as Thomas and Kolar) desperate to make some sense out of a situation they simply can't understand. And if you continue to assume Patsy and John had to be in it together, then you'll never get to the bottom of this case, because that theory simply makes no sense.

  20. "There was no evidence of sexual abuse on Burke's part, nor is there any reason to believe this 9 year old child would have any interest in his sister's vagina"

    The evidence shows Burke was disturbed enough to rub feces on the wall and in JBR's candy box, and disturbed enough to clobber her on the head with a golf club requiring stitches. I admit that evidence of sexual abuse from Burke has not come out, but I don't think it far fetched to imagine that he would do such a thing, probably primarily using his fingers and objects such as the doll that was suggested and JR put such effort into to have replaced. I don't have the stats on hand but there are a good number of sexual abusers under 10 years old, it's not as rare as one might think. The Ramsey grandparents had bought books for the Ramseys as gifts meant to help their problem child. Burke likely had what is called "SBP" (Sexual Behavior Problems). We can only imagine what the parents knew about him that never became public. And then after the killing, there was a massive coverup meant to protect Burke.

    Now, in 2013, Burke is 27 and works as a computer programmer, having graduated from Purdue. He seems to lead a normal lifestyle which people who don't believe BDI point to as proof that he didn't do it since he has not committed other violent sexual crimes since (or at least has not been caught). My answer for that would be what would kick a boy out of such behavior better than world-wide attention to his offense? It was all the "therapy" he needed to snap out of his deviant behavior. Now he works with databases and programming code and I would argue he's built a world within that construct to forget about the crime he did. He's probably made himself believe that it was "someone else" that did the crime. When interviewed after the crime at age 9, he acted oddly and responded "I want to get on with my life", which in fact he has done quite successfully, largely in part to the massive protection effort put on by his parents subsequent to the crime.

    Personally I don't like John Ramsey at all, though I never have met him. I would like for him to be the guilty party, the one I can hate. But when you unravel this thing you see that the only thing he's guilty of is a massive coverup for his son, which by the way would not be a "death sentence" offense if he were ever convicted of that, as you suggested.

    I just hope one day that Burke will come clean with what he knows, but unless his conscience is weighing that heavily on him to do so, which I doubt given the little bubble of a life he's created for himself, then it is doubtful to ever happen.

    This is my last post on this case. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

    1. Your thinking is filled with unconfirmed and unwarranted assumptions. You are certainly not alone in this, unfortunately, since many have been overly influenced by Thomas and Kolar. Burke soiled the wall with his feces at a time when his mother was undergoing chemotherapy and it was thought she wasn't going to make it, so it's understandable he would be disturbed. The feces found in the box of chocolates has never been sourced. It could have been JonBenet's for all we know. But Burke became target no. 1, thanks to Kolar, it's now assumed it was his.

      My assessment of Burke is that he was and probably still is borderline Asperger's, which would explain why he has always been so withdrawn and also so hard to pin down psychologically.

      But as I've said, I see no point in arguing endlessly over the psychology of the various principals in this case, since it's too easy to base one's opinion on one's prior bias.

      If you read this post again, and elsewhere on this blog you'll see that I like to stick with the facts wherever possible. So should you.

    2. A final thought that crossed my mind and I must admit my heart made a thump when I thought about it. Consider the scenario where Burke is with JonBenet in the wine cellar on Christmas night around midnight, playing doctor. We know that Patsy had caught them playing doctor in the past, though I am not sure where in the house. Burke uses her doll to penetrate her, and constructs the garrotte to use on her. Patsy is awoken by noises and goes down to investigate, bringing the heavy flashlight with her. Finding JonBenet struggling to breathe and Burke in a panic as to what to do, she explodes in anger and swings the flashlight forcefully, accidentally hitting JonBenet in the head. John is told what happened and they wrap her body there and begin the coverup plan. This scenario is consistent with so much that we know already, that I find it eerily possible.

    3. And I find it absurdly unlikely.

      Unlikely that a nine year old boy would penetrate his sister's vagina with a doll or anything else; unlikely that a nine year old boy would know how to construct the device that strangled JonBenet; unlikely that a concerned mother would bop her child over the head instead of trying to help her; unlikely that two sane parents would want to collaborate on a bizarre and dangerous coverup if their child had been killed under such circumstances or any other circumstances.

      Also I don't recall reading that Patsy had ever caught Burke and JonBenet "playing doctor," certainly not engaging in any sort of sexual activity. Where did you get that?

    4. " Also I don't recall reading that Patsy had ever caught Burke and JonBenet "playing doctor," certainly not engaging in any sort of sexual activity. Where did you get that? "

      I got it from:, on the Burke Ramsey page

      Recall that Pasty supposedly uttered to her friend when she was under some medication, something like "This wasn't supposed to happen". This is consistent with the head blow being accidental. Also there were fibers from the garrotte rope found on JBR's bed, so the sexual assault by BR may have occurred on her bed, and the head blow somewhere else such as the bathtub.

    5. The only thing I could find at that website regarding playing doctor was this:
      "Burke was well capable of "playing doctor" and allegedly there are accounts of his getting caught at this with JBR."

      That's not really a source is it? Just a rumor, really. Also "playing doctor" can mean many things. I've seen kids play doctor many times and it's never involved anything remotely sexual.

      The "this wasn't supposed to happen remark" is also hearsay. And it too could mean many things. It's reasonable to assume that Patsy felt guilty for involving JonBenet in all those pageants, and it seems likely to me that this remark, if she actually ever made it, refers to that. If she were really guilty of something I can't imagine her wanting to discuss it with anyone else.

    6. "Playing doctor" between children has always meant to me some degree of exploration of the body, which usually means some clothes are coming off. Burke was 9 years old -- and though you stress his young age often in your effort to show he was too young to commit this crime -- note that he was almost 10 years old (in fact, about 1 month away from turning age 10). He was right at the age where a normal boy would be interested in such exploration of the female body.

      Regarding your comment about what Patsy supposedly uttered:

      " That's not really a source is it? "

      The source seems valid, it is from Pamela Griffin, here is a snippet I found from a blog called

      There was a passage regarding Pamela Griffin that was extremely upsetting to the Ramseys. Pamela was a former nurse as well as a seamstress who made some of JonBenét's costumes. In addition, her teenage daughter Kristine both babysat & coached JonBenét on her routines for the talent portion of JonBenét's pageants. It recounted a conversation between Pamela Griffin & Patsy on December 27, 1996.

      Pamela Griffin had been contacted by Patsy's sister, Polly asking her to come & help Patsy, stating that, "Patsy needs you right now." Pam Griffin went to the Boulder home of John & Barbara Fernie, where Patsy was distraught & milling about. Pamela described touching Patsy's skin telling her she was dehydrated. Pamela brought the heavily sedated woman some water & then told her to lie down. Patsy refused continuing to make a scene while her friends tried to console her.

      When Patsy finally did lie down as Pamela Griffin watched over her, Patsy reached out & touched Pam's face. "Couldn't you fix this for me?" she asked. Pam believed Patsy was delirious. It was as if Patsy were asking her to repair something minor, along the lines of a ripped seam. "Patsy said something like, "We didn't mean for that to happen"...

    7. Patsy knew the prognosis for ovarian cancer is not good. My guess is that she meant that she wasn't supposed to outlive her child or children.

    8. First of all, my comment about that not really being a source was in reference to the story about Burke and JonBenet "playing doctor."

      I don't doubt the other story, from Pam Griffin -- but I do question the interpretation of Patsy's words, which could be in reference to all sorts of things -- most likely, imo, Patsy's sense of guilt over exposing JonBenet to strange men via the pageant scene.

  21. " Patsy knew the prognosis for ovarian cancer is not good. My guess is that she meant that she wasn't supposed to outlive her child or children. "

    No, not given the situation

    " First of all, my comment about that not really being a source was in reference to the story about Burke and JonBenet "playing doctor." "

    Yes, I know, I simply commented on the items out of order.

    " but I do question the interpretation of Patsy's words, which could be in reference to all sorts of things -- most likely, imo, Patsy's sense of guilt over exposing JonBenet to strange men via the pageant scene. "

    Again, no, not given the situation. Patsy clearly was asking if Pam could undo what she has done, which means either that she killed JBR or that Burke did and she covered for him.

  22. So what you're saying is that Patsy confessed her complicity in this crime to Pam Griffen. I find that highly unlikely, sorry.

    It's "evidence" of this sort that convinced me to stick with the facts of the case and take everything else with a huge grain of salt.

    1. " So what you're saying is that Patsy confessed her complicity in this crime to Pam Griffen. I find that highly unlikely, sorry. "

      Absolutely, Patsy was delirious and wasted on meds.

      " It's "evidence" of this sort that convinced me to stick with the facts of the case and take everything else with a huge grain of salt. "

      That's why I don't take one single item and hinge everything on it. Rather, I take the entirety of the evidence, even if some of it is questionable or subject to interpretation, to build an opinion. The more items, the better. And what you have when you do that is a preponderance of things pointing to Patsy or Burke and almost nothing pointing to John Ramsey (other than the coverup). Sure, the Pamela Griffin cannot be proved, nor can what Patsy meant by the statement, but it's just one more piece in the puzzle that, at the end of the day, points away from John Ramsey as being the killer.

  23. Vern, I'm the one who made the comment about Patsy's illness. I have been to several funerals over the last few years for friends of my teens who were killed in accidents (sad, I know). In every case, the parents of the lost children have remarked that "this wasn't supposed to happen this way," meaning one should never have to bury a child -- they should outlive their parents, of course. I have no idea why you want to reach for the improbable (a confession, as DocG notes), when the probable explanation is right in front of your nose. Patsy could have been remarking about her losing a child before she goes, or about having a bad person enter the life of her child whilst the child was doing something they considered fun...regardless, it is very unlikely it was a confession, and nothing that transpired after that conversation with Pam led the police or even Pam herself to pursue this comment as a confession. God, Patsy may have been distraught, sedated, or whatever, but she is not stupid and sedatives don't make you stupid, either. KH

    1. Yes, I know it was you who said that, but I put my comment along with the other comments. I see your points, and as you say we can't know for sure. But my deep sense about it was that it was a statement made in delirium that put herself to blame for what happened. It's just another piece that as I see it points to her or to Burke.

      There is only one -- and I repeat ONE -- piece of evidence against John Ramsey and that is a shirt fiber (or several fibers, I am not sure) was found on JBR's panties, but that could have happened when he tucked her in to bed. Does John Ramsey look guilty? I would say heck yeah. But that's because he IS guilty of a massive coverup, nothing more, and certainly not a murder.

      I would welcome anyone to step up and offer hard evidence against John Ramsey rather than a contrived string of denials posing as a process of elimination that I feel DocG has presented. I don't mean to sound harsh, but as the old lady used to say on the TV commercials, "Where's the beef?"

    2. There is no hard evidence pointing unequivocally to anyone in this case. If there were it would have been settled long ago. Are you implying that no one killed her? Maybe she killed herself????

    3. There was enough evidence for the grand jury to indict the both of them, as well you know. But DA Hunter stood in the way of that. I see that you fail to mention that in your discussions, that Patsy was going to be indicted apparently as well as John.

      You have a minority opinion that JR committed this crime alone. I am not against minority opinions because I am the type of person that likes to think independently and outside the masses. However in this case the weight of the evidence points to Patsy or Burke being responsible. No amount of discussion or analysis can change that at this point, unless some new evidence is discovered.

    4. No I did mention it. It was discussed here:

      I urge you to read this post because it also explains why there is NO case to be made against Patsy. The weight of the evidence points to John, not Patsy.

      While it's true that my opinion is a minority opinion (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered putting this blog together), it's also true that there is something very wrong with the majority opinion, which has led nowhere, and for good reason. The only serious obstacle to making a case against John is the decision to rule him out as writer of the note. To this day I fail to understand why THAT decision, alone among all the other aspects of the case, is the one thing that has never been questioned. Every other aspect has been thoroughly analyzed and debated, but that aspect is for some odd reason sacrosanct. Imo the people who came to that decision need to be questioned and challenged by the authorities to account for their decision and explain themselves. Once it is determined that in fact there is NO WAY to rule out ANYONE in a case such as this, then John's complicity can be re-evaluated. If that happens, I feel sure the truth will finally come out -- leading to an indictment.

  24. Gee, I cannot think of one, I repeat one, single way my husband's shirt fiber(s) would have ever gotten into my 6 year old daughter's underwear unless she had the fibers on her hands and tranferredcthem there. But wait, John said she was asleep. So how did the fibers get there?

    1. I suppose it's possible that his shirt fibers got on her underwear by way of the washing machine or dryer. Or maybe Patsy had some of his shirt fibers on her and they got transferred to JonBenet.

      An interesting piece I saw about Cyril Wecht saying that it's odd that no DNA from John was found on JonBenet and since he carried her up the stairs to the living room, one would expect some DNA. Here is the video:

      Of course fiber transfer and DNA transfer are different things, but they both can be important evidence, so I thought I'd mention the video.

    2. As I recall from Kolar's book, DNA from both Patsy and John was in fact found on JonBenet's clothing. No surprise, since they would both have been in close contact with her that day. Fiber evidence is meaningful only if it involves fibers from someone with no business being where they are found. Fibers found in the home by people living in the home aren't really evidence.

      What is most telling is not the fact that John's fibers were found in JonBenet's panties (though that is certainly cause for suspicion) but John's extreme over-reaction, and that of his lawyer, when those fibers were mentioned during a police interview.

    3. Is that interview available anywhere? I cannot find it. How someone reacts is not hard evidence as you know, but it's stuff I find interesting and so I would not discount it, however I would say there are 10 such "interesting" items condemning Patsy for every 1 item condemning John. I'd also like to have you tell me why someone such as John who has apparently had no previous interest in children in a sexual way, would take up an incestuous relationship with his own daughter. Why just this once? Aren't most child sex abusers habitual in nature? Isn't there usually a pattern of behavior? We see none of that with John.

    4. The interview can be accessed here: The interviewer refers to the fibers as "hairs."

      "I'd also like to have you tell me why someone such as John who has apparently had no previous interest in children in a sexual way, would take up an incestuous relationship with his own daughter."

      Well, please tell me why someone such as Patsy, who clearly doted and fussed over her daughter, and had a strong personal stake in her success, would "lose it" and strike her over the head with a blow powerful enough to fell a grown man. Or why someone like Burke, who showed no previous sexual interest in girls, would sexually molest and then murder his sister with a blow so powerful as to fell a grown man. How many nine year olds do you know who are capable of such a act, or such a blow?

      The bottom line: of all three principals in this case, the only adult male is far more likely to have sexually molested JonBenet than either the mother or the son. This is the same adult male whose fibers were found in the victim's underpants.

      Patsy's fibers could easily have been transferred via the victim herself, who had been in intimate contact with her mother all day and into the evening. The presence of John's fibers is not so easily explained, as KH has reminded us (see below).

    5. "Fibers found in the home by people living in the home aren't really evidence."

      A point I've made over and over on one of the Jonbenet forums.

      People have convinced themselves the fibers are important evidence, but the fibers are inconclusive - e.g. we'd expect fibers that belong to the inhabitants of the house to be found just about anywhere in the house.

  25. Agree! John's fibers are not proof-positive, but the fact that Jonbenet's body was wiped down by someone, then clean underwear placed on her, and then that clean underwear has John's fibers from a shirt he was actually wearing that evening, gives cause for suspicion. Even if Patsy had been the one to do the wiping down/changing of undies, I would think it strange that only fibers from John accidentally showed up in this spot. Vern, the point here is that you are reaching for straws. As DocG has so very well analyzed, there are all kinds of paths of supposition one could go down (in fact, you supposed that sedatives made Patsy "delirious" and caused her to make strange comments that could be taken as a confession!) If you have ever taken a sedative yourself, you know that they don't make you delirious, they make you groggy. She wasn't given truth serum, I'm sure :) If one goes through the entire logic, as DocG has taken the time to do, one is left with a reasonable set of conclusions and circumstances. If I were on a jury, there is no way that anyone could convince me of a circumstantial case against Patsy. I'm not biased, either -- I don't have a dog in this hunt as they say. However, I find the circumstantial case against John to be very compelling and I would like to hear him answer some hard questions in a court of law. If he didn't do this and was not involved, surely he can provide some truthful answers that might help find the real killer. Wouldn't you do that in the name of justice for your precious daughter? I know I would. KH

    1. Thanks, KH. What you've written about John's fibers makes a LOT of sense. The body was wiped down AND she was redressed with fresh panties out of a plastic bag. So how would John's fibers have innocently shown up in those panties?

      Maybe Vern has some thoughts on that . . .

    2. Yes I do have an explanation for that, and that is that JR assisted PR with the staging of the scene after PR killed her daughter! (or after Burke killed her). I believe that he could have helped her stage the scene to make it look like a sexual assault, and there's no telling what specific parts of the staging he did, but they probably worked together as a team, with rubber kitchen gloves on maybe. Fibers from Patsy's red shirt were on the duct tape, as well as other fibers.

    3. Remind me again, Vern, why you feel so sure John wasn't the killer. Sorry, but I forgot.

    4. " Remind me again, Vern, why you feel so sure John wasn't the killer. Sorry, but I forgot. "

      For the following reasons:

      1. He had no motive to kill JBR. If she was being sexually assaulted
      and began to scream, he would not have bashed her head with a flashlight. That action shows complete loss of control and John was a master at maintaining control even if he got very mad.
      2. He had no history of sexual assault of children
      3. He did not pen the ransom note
      4. Patsy would never have covered for him
      5. Patsy would have never been oblivious to molestation of JBR
      6. Patsy was the one coming unraveled as Christmas approached.
      7. The housekeeper said that Patsy killed JBR
      8. Only Patsy knew where Burke's knife was which was found in the cellar
      9. John had reason to cover for his wife's (or Burke's) crime, to keep
      his reputation intact and his wife out of jail.
      10. No evidence of penile molestation of JBR
      11. 27 visits to doctor for small imagined problems of JBR indicate
      that Patsy had munchausen by proxy. This is one of the most common causes for death in children.
      12. John, who was a master at controlling situations, would have
      never let Patsy call 911 because that would ruin his whole plan for disposing of the body.

      There are certainly more reasons, but these are the main ones.

    5. This is just a hypothetical, I'm not presenting an argument I actually believe in -

      JR's shirt fibers could be inside the panties if his shirt was used to wipe the body. This could be done by JR (though one wonders why he couldn't find a towel) or it could have been done by someone else.

      JR is freshly dressed when the police arrive, so he took that shirt off at some point. If he took it off before going to bed it was available for wiping the body.

      Not that I think this is what happened, but it goes to show that we can't really conclude anything about any of the fiber evidence.

      As an aside, a study was made by the FBI to see if it was worthwhile testing both the inside and outside of garments separately. In the test, following strict procedure, they found some fibers on the outside of stocking caps had migrated to the inside, even though all evidence gathering protocol was followed. The FBIs conclusion was that an examiner could not say for sure whether fibers originated on the inside or outside of a garment.

      I think we can agree that neither BPD or Coroner Meyer were paragons of proper procedure.

      Really, we don't even know that the fibers were originally inside the panties.

      That still leaves us with wondering how the got on the outside, if that's where they were.

      We don't know the number of fibers so we have no way of saying whether the probability is greater for primary transfer than for secondary.

    6. Bottom line is John had no motive to kill JBR.

      You'd have me believe that JR got up around midnight, snuck downstairs to sexually abuse his daughter, and decided to fashion a garotte to play some asphyxiation sex game with her, because he knows that nearly asphyxiating her will heighten her orgasm, and she's used to having orgasms but they're never strong enough and she's complained to him about that. So the playing around starts, and, woops, she's passed out and she won't come to. In fact, she's stopped breathing and is dead, so he quietly carries her to the wine cellar (after getting the heavy flashlight
      from the hall closet) and sets her down on the floor and bashes her head in.

      Or, how about this: John wakes up around midnight, to go down and sexually abuse his daughter, as he often does. Once he gets to her bedroom he realizes she's soiled her bed, and he grows enraged about this because now he's lost every bit of sexual desire, so he gets the flashlight and bashes her head in, then takes her to the cellar where he stages an elaborate scene with the string and garotte to make it look like a sexual assault and kidnapping gone bad. As if kidnappers sexually assault their victims while trying to get them out of their house and to another place where they can hold them for ransom, or as if they kill their victims readily if they become hard to handle or get out of the window of a basement, or both sexually assault them and kill them. John stages this elaborate scene in the basement, even though he plans to get rid of the body when Patsy is not looking, as a backup in case he can't get the body out.

      John then starts writing a ransom note in his wife's handwriting because he is able to mimic her handwriting perfectly, and he writes the ransom note as if Patsy is the kidnapper talking to him, and puts odd clues to that effect in the note, and assumes Patsy won't notice that he probably wrote the note to frame her. In fact, Patsy suspects nothing at all and thinks there was an intruder who came and sexually abused her daughter and then killed her, then left a ransom note with obvious clues that they know details about John, and she buys it whole heartedly because she does not suspect JonBenet has ever been abused by John or that he would ever kill her, despite seeing JonBenet nude on a regular basis where she would easily notice trauma to her vagina.

      John needs to get that body out of the house and is looking for his first break to do so, so when Patsy tells him she's going to call 911 at 6am, he's says "Ok", thus blowing his whole plan out of the water.

    7. PT II..

      Or, perhaps Patsy was supposed to notice that the killer is really John, by reading the clues in the ransom note (which John wrote in her writing as if it was Patsy writing to John), or John takes her aside and tells the whole story and says you better stand by me and trusts that she
      won't rat him out, and she stands by her man and covers for him because she knows she has no life without him, so then maybe she helps John a little bit with the staging of the scene.

      Now let's get back to reality, which says that the most likely scenario was that Burke was playing sex games with her (as usual) with the garrotte he'd taken a lot of time to fashion, and he panics when she stops breathing, so he takes her to the cellar and bashes her head in. Or another likely scenario where Patsy checks on her around midnight and she's wet her bed again, and she grows enraged and hits her with the flashlight, probably by accident, then takes her to the cellar to stage the scene. And with either scenario, both John and Patsy team up to stage the scene to make it look like a sexual assault and a kidnapping gone bad, because in this stressed situation it was the best they could come up with and they certainly are not about to dump the body somewhere, after all, rich people just don't do such things. Patsy writes the ransom note as John dictates the words to her. They decide to call 911 as soon as daybreak hits, to get the ball rolling and start the charade, because after all there's a rotting corpse in the house and it's going to start smelling soon.

      What it boils down to is that John had no reason to kill her. If he was sexually abusing her as you suggest, why would he want her dead? And why would he involve himself in asphyxiation games with her? It seems very unlikely. A kid Burke's age would be much more likely to have done that, and it's been known since the 1980s and earlier that kids choke each other while playing sexual games.

      Bottom line, John had no motive, and a logical person cannot think of a single scenario that makes sense where he did the killing himself. The killing had to be some sort of "accident", and the most likely suspects are Patsy and Burke.

    8. OK, thanks Vern. Let me respond to each in turn:

      1. Motive: If JonBenet was being abused by John, as Dr. Wecht concluded from the medical examiner's report, then he could have had reason to assume she might expose him.

      I think it likely the head blow was premeditated, not a reaction to her screams.

      2. We don't know that. He spent a lot of time "off the radar," especially during his frequent trips abroad.

      3. Well, the question of who penned the ransom note goes to the heart of this blog. I've presented a mountain of evidence pointing away from Patsy and toward John as writer of the note.

      4. If Patsy knew what he'd done she would not have covered for him, agreed. But how could she have known if she'd been asleep all night as she claimed?

      5. Agreed. I see no reason why John would have shared that information with Patsy. He probably killed JBR to make sure Patsy would never know.

      6. An unwarranted assumption.

      7. The housekeeper initially defended Patsy, claiming there was no way she'd harm JonBenet. It was only after Darnay Hoffman got to her that she got on the Patsy bandwagon. She recalled times when Patsy lost her temper but of course she had no clue regarding any details of the case -- other than the broken window, which she denied knowing anything about.

      8. Apparently the only one who knew where the knife was hidden was the housekeeper, who took it from Burke and hid it herself. Someone found it. Could have been Patsy. Could have been John.

      9. While this has frequently been suggested as a reason for John going along with the coverup, I find it absurdly implausible. If his wife had killed his daughter I see no reason why he'd want to protect her. And if Burke had done it, it would have been reported as an accident. Nothing about the coverup or the obviously phoney note helped John's reputation. In fact it ruined him.

      10. The lack of penile penetration by no means rules out sexual molestation. Penile penetration would have made it obvious to her doctor that she was being abused, and John would certainly not have wanted that. The penetration was digital.

      11. Pure speculation. Taking your child to the doctor has nothing to do with munchausen. If she'd showed signs of serious injury when Patsy took her in that might mean something, but all the problems were minor.

      12. We have no way of knowing what happened that morning. Patsy has reported telling John she was going to call the police and then running downstairs to make the call while he was upstairs checking on Burke. There's no way he could have prevented her from calling if she were determined to do so.

    9. "Not that I think this is what happened, but it goes to show that we can't really conclude anything about any of the fiber evidence."

      You make an excellent point. I doubt he would have used his own shirt to wipe off his victim, but I do agree that the fiber evidence is inconclusive.

    10. "You'd have me believe that JR got up around midnight, snuck downstairs to sexually abuse his daughter, and decided to fashion a garotte to play some asphyxiation sex game with her," -- etc.

      That's Wecht's theory, not mine. In fact none of these scenarios are even close to what I think most likely happened. I think JonBenet must have said something at some time that convinced John she was planning to expose him. That would have been the motive. The night of the murder he would have awakened her, lured her to the kitchen for a pineapple snack, and when she wasn't looking, struck her from behind with the maglite. He then would have finished her off by strangling her with the ligature device. The purpose of the ligature was to make sure no trace of his prints or DNA would be found on her neck. This is a simple, straightforward scenario with none of the absurdities of the ones you've suggested. The head blow
      would have been the most "merciful" way to do what he felt he needed to do. It would either have killed her or knocked her out. In either case she'd have experienced neither pain nor fear. He appears to have struck her from behind, so he wouldn't have to look her in the eye.

      "John then starts writing a ransom note in his wife's handwriting . . . "
      No, I never claimed he tried to imitate her writing. In fact I've demonstrated very clearly that her writing style is totally different from that of the note -- while his is remarkably close. John would have had no reason to frame Patsy. His plan was to stage an intruder who kidnapped his daughter. All the stuff about the note containing a message for John from Patsy is pure fantasy. Nothing in the note even suggests that.

    11. "Now let's get back to reality, which says that the most likely scenario was that Burke was playing sex games with her (as usual) with the garrotte he'd taken a lot of time to fashion, and he panics when she stops breathing,"

      The scenarios you've concocted are the truly fantastic ones, not the one I've presented, which is simple and straightforward. You've made all sorts of unwarranted assumptions that go well beyond the bounds of credibility. The only reason any of these have ever been taken seriously is due to the necessity of explaining what happened under the assumption that John didn't write the ransom note. As I've argued many times, once you rule out John, then nothing about this case makes sense -- unless you are willing to accept the most outlandish scenarios, as illustrated by the examples you offer here.

    12. I'm sorry but the ransom note is 'all about' messages from Patsy to John, such as "southern common sense", "SBTC" (Subic Bay Training Center), "I advise you to be rested", the $118k figure, "You are not the only fat cat", etc. If John alone wrote the note, then he put references in there that make it look like Patsy could be the author, so he was prepared to throw Patsy under the bus to save his own skin. However my theory is that Patsy wrote the note which she intended for John to figure out she wrote.

      To your point about John premeditating the murder because he thought JonBenet was about to expose him, I admit this is a scenario I did not think of, but I find it totally insane. For one, if he had her under his control which we can assume he did if he was molesting her, then she would not be about to expose him; rather, John may have chosen to lay off the abuse and leave her alone if she was getting that upset. The most likely scenario is that the hit with the flashlight was not premeditated but rather an act of rage, and the most likely perpetrators of that rage are Patsy and Burke.

    13. It's not just me that says so. Steve Thomas, the former detective who knows the case better than anyone, wrote a book pointing to Patsy as the killer. A. James Kolar was the lead investigator in the case at one time, wrote a book pointing to Burke as the killer. These are two very powerful professional and experienced opinions. Therefore I am certainly not alone in my assessment that either Patsy or Burke was the killer, so please don't imply that when it's not true. As for the details of the ransom note and why certain words were used or not, I could be wrong about, and I could be wrong about other details of the case, but I am pretty certain that I am not wrong about who killed JonBenet. I just wish I could decide between which person of the two, but I know it was not John. John would have had to had a night of temporary insanity to get up in the middle of the night on Christmas night and take his daughter from her bed and bash her head in, all because he thinks she's going to rat on him for sexual abuse. Total nonsense!!

    14. I'd also like you to tell me why in the world JR would write a ransom note from a tablet in the house with a pen in the house, when -- if this was premeditated as you claim -- he could have made a typewritten letter and would have had a lot of time to do that so that his prints were not on it. Also, please explain to me about the rope and garrotte and why he needed to stage the scene with that, if his intention was to get that body out of the house. I look forward to your answers on these questions!!

    15. I'm well aware of Steve Thomas and James Kolar's views on this case. But you weren't quoting them, Vern, you were speaking in your own voice, so I responded in the same spirit, sorry.

      Thomas had the chance to make his case in a court of law and it went nowhere. Judge Carnes refused to buy it and for good reason. Kolar tried to make a case against Burke with the Boulder DA's office and that also went nowhere, and also for good reason.

      I'm well aware that a great many people both in and out of law enforcement are convinced of Patsy's complicity. That's one reason for this blog, to bring some reason and common sense back into people's thinking about this case.

    16. Vern: "I'd also like you to tell me why in the world JR would write a ransom note from a tablet in the house with a pen in the house, when -- if this was premeditated as you claim -- he could have made a typewritten letter and would have had a lot of time to do that so that his prints were not on it."

      Well, first, I'm not at all sure it was premeditated, that's just a possibility I've considered. If it wasn't premeditated and he wasn't planning to kill her until that night, then he'd have had no choice but to use materials from the house.

      If it was premeditated, then I admit it's hard to explain his use of that pad (though I don't think the pen could be identified so easily -- the ink used in the note was the same type of ink as in the pen in the home, but it could have come from another Sharpie). The problem with using a typewriter would be that something typed on a typewriter, or printed on a printer, is actually much easier to identify that handwriting, because no two machines have exactly the same wear marks in the same places. It's also possible that no typewriter or printer was available at the airport, which is the most likely place for him to have written it.

      And as I've argued in the past, destroying the note was most likely part of his plan, so if all went according to plan, the authorities would never have gotten their hands on it. He could have shown it to not only Patsy but also some of their friends, who would be witnesses to its existence. He could then have typed out a copy on his computer to give the police. But not the original, because the "kidnappers" would naturally have wanted it returned.

      He may have been so confident his plan would work that he didn't worry too much about using that pad. It may simply have been the handiest source of paper he could find at the time.

      I admit this sounds like a bit of a stretch. Which is why I am reluctant to insist on premeditation. It's very possible it was not premeditated and that John had no choice but to use items from the home.

      "Also, please explain to me about the rope and garrotte and why he needed to stage the scene with that, if his intention was to get that body out of the house."

      The ligature strangulation was probably preferable, in his mind, to manual strangulation because 1. there would be no possibility of leaving his prints or DNA on her neck and 2. he wouldn't have to actually touch her, which might well have bothered him. I see no contradiction between getting the body out of the house and the ligature strangulation. Obviously he was staging a situation where some kidnappers simply struck her over the head and strangled her after collecting their ransom.

    17. Since even you admit that premeditation seems to be more unlikely than an accidental killing, then what in your mind would make John get up in the middle of the night and strangle and club her? Perhaps she was not cooperating with his sexual advances? John was known for maintaining his composure even when furious. Also, I find it hard to believe that he would up and decide to kill her that night, out of fear that JonBenet was going to tell on him, not likely for a young girl who has just been flooded with Christmas presents and is happy.

      In my mind there are only 4 very real and plausible scenarios for the "inside job", and each involves a different ordering of the injuries and different players:

      1. Pasty, in a rage, bops JonBenet over the head with the flashlight, and then finishes her off with the garotte when she sees that she's still breathing. She leaves the ligature in place because it's going to serve as part of the coverup -- a coverup which John assists with.

      2. Burke is playing asphyxiation games with JonBenet when she passes out. He tells his Mom and figuring that she is near death, Patsy takes her to the cellar and bops her over the head with the flashlight to mercifully kill her. The coverup then begins with John's help.

      3 Burke, in a jealous rage, bops JonBenet over the head with the flashlight, then tells his Mom, who panics and knowing that she's near death, constructs the garrotte and chokes her, then the coverup proceeds with John's assistance.

      4. Burke is playing asphyxiation games with JonBenet when she passes out. Thinking she is near death, he bops her on the head with the flashlight so he can hide the body in the house. At some point he tells his parents, and the coverup begins.

      Since (2) and (3) seem like the least likely, I opine that (1) and (4) are the likely scenarios for the inside job theory.

    18. I think JonBenet might have said something to John that convinced him she was about to expose him. Don't forget, they were planning on visiting family the day after Xmas, and she'd have an opportunity to confide in her half-sister about certain things that were troubling her. This might have been a concern for several days, or possibly this fear might have entered John's mind on the night of the murder. Perhaps it was something she said while he was molesting her that night that convinced him he had to act or his life was going to be ruined (talk about "family honor").

      In any case, I seriously doubt that this was a rage killing. Nor do I think that either the vaginal penetration, the head blow or the strangulation were part of the coverup. I think they were part of the sexual molestation and murder. The most likely scenario I can come up with is that first he molested her, possibly even with her consent; then, after deciding he had to get rid of her, struck her over the head from behind, to knock her out. That way she would never know who attacked her and not feel any fear or pain. He may then have taken her pulse and realized she was still alive, so decided to finish her off by strangling her. (More head blows could have drawn blood.) This would not be so awful as it might seem, since she would already have been totally unconscious. I think he could have been reluctant to strangle her by hand, for reasons I've already discussed, so decided to construct the ligature strangulation device and strangle her with that. When he dumped the body, the device would have been removed and discarded, so all the police would have to go on would be the marks of the ligature on her neck.

      Of course this is speculative. I'm not saying it had to happen that way, but if you have trouble seeing how or why John would have done what he did, this scenario, or some variation of it, gives you an idea of what might have been going on in his mind.

      I'm sorry, but the 4 bizarre scenarios you offer strike me as far less likely, though I suppose you won't agree. You have trouble accepting that a father with no history of child abuse (that we know of) would attack his child this way, but you have no problem assuming that Patsy would. It's easy to say that Patsy would kill "in a rage" as though her being in a rage is sufficient reason for her to smash her child over the head with a tremendous blow, and then "finish her off with a garotte." Lots of mother's go into a rage with their kids and at worst beat them black and blue. But a single blow to the head with a blunt object doesn't sound like rage to me. And Patsy, like John, has no history of extreme violence. So where does this "rage" come from? And why is it so easy for you to see Patsy as the attacker and completely rule out any possibility that it could have been John? (continued in next post)

    19. I'm sorry but your second scenario strikes me as bizarre beyond belief. First you are assuming that Burke would have been playing "asphyxiation games" with JonBenet, which makes little perverts out of both of them. Remember, we are talking about a nine year old and a six year old. Then you assume that Patsy would be willing to bop her beloved child over the head to finish her off. Why on Earth would she want to do that? Any sane parent would call 911 at that point. Finally you assume John would want to go along with this madness, placing his life in jeopardy to cover for his insane, perverted wife and son? To preserve "family honor"???? I suppose you are getting this from Kolar, but with all respect for Kolar's expertize as a detective, this goes way beyond detective work, it's a sick fantasy.

      Your other scenarios are equally bizarre and totally unconvincing, sorry. As I've repeated many times, the only scenario that makes sense involves John and John alone.

    20. Patsy was "coming undone" as the days to Christmas approached and as the housekeeper attested to. The whole pageant thing plays into this because it was so important to Patsy that JonBenet compete and win in the pageants, that it was a way of life for her and her daughter. JonBenet had bruises on her which likely would have been when Patsy was trying to make her do something she didn't want to do. Patsy was the one who was frazzled, not John. She was frazzled much more than normal according to the housekeeper. As for Burke, I don't know his state of mind at the time but Christmas time can be an emotional time for a child, especially if the other sibling is getting all of the attention. Burke may have been coming unglued as well.

      I would also like to comment on your suggestion that JonBenet may have been prepared to tell family about her molestation when the family got together the next day, and so John took action and killed her before she could do that. I find this extremely unlikely. A young girl who has just been showered with Christmas gifts is not going to want to rat her father out right then, during Christmas time. Also, if he was molesting her on a regular basis and she didn't like that, she might be fearful of him, yet we hear nothing about that. If she was fearful of him, it's unlikely she would tell her father that she is going to tell other family members about his molesting her, unless she thinks it will make him stop. I would side more with that she would tell other family members on her own, without warning her father. Finally, if John thought that she was going to expose him as soon as the next day because she told him that she would do so, why would he be so certain that she would? Instead he would console her and tell her that he'll never touch her in that way again, and probably shower her with some more gifts to make her feel good.

      I am sorry but your theory does not fly at all for me. What you are talking about is the most heinous crime one can think of, in the killing of one's own young daughter. Being as smart as John is, as you explained, he would have surely thought of a more civil way to deal with the problem, rather than up and killing her on Christmas night.

      I have also got an explanation for the chronic sexual abuse seen on JonBenet in her autopsy, and that is that perhaps both Patsy and Burke were abusing her. Burke in the way of fingers and toys inside her, and Patsy with vigorous cleanings with wash cloths as punishment for wetting and soiling her underwear. Between both Patsy and Burke, JonBenet could have been sexually abused quite often.

      In my mind, the killer was either Patsy or Burke, and the mastermind of the coverup was John. I admit that the intruder theories are compelling but I just can't get past the fact that a ransom note was left by an intruder in Patsy's handwriting. And yes, I said Patsy's handwriting. It's clear to me that writing of the ransom note is hers, and the content of the note is mostly John's except for the last paragraph where Patsy seems to have taken over the content.

    21. Vern, there are a lot of things that seem clear to you, but sorry I can't buy any of them.

      "What you are talking about is the most heinous crime one can think of, in the killing of one's own young daughter." Well, somebody killed her. Somebody from the family, clearly -- somebody who was living in that house with her. The killing of a sister is also pretty heinous. As I see it, the most likely person to have sexually assaulted her would be the only mature male in the house. But you see things differently, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    22. There is a difference between Burke swinging a golf club or flashlight at JonBenet's head in the heat of some argument or rough play, or Patsy in the heat of frustration, than John premeditating the murder of his youngest child. Each case would be terrible, but the premeditation (by any of them) would be the most heinous. I am pretty sure that neither Burke nor Patsy premeditated the murder. I do agree that if the murder was premeditated and it was an inside job, that John would be perhaps as likely the killer as anyone in the house, but such a premeditation by any of them is very far-fetched in my mind.

      For some reason, you cannot see that it was possible for either Burke or Patsy to swing an object violently at her in the heat of the moment. I am not sure why you can't fathom it. Maybe you can explain. I believe John would cover for either Burke or Patsy in order to maintain his reputation in his business world, and much more so for Burke in order to protect him, because it would be very hard to explain how swinging a golf club or flashlight at her head was purely accident, and after all, Burke had a previous incident where he swung and hit her with a golf club.

      My theory is that the golf club or flashlight swing was first, and the strangulation was next. In a nutshell, I feel that Patsy realized her number one real-life toy doll child who she lived through and worked tirelessly for to advance her in the pageant world, was broken and she needed to finish her off "for her (JB's) own good". My best guess is that Burke swung at her with a golf club, and Patsy finished her off with the garrotte and then staged the scene. At some point John decides he needs to cover for them.

    23. "I believe John would cover for either Burke or Patsy in order to maintain his reputation in his business world"

      Yeah, Vern, you believe a lot of strange things about this case. And you're not alone, sad to say. When John was ruled out and Patsy was not, then things get very strange indeed. Sorry, but I can't imagine how staging an elaborate kidnapping, complete with hand crafted 2 1/2 page ransom note and garotte strangulation would maintain anyone's reputation.

      On the other hand, if your daughter were to accuse you of molesting her, that would definitely weaken it, that's for sure.

    24. "For some reason, you cannot see that it was possible for either Burke or Patsy to swing an object violently at her in the heat of the moment. I am not sure why you can't fathom it."

      Read the first few posts in this blog and you'll find out why. If Patsy wrote that note, she would never have called 911 at that time. That's just for starters, but it's a biggie. It tells us how unlikely it is that Patsy wrote the note, or knew anything about the crime. So she didn't do it, and she was NOT covering for Burke. That's a big part of why I suspected John for so long. But there's a lot more as well. If you root around enough in this blog you'll find it.

    25. " It tells us how unlikely it is that Patsy wrote the note "

      Then you just have to get around why the note is written in Patsy's handwriting, which you have tried to do by fudging evidence. Granted, I would love to see more exemplars of John's handwriting, both left and right, out of curiosity (if anything, just to show you how much more similar Patsy's writing is to the note than John's is).

      I can tell you this, many times fact is stranger than fiction, and people do crazy things, especially when they are desperate. I can easily believe that John & Patsy wanted nothing to do with what looked like a homicide by their son, or by Patsy, and that they'd try just about anything to avoid the public humiliation (and jail time). Just because they staged a scene and wrote a false ransom note doesn't mean most people would under the same circumstances -- heck it doesn't even mean 10% would. But the fact is that they did, and it was a decision they made.

      To theorize that this was a premeditated murder in progress by a father on a 6 year old girl on Christmas night, who decides that the best way to off her is to smash her over the head with a flashlight or golf club while she's eating pineapple in the kitchen and then proceeds to strangle the life out of her with a garotte, and who stages a fake ransom note (with clues in it to make it seem the person knows John) which he hopes authorities never get their hands on because he's going to give it to the kidnappers who (he will tell police) will demand it (because the kidnappers didn't want to risk bringing in a typed note so they wrote it on the yellow pad in the kitchen), and who plans to grab JB's body and bury it somewhere or throw it in a dumpster while Patsy is sleeping or not looking, and who somehow fails to prevent Patsy from dialing 911 because he was on a different floor of the house than she was (when his whole plan depended so crucially on her not calling 911), and who plans to carry out the delivery (but first must somehow stage a fake call-in to the house) of the ransom money to the imaginary kidnapper (so he hides the cash somewhere safe) and comes back home only to wait and find out the kidnappers did not hold their end of the bargain and deliver JB, so he then waits for the body to someday be found (risking that he's left evidence on it) --- is, my friend, in sum, ludicrous.

    26. " Read the first few posts in this blog and you'll find out why. If Patsy wrote that note, she would never have called 911 at that time. "

      This is one of the important points that you put way too much weight on. You've got too many eggs in too few baskets of assumptions. The reason why Patsy would have called 911 was that the staging of the scene was done, and a few hours had passed and probably a lot of discussion with John, and neither of them was prepared to take the body somewhere and hide it, bury it, dismember it, or what have you. That's because it was too unbearable for them to do that, so John most likely suggested that the best explanation for what the kidnapper did was that "he's a mad man, and nothing he does makes sense" which is, in fact, the explanation he wound up using in media interviews.

      Again, these rich people were not going to take their daughter who they loved, and bury her or leave her somewhere, even though she was dead. In fact, just the staged scene in the basement cellar tells you that they loved her, by how she is wrapped in a blanket, as if to keep her warm.

      But, I know you won't budge from your point of view on this point, and unfortunately it is one of the major points that leads you down the road of making the wrong conclusion about who done it and why.

    27. Vern, once we see the note for what it is, i.e., the staging of a phoney kidnapping, then we have no choice but to conclude that the person who wrote it had a plan. I've attempted to recreate the plan I see in the note, and I'm sorry if that seems far fetched to you. I could have gotten certain things wrong, admittedly. But whatever the plan was it would sound far fetched, because the person who devised the plan never had a chance to implement it, so no attempt to recreate it can ever be tested. One has no choice but to speculate.

      I have a feeling this or something like it was John's plan, but he could have had some other plan in mind that might sound more convincing to you, who knows. The bottom line is that whoever wrote the note would NOT have wanted the police called in before he (or she) had a chance to get the body out of the house. That's fundamental.

      I advise you to go back and read the blog post at the top of this page again, and you'll see all the many reasons for rejecting the theory that John and Patsy were in this together.

    28. " The bottom line is that whoever wrote the note would NOT have wanted the police called in before he (or she) had a chance to get the body out of the house. That's fundamental. "

      On this point, I disagree. I have explained why the writer(s) of the note would have wanted to call 911. The reason was to get the police over there and get the ball rolling in their charade to find the "mad killer who doesn't do things that make sense". I am sorry if that is far-fetched for you, but it is how people who aren't street scum (and the Ramseys were anything but) would think. The Ramseys had no intention of removing her body from that house, and without the ransom note, at least in the Ramsey's minds, police investigators would have had less evidence that this was an intruder and why the intruder was there.

    29. Vern: "The reason why Patsy would have called 911 was that the staging of the scene was done, and a few hours had passed and probably a lot of discussion with John, and neither of them was prepared to take the body somewhere and hide it, bury it, dismember it, or what have you."

      Vern, you can't just take what you like from the evidence and ignore the rest. This is the problem with a great many theories of the case. ALL the evidence has to be considered.

      Sure, it's possible the Ramseys, assuming they were in on this together, might have been reluctant to dump the body of their beloved daughter in some remote spot. However, in that case there would be no point in handing a phoney ransom note over to the police. And if Patsy wrote the note why oh why would she have wanted to leave it as evidence of her involvement, especially if, as you say, it's so "obvious" she wrote it.

      If they weren't planning on getting the body out of the house, then there would have been no reason to hand such a note to the police. They would simply have reported a home invasion, not a kidnapping.

    30. Vern: "The Ramseys had no intention of removing her body from that house, and without the ransom note, at least in the Ramsey's minds, police investigators would have had less evidence that this was an intruder and why the intruder was there."

      Once the body is found in the house, then the ransom note ceases to be intruder evidence, because obviously there was no kidnapping. It then looks like evidence of staging. And if Patsy were the one who wrote it, then it becomes evidence that might well incriminate her. So your reason for them leaving that note is no reason at all. And I don't care how confused or stressed they might have been, you don't sit down to write such a long, complex document without having some sort of plan for putting it to use.

      I'm sure I'm never going to convince you, Vern, but that's OK. There are many others who've commented here, and also emailed me, whose minds have been changed by my reasoning and that's good enough for me. Thanks for participating, it's been interesting.

    31. Without a RN, their call to 911 would be suspicious if they hadn't first searched the entire house for JBR. Therefore to make it look good, they'd have to call 911 and say they found their daughter dead. If they put the body in her bed, then they're going to be asked how they couldn't hear any commotion only one floor down and 70 feet away (after all, a neighbor reportedly heard noises and a scream). If they put the body in a remote area such as the basement wine cellar and "find" her there, then call 911, then it becomes difficult to explain why somebody would break in, take her from her bed, and kill her, unless it looks like it's a sexual molestation in which case the Ramseys could stage it as a sexual molestation with the garrotte, but why would an intruder take her from her bed and molest her in a obscure and hidden place in the house that he would have a VERY hard time finding if he was not familiar with the house? That would imply that someone familiar with the Ramseys was only sexually motivated, which could be possible, but it's more possible that somebody is money motivated -- that broadens the field a bit.

      With the RN, friends and authorities can be present when the Ramseys find the body in the house, which is what John did, thus making them look more innocent.

      I'll admit that there's a risk with handing a RN over to police in Patsy's writing, but they probably figured they did a good enough job disguising her handwriting, and the customization of the RN makes it look like it's somebody close to the family, which it almost has to be for it to have been a successful intruder.

      Also, I bet the Ramseys had no idea this would become a national and worldwide case where everybody and their mother is analyzing the case evidence. In a small town like Boulder, they figured they could pull one over on the hick cops there.

      The RN basically smooths things out a bit, and creates a personification of the killer/kidnapper, as someone who the public can immediately assume exists, and who thinks this person is downright evil. It makes "We got to find this killer" much more believable when you have his letter in your hands.

      The Ramseys did a pretty good job in explaining away the kidnapper as being someone who is crazed and doesn't think logically, therefore it's no surprise that he intended to kidnap JonBenet but then for whatever reason failed to get her out of the house, so he assaults her there, kills her, then flees (though I don't think the Ramseys ever explicitly suggest that, we can assume it).

      And listen, the Ramseys probably tossed the idea around for awhile while sipping some chardonnay. They probably went back and forth about the idea, and finally decided, "heck let's go for it". And as I said before, don't assume just because YOU would not do what they did, means they they couldn't choose to do what they did and do it and that it couldn't make sense to them.

      You're looking too analytically at the case -- and while it's true that if we knew the actual events that night and the players involved, that every piece of evidence and information would or should fall into place like a puzzle coming together -- don't insist that any or all of the players were either Einsteins or perfect decision makers, despite their running a billion dollar company or not.

      Time to hang it up for me, thanks again the letting me comment.

    32. Re: SBTC.

      I served in the Navy and went to Subic Bay many times. Never heard it referred to as Subic Bay Training Center. It was just called Subic Bay. It's a place where ships take on fresh supplies and get needed repairs.

      It's possible that some sort of training goes on there, but then some sort of training goes on nearly everywhere in the Navy. Again, never heard it referred to as a Training Center. It was a shared base, shared with the Philippine Navy. It's possible they do their training there. If it had been a training center it's acronym would probably follow custom - SBNTC (Subic Bay Naval Training Center) I went to boot camp at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. It was usually referred to as NTC Great Lakes. So Subic would be SBNTC, for Subic Bay Naval Training Center, if it followed usual form, and would be referred to as NTC Subic Bay. Training Center has a specific meaning in the Navy, it's not just a generic term for a Naval Base.

      It's anyone's guess what SBTC means, but Subic Bay Training Center probably isn't one of the better guesses.

    33. "Again, these rich people were not going to take their daughter who they loved, and bury her or leave her somewhere, even though she was dead. In fact, just the staged scene in the basement cellar tells you that they loved her, by how she is wrapped in a blanket, as if to keep her warm. "

      This always sounds like a conclusion based on - nothing. Why would "they" not be willing to dump the body if they were willing to kill the child?

      This whole idea that they wouldn't dump the body strikes me as a justification for supporting the joint JDI/PDI covering theory. It doesn't ring true. If "they" killed her, then they have already done the worst thing possible to her. Dumping the body is nothing by comparison.

      I can't buy the idea that people who'd wrap a cord around their daughter's neck and bludgeon her would be timid about dumping the body. It's another reason to suspect they did not work together, for if they had, there would have been no reason not to go ahead with the dumping of the body. No reason except to preserve the fictional account of them working together and presenting both a dead body and a RN and expecting authorities would buy the kidnapping gone bad angle.

    34. That point has come up before. There was never any such thing as the Subic Bay Training Center, so that's probably not what SBTC was supposed to mean. No one's ever come up with a convincing solution to that particular puzzle.

    35. " Why would "they" not be willing to dump the body if they were willing to kill the child? "

      I could see myself with the same perspective. If I killed my child by accident and was going to hide the accident, I would not dump the body somewhere. I would make up a story to cover for myself. I would want a proper burial for my child. Which is exactly what the Ramseys did. It's funny that you can't buy this perspective, but you are all too willing to have us buy that Patsy was oblivious to John's "murder" of JonBenet, complete with sexual abuse which she was oblivious of too, not to mention oblivious to John sneaking into her room regularly.

    36. There was a placard on the wall that said Subic Bay, I believe. And what is odd is that the housekeeper Linda Pugh suggested that "S.B.T.C" could mean Subic Bay Training Center. Just another odd thing said by her, who also said to Patsy "Aren't you afraid JBR will be kidnapped?". And another thing that shows that just about every character in this story couldn't come off more guiltily even if they wanted to. The rumor was that Linda was the #1 suspect by the Ramseys, and I can see why, but I can't place her involvement in the crime when that ransom note is so clearly written in Patsy's handwriting.

    37. If you killed your child by accident you'd call 911 and you'd be devastated. Unless of course you are psychotic, in which case who knows what you'd do? There is no sign either John or Patsy was psychotic.

      If John had been abusing his daughter you can bet he'd take great pains to make sure his wife knew nothing about it. I'[m sure there were many times when Patsy and Burke weren't home and the two of them would be alone.

    38. " If you killed your child by accident you'd call 911 and you'd be devastated."

      Yes, I agree! But if your son killed your daughter by accident, then you might want to protect him from knowing what he's done, so he doesn't go off an commit suicide. And you also don't want the next year or two of his young life spent with police or having him put in some facility.

      Interestingly, the best thing the Ramseys could have done was told the truth, because what Burke needed was help, not protection.

    39. If JR was the killer, he had between about midnight and 5am to get the body out of the house. Why didn't he? One can argue that he didn't want to leave the house so they he'd be seen by neighbors, so then he must have planned to get rid of the body during the following day of the 26th. But with the ransom note sitting on the stairs for Patsy to find around 5:45am, he'd be risking her calling 911 (which she in fact did) and also risking her finding the body in the house. He could have put the body in the large suitcase found down in the cellar "Storage" room with the window, only to find he couldn't squeeze the suitcase outside the window. If he gave up the plan to remove the body that night, then he'd have even more reason to prevent Patsy from calling 911, but he fails in that. So if you consider his plan as having failed, it wouldn't be for lack of his not trying. In other words, he apparently didn't make an effort to get the body out some other way. Therefore I conclude that it doesn't make sense that he killed her in the house only to easily fail the rest of the plan.

    40. One purpose of the note was to discourage Patsy from turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet. If he hadn't written a note, she'd have eventually found the body in the basement. And, of course, called 911. There was no way he could stop her under those circumstances.

      But with the note, he could at least try to stop her by pointing to all the dire warnings, and arguing that it was necessary to go along with the "kidnapper's" demands. But there was no way he could physically stop her from making that call if she was determined to make it. He couldn't literally sit on her all morning.

      I've seen photos of that suitcase and there is no way the body of a six year old could be stuffed inside it. It was a hard Samsonite suitcase with no give at all. The body was hidden in the most remote room in the house, and probably covered with a blanket in a corner of that room to make it especially difficult to spot. But Patsy may well have found it if she hadn't been fooled by the note into assuming JonBenet had been kidnapped.

      He didn't make an effort to get the body out some other way because someone might see him drive off, or someone might spot his car near the place where the body had been dumped. The ransom note would have given him the perfect excuse to be seen in such a place: he'd only been delivering the ransom.

      I'm not sure what would have been achieved by his squeezing the suitcase out of the window.

    41. ".. there is no way the body of a six year old could be stuffed inside it. "

      I beg to differ. As Patsy said, that is an old-style suitcase. It is quite large and one could stuff the 45 lb body in there. Recently in the news, a boy stuffed himself into a microwave playing a hide-and-go-seek game.
      Once out of the window, the suitcase would be sitting in that window well area under the grate, where John could retrieve it easily from the outside.

      " The ransom note would have given him the perfect excuse to be seen in such a place: he'd only been delivering the ransom."

      The problem is that as time is ticking away, and he is 'delivering the ransom', Patsy is more likely to stumble upon that body. Also note that the placement of the body in the wine cellar was kind of out in the open. He did not attempt to hide the body under or behind those items that were stored in there.

    42. Why would John want to retrieve that suitcase from the window well, even if her body could fit in it? If he wanted it in the trunk of his car he could just take it to the garage, which was directly connected to the house.

      Obviously John would have needed to get Patsy and Burke out of the house before "delivering the ransom." The note was addressed to him, so it would not have been difficult to persuade Patsy to take Burke and stay with friends "for their own protection" while he dealt with the dangerous kidnappers.

      We don't know where the body was placed in the wine cellar. John claims it was out in the open, but we have no reason to take his word for that.

    43. " We don't know where the body was placed in the wine cellar. John claims it was out in the open, but we have no reason to take his word for that. "

      It is true that it could be possible that when he darted down to the wine cellar to get the body, he dragged it out from a hidden place in there, which would explain why Fleet White did not see the body on first look.

      " Why would John want to retrieve that suitcase from the window well, even if her body could fit in it? "

      He wouldn't, because he was not the "killer" in my theory. But I was just hypothesizing that IF he was, it would be "a way" to get the body outside for later pick up by himself. Maybe he thought taking a suitcase loaded with a body in it was too risky to carry into the garage, and Patsy may have been lingering around that area in the kitchen and hall which is close to the garage "mud room" leading into the garage.

  26. I appreciate that Vern is playing Devil's Advocate. But to do that, you have to be at least as convincing as the Devil and his advocate! There is no winning against fully vetted logic and connecting of the dots. And your analysis, as you've stated, is by no means a conviction. You have said, DocG,and I support you, that this needs to be taken before a court and John should be held accountable for his statements to law enforcement. Heck, in my home state the DA took Andrea Sneiderman to court for her lies. Yes, a lot of people believe she was complicit in the murder of her husband, Rusty Sneiderman. Ultimately, the DA couldn't build a solid case but she IS going to jail for lying and obstructing justice. Too bad John isn't being held for accountable for his lies. KH

    1. Yes, JR should be held accountable for the massive coverup he masterminded and steered through the help of his attorneys for several years. But if you want to look for the killer, that person is likely in a graveyard in Marietta, GA, or else a 26 year old computer professional in Indiana, USA (Burke). I admit I am torn between Burke and Patsy being the killer, and I have yet to read the book by Kolar which may steer me in one direction of the two. The arguments I have made in support of my theory are every bit as strong, and much stronger, than the arguments presented on this website for JR's guilt.

    2. Fair enough, Vern. One reason for this blog is to allow people with various theories to air their views. Thanks.

  27. To believe that John was sane, innocent, and rational ( while Patsy is some dying nutcase prone to delirium that causes her to swing bats or flashlights, or even head bang her kid against a tub), says to me that John would be the voice of reason who would have said, "Patsy, it was an accident. We need to call an ambulance dear. I love you and I will support you. Lets not make this worse than it already is." Instead, a jury is supposed to believe that John took leave of his senses at the same time as Patsy did; he had the nerve to molest his daughter and stage this bogus scene that no intelligent executive would think is plausible as a coverup, and then he came back to his senses to convince the media that he is just a great guy who is normal in every way. Nope not gonna buy it. I would not cast a guilty vote for Patsy on that crazy theory.

    1. Yes, thank you, the theory that both Patsy and John would have taken leave of their senses at exactly the same moment strikes me as a huge stretch, if not totally absurd. If Patsy had killed JonBenet, for whatever reason, John would have called 911 immediately and turned her over to the police. And if for some strange reason he decided to cover for her, he'd have reported an accident. No way anyone has ever or will ever concoct such an elaborate scenario to cover for what could easily have been reported as an accident.

  28. DocG, it is clear that Vern is very passionate about this case, as are many people. I think you have been very patient with Vern, and it is also very nice of you to allow all kinds of ideas to be posted on your blog, regardless of whether they are rational or not. I assume most of us commenting here are the types of people who want to understand why there can't be justice in this country for innocent little children, regardless of the type of home they lived in or their socioeconomic background. What does concern me about irrational people who maybe just can't work through the known facts and ignore their imaginations, is that these same people are potential jury members in our country. I pity both prosecutors and defense counsel alike, because their job must be so hard when it comes to jury selection. Just look at the Casey Anthony case. Those jurors wanted the prosecution to dispel every possible scenario that their wild imaginations told them "could have happened," even though there was enough evidence to convince most of America beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was responsible for the death of her child. Since that particular case ended, I am convinced more than ever that we live in a culture that is not at all interested in finding justice. We're a culture of people who see excuses made by politicians and celebrities and then follow their lead. Parents excuse their children's behavior and those children grow up to be excuse-makers. Its hard to find people of integrity who take ownership for their actions and decisions. Clearly, John Ramsey is not owning anything. Just reading that interview you posted a link to -- it was full of "I can't recall," and "you'd have to ask Burke" types of statements. Doesn't sound like someone who wants to find the truth to me. Sounds a like a cool cucumber type who is only interested in himself not being pinned as a suspect. I have never seen any real emotion out of John for that matter. I saw real grief in Patsy, I heard righteous indignation that she was been pointed at; I even heard a willingness to go to jail if that's what it took to keep this case on the radar (via appeals, etc). She behaved pretty much like I would have, though I don't think anyone could convince me to tell lies, knowing that I'm innocent. If she did cover for John and herself with lies after the fact, I think you have explained why she might have been compelled to do so. I've concluded she was scared of John. I know I would be afraid of that man. Just listening to him talk, and noting that I've never seen even a hint of grief or emotion over what was done to that precious little girl...well, he gives me the creeps. And no, I don't want to hear remarks like "some people just don't show grief." Give me a break. I have never, ever personally seen, or observed a public case, where the parents of a lost child don't display some level of grief. -KH

    1. Thanks so much for this very thoughtful and eloquently expressed rumination, KH. I strongly agree.

  29. You're welcome. I was indeed ruminating, sorry about that! I guess I'm just sick and tired of half-baked theories when the the pursuit of the truth is a clear-cut process to me. Then again, the police and DA don't seem to be able to follow the facts to where they lead. It really makes me sad for those who truly loved Jonbenet and lost her. KH

    1. I emailed Burke Ramsey (his email can be found by a search) and I asked him "Do you still play golf?". That was probably uncool but I did it. I still think he saw JBR's head as a big golf ball. Well, we may never know what happened that sad and fateful night. Was it Patsy who was coming undone and lost it? Was it Burke who went and 'did it again' with the golf club on poor JonBenet? Or was it John who looked at his daughter as a liability who he needed to snuff out on Christmas night? Or, finally, was there really an intruder, and did he enter the house by JonBenet's balcony, or did he have a key to the house? Did this person write the ransom note in hopes of scoring $118,000 but then realized he couldn't get out of the house without triggering the alarm or couldn't get out of a window as he planned, so he gave up that plan and instead assaulted her and killed her?
      It's sad to think that 20 or 30 years from now, it may still be a mystery as to what went down that chilling night.

  30. " I would make up a story to cover for myself. I would want a proper burial for my child"

    You'd want to avoid life in prison and possibly execution. That would be much more important than proper burial for your child.

    If the plan all along was to allow the body to be found in the house, then the RN doesn't really make sense, as obviously there was no kidnapping. Even if you expected the police to buy into the "kidnapping gone bad" theory (and there is no good reason to do so) the note is longer and more detailed than needed for that scenario. There's really no doubt at all, the author of the note planned to dump the body.

    1. This sort of "bit logic" might work for low level programming languages, but not for humans. The RN was simply diversionary, and explained away by the "kidnapping gone wrong" theory. The author of the note did not plan to dump the body, the authors of the note already dumped it in the cellar for police or themselves to find. It gave them a reason to call 911, and created a quasi-tangible boogie man in peoples' eyes.

    2. I've never heard of a "kidnapping gone wrong" in which the kidnapper leaves his note despite the fact that his kidnapping has gone wrong. Not to mention that this was a long, hand-written note that could be used as evidence against him. I see no reason why the Ramseys would be so foolish as to stage such a "kidnapping." And if it's so "obvious" Patsy wrote the note, why would she be so stupid as to plan in such a way that her now pointless note is handed over to the police for further study.

      Sorry, but your Emperor has no clothes.

    3. It is true that kidnappers and sex offenders usually aren't one and the same, but John explained it away as being a crazy person, and people bought it. The fake kidnapping was staged to take the attention off of the Ramseys (and their son), and create a boogie man that the town needed to go after, and finally it gave them a reason to call 911 and begin the charade. This has been explained to you ad nauseam. As to the ransom note, one of the two needed to write it, and Patsy probably volunteered, as it was likely thought that she could obscure her handwriting better than John could, and she had no idea that investigators would be digging up exemplars on her from all over the place. There certainly was risk involved, and if it could be proven she was the writer and was indicted for murder, they'd still need to prove she committed a murder, and they probably had in the back of their minds that if this worst case scenario occurs, they could tell the truth about Burke's accident. This would not get the death penalty or a long sentence for the parents, it would probably garner sympathy with some people who would consider them dutiful parents. They'd probably order the Ramseys to community service, as well as getting Burke in some sort of therapy or supervision. John Ramsey knew he had access to the best legal help, and this was key to his risk taking.

    4. I'm getting very tired of responding to the same old theories and the same old objections to my thinking on this case. I get it. You disagree. Fine, I accept that.

  31. A "kidnapping gone wrong" is apparently a quasi-fictitious scenario where someone tries to kidnap someone, and for whatever reason gets so mad and frustrated that he molests the kidnapee and kills them. It probably doesn't happen often, especially the molest part, but it fits into the Ramsey world of make believe. And, people tended to buy it. Ok, it was a kidnapping, the guy couldn't get out, so he up and killed her after doing weird sex things to her. Makes sense, people thought.

    What people needed to see was that it was a diversion to draw attention away from the Ramseys, who were in turn protecting the killer, Burke. It was not a diversion to enable John to get the body out of the house.

    1. Tired of repeating myself, sorry. For my take on this do some searches on this blog.

    2. " Tired of repeating myself, sorry. For my take on this do some searches on this blog."

      Sorry, but I'll not be one of the gullible shee-ple that exclaims "You are right! It all makes sense now!". No, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is one desperate blogger trying to get as many people as possible to believe in his hogwash. I am trying to figure out why, because I am not convinced you believe what you say, which tells me you probably have an agenda. You aren't working for John Ramsey, that's for sure, so I wonder for who. Burke? LOL

    3. I don't respond to ad hominem arguments, sorry.

    4. " I don't respond to ad hominem arguments, sorry. "

      Well, that's fine, but don't expect any Christmas presents from me this year, however I might be sending you a 3-iron so "look out" for that one! Hardy har. May you find peace with your maker. Good bye.

  32. Who is this mean person making the irrational comments about emailing Burke Ramsey, talking about golf clubs,etc? Go somewhere else to taunt bloggers who are trying to engage in rational thought. You need to accept that nobody reading this blog is looking for speculation or opinions based on speculation; there is plenty of that to go around. It comes down to known facts and what to make of those facts; as in what is the most logical thing those facts could point to. You seem you thing Patsy is a nut, and why so? Because your mother was a nut too and that makes you prejudiced against women? Just asking, because I don't know what makes you think a woman can be crazy but a man can't be a child molester. And then you go off on Burke with no real facts to base it on. You make no sense to me or probably anyone else who is seriously reading this blog. If the only type of argument you can put forward is an ad hominen (which basically means you insult your opponent rather than rebut your opponent's argument), then go back and do your own homework, and stop pecking at people who have done their homework. You sound like a nutcase yourself, if I am being perfectly honest. Oh, and if you're at peace with your maker, I'm sure your maker wants you to know that you should not harass people via email or on blogs. Do unto to others..., you know the rest. Or think about karma, if that's your belief system. Whatever, be nice! Peace out.

    1. " Who is this mean person.."


  33. Just speculating real theory. Could be troll. Could be Vern. You could be either or neither. Who knows and who cares.

  34. Here are some novel theories which you haven't heard before until now. What do you guys think?

    1. Real Intruder, RN for R's
    There is a real intruder, and the R's write the fake RN to cover themselves because they know they'll be prime suspects.

    2. Real Intruder, RN for Burke
    There is a real intruder, and the R's write the fake RN to cover for Burke who they THINK did it.

    3. JR & PR both killers
    PR had been allowing JB to be used by JR for sex. JB divulged that she was going to tell the family the next day in MI, so JR & PR kill her and write fake RN.

    1. If you read the post at the top of this page you'll see why I can't accept any theories involving a collaboration between both Patsy and John. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether one of the Ramseys might have opened the door to a "friend," who then proceeded to attack JonBenet, so you do have a point. However, there is no evidence pointing to any such "friend," and it would seem that all the family friends were thoroughly investigated.

      Christmas night, with a planned trip to begin early the next morning, seems a very unlikely time for either of the Ramseys to invite some friend to the premises, unless perhaps you are talking about a hired killer. However, if there were a hired killer, that means the murder was premeditated, and in such a case we would expect the note to have been prepared in advance (by either the killer or whoever hired him) and not written in the house at the last minute.

  35. And a 4th theory:

    4) Patsy discovers Abuse by JR, kills JB
    Patsy finds out JR has been molesting JB, so she kills her. PR has something on JR and vice versa, so they cover each other. It is documented that mothers will kill children when spousal molestation is found out.

    1. Please read the post at the top of the page. Clearly, both Patsy and John could not have been in on this together.

  36. Here is a theory that is way out there, but it is possible.

    5) Twisted menagerie theory
    Pasty, who has long been having an incestuous relationship with Burke (which John knows about) walks in to Burke's room to find him diddling JB. Enraged with jealousy, she yanks JB from the room and orders Burke to sleep. Patsy takes JB to the cellar and clobbers her with a baseball bat, but when she doesn't come to in about an hour, she decides to make a garrotte from her art supplies and slowly choke the remaining life out of her. Patsy goes back to the the Ramsy's bedroom where John has slept through this whole thing, and awakes him telling him she's "accidentally" killed JB. John becomes enraged, but since he has himself been having an incestuous relationship with JonBenet (which Patsy has known about), the only thing he can do is cover for her, so they begin the ransom note and the staging.

    1. Yeah, you're right, this theory is definitely "out there." In any such case, there are probably an infinite number of theories that could be proposed to explain what happened. And, of course, "anything is possible." Life CAN get complicated for sure. But when we carefully examine the facts of the case, and consider all the evidence, then we are able to eliminate most if not all such possibilities. As I believe I have demonstrated in the above blog post, it is extremely unlikely that both Patsy and John were involved in either the murder or the coverup, which rules out all the many theories involving "the Ramseys" acting together as a team.

  37. " it is extremely unlikely that both Patsy and John were involved "

    I would beg to differ. The "llikeliness of involvement pendulum" is stongly swung on the side of complicity, and the evidence strongly confirms that, including a ransom note penned by Patsy, and side-by-side collusion for months extending into years as if they were one person. You don't need a PhD to see that the Ramseys were in it together. If JR killed JB alone, then Patsy surely covered for him, and that begs the question "Why?".

    1. Oh yes. It is a well known fact that husbands can never deceive their wives. :-)

  38. " Oh yes. It is a well known fact that husbands can never deceive their wives. :-) "

    Ok, I'll give you that, but deceive their wives and at the same time be able to write a 3 page letter in her precise handwriting?

    The JonBenet Ramsey death was an "Accident" in-house, as Pasty herself says in her delirium, "This wasn't supposed to happen"...

    Wild, marauding brother crushes sister's head with a blow from a bat or club, then Mom finishes her off when she realizes her pageant princess is broken.

    Take it from a pageant Mom, I know what I am talking about and so does my son Vern.

    1. If the letter was in her precise handwriting, then why on Earth would she have been dumb enough to hand it over to the police? And for no reason, since there was no kidnapping anyhow.

      And by the way, Vern doesn't have a mother. He is the figment of someone's imagination. (Not mine, I hope.)

    2. " If the letter was in her precise handwriting, then why on Earth would she have been dumb enough to hand it over to the police? "

      John convinced Patsy that her handwriting job was good enough to fool the police. The police would figure the kidnapper wrote the note from their legal tablet so as not to be traced back to him. The reason for staging the fake kidnapping was to give the Ramseys a reason to call 911, and to create the vision of a real kidnapper/killer in peoples' minds. Vern explains it well in previous posts. And yes, I am his mother. And don't ask "why" so much, just accept things for what they are. Not everything "needs" to make perfect sense. It's not a seamless world. People get a little crazy and desperate now and then. Especially when their daughter is dead in the house.

    3. "The police would figure the kidnapper wrote the note from their legal tablet so as not to be traced back to him."

      Oops, sorry, I forgot about that little detail. So let me extend my previous objection: "If the letter was in her precise handwriting, then why on Earth would she have been dumb enough to hand it over to the police? AND why would she be dumb enough to assume the police would see this as the work of a real (would-be) kidnapper after they figured out that it was written on a pad from the house?"

      He used their pad so the note "wouldn't be traced back to him?" Vern, I think your Mom has Alzheimer's.

      I agree that not everything has to make perfect sense. But SOMETHING has to make SOME sort of sense, wouldn't you agree?

    4. " He used their pad so the note "wouldn't be traced back to him?"

      Precisely. That would be the Ramsey's argument as to why the kidnapper used the tablet from the kitchen, because not only was it risky to break into the premises with such a note in his pocket, but also it would be harder to trace the origins of the paper.

      " If the letter was in her precise handwriting, then why on Earth would she have been dumb enough to hand it over to the police? "

      The ransom note was NOT in her "Precise handwriting". It was written with her left hand, in an attempt to disguise her real handwriting. She didn't do a great job of disguising it, however, since many of the stylistic traits of her handwriting cross over to left hand from right. She did her best, and was confident she could pull one over on the relatively small town hick cops. John must have agreed with her, as they were both in on the ransom note construction.

    5. What do you mean by "that would be the Ramsey's argument"? They never made any such argument. Nor did they provide any explanation for the note being written in the house, because there isn't any.

      "The ransom note was NOT in her "Precise handwriting"."

      I was quoting you. That's what you said. And I'm curious as to what "stylistic traits of her handwriting" you see in her left hand sample. If they both agreed the note didn't look like her hand then why is it that you and so many others find the resemblances so obvious?

    6. " What do you mean by "that would be the Ramsey's argument"? "

      Understood, they made no such argument. What I meant was that this would be a "pro Ramsey" argument to explain WHY the kidnapper chose to write the note from the tablet.

      " And I'm curious as to what "stylistic traits of her handwriting" you see in her left hand sample. "

      I have studied the right-hand and left-hand samples of Pasty, and there is much similarity. For instance, she switches between manuscript "a" and cursive "a" in both left and right. The construction of the letters is very similar, and it becomes clear that she is right-handed but is able to write well with her left hand. You keep suggesting that people have not found her handwriting similar to the ransom note: quite the contrary, there were many handwriting analysts that agreed with good certainty that the ransom note was written by Patsy. Even one or two of the experts hired by the Ramseys themselves could not exclude her. You are delusional to think that "there is no similarity" between the ransom note and Patsy's exemplars. There is MUCH similarity, to a degree that is so off the charts that it is most certainly her handwriting on the ransom note.

    7. The "ransom" note does NOT switch between manuscript and cursive "a". In fact I count only 4 instances of cursive "a" in the entire document. All the rest are manuscript. We do see a mix of manuscript and cursive in Patsy's London letter, and some of her other documents, but most tend to favor cursive over manuscript, not the other way round, as in the note. While we see only cursive among John's exemplars, he could easily have turned his cursive "a"s into manuscript "a"s as part of his effort to disguise his hand. And of course so could Patsy. But we have no way of knowing in either case. As I've said before it's almost impossible to identify writing that's been deliberately disguised. Similarities and differences in such instances can be extremely deceptive.

      "it becomes clear that she is right-handed but is able to write well with her left hand." If you take a look at the excerpt from her left-hand sample in my most recent post, you'll see that it's barely legible. She was obviously NOT able to write well with her left hand, that's a myth.

      People tend so see what they want to see. Just as you want to see Patsy's left handed sample as a demonstration of her ability to "write well" with that hand, which is clearly NOT the case.

    8. Again, you are dancing around the issue, rather elegantly, but it's still a dance. Of course the switching between "a" styles is not rampant, but if it is seen only once, it would be of significance. Couple this with some 250 other similarities according to one analyst, and you have good reason to believe the note was written by Patsy. The sample you refer to where her writing is erratic, was Patsy REALLY trying to disguise her writing and not make it look like the ransom note. Of course, the heat was on her, so she did her best in that effort, but not good enough, because we can STILL see MANY similarities to her ransom note.

      Patsy herself claimed to be ambidextrous, that goes for writing too. She could write legibly with both hands but right was more natural for her. So when I say "write well", yes she could write reasonably well with the left hand, but in the ransom note effort, she tried to make it more erratic. And in the subsequent sample requested by police of her left hand writing, of course she went all out to try to disguise it.

      I am sorry Doc, but the ransom note was indeed penned by Patsy. There is overwhelming evidence to support that. So if you want John to be the lone killer, you'll need to fashion your theory with Patsy being the ransom note writer. Oh, can't do that, eh? Then it would not be a lone job by John. Well, I am sorry Doc, but that did not happen. The evidence shows that.

    9. Once again: if the evidence were as "overwhelming" as you claim, she'd have been tried and convicted years ago. ALL the handwriting evidence is inconclusive, because as I've said, it's extremely difficult to assess handwriting that's been deliberately disguised. And you can't go simply by similarities, because it's always possible to find "similarities" of some sort or other in the writing of any two people. And the more documents you use, the more such similarities you are going to find. And differences aren't much help either when dealing with a deceptive document, because one can assume that the writer tried to disguise his hand by making it look different than usual.

      Which is why I've based my conclusion far more on the logic of the case (see post at top) than the handwriting evidence. I have a feeling that most of what I've written here has gone over your head, Vern, so I see no point in responding any more to your posts.

    10. " Once again: if the evidence were as "overwhelming" as you claim, she'd have been tried and convicted years ago "

      I meant to say "Overwhelmingly" apparent that this was an accident which the Ramseys tried to cover up. I did NOT mean that there was overwhelming evidence to convict. But in fact, the grand jury was prepared to do just that, but was blindsided by DA Hunter. Your conclusion based on the "logic of the case" is not a logical conclusion outside of a sterile laboratory. Your logic is very simplistic and does not take into account the multi-faceted nature of this case.

  39. What some people wouldn't pay to be a fly on the wall that horrid night, observing everything first-hand. I know I would pay a lot. But, nope, we cannot reverse time and we cannot be a fly. Not that we couldn't have gotten inside the house if we were a fly, there were holes everywhere. But no, they were living in their own private murderous Idaho -- or should I say private Colorado -- and nobody could see or play but them. And if there is a murderer on the loose right now, then it wouldn't be the first time.

  40. I think it was JR in the kitchen with the flashlight. JBR was lured down with promises of pineapple and a private visit from Santa. She’d been getting quite passive-aggressive with her deliberate messes, and JR knew something must be done before she exposed him. BR may even have been there drinking tea, but since he wasn’t included in the Santa visit, he wandered off to bed. Drinking tea and swinging on his sister don’t go together for me. PR, the ill one, was already sleeping.

    PR wearing yesterday’s sweater doesn’t surprise. Lots of moms take their showers “a little later” after everyone else is clean.

    JR’s shirt fibers, under a brand-new pair of panties (very oversized, a mistake PR wouldn’t have made), clinched it for me. He was alone with the body.

    1. I agree until you get to the BR part. I see no reason for him to be there. His prints mean nothing, just as Patsy's mean nothing. He was living in that house, and could have handled any item in it for perfectly innocent reasons.

      As for the rest, you make perfectly good sense, I agree.

  41. Regarding “this wasn’t supposed to happen,” I was horrified seeing JBR in a bondage photo with ropes around her ankles and wrists, and a big smile on her face. It was meant to tease and titillate men and raise JBR’s value. PR might find she was alone at some point and need support. JBR was PR’s beautiful bet.

    It was just a tease, after all.

    1. Excuse me? What bondage photo? Can you supply a link?

  42. "Beautiful pet" I assume you mean. And there is no such photo to my knowledge, if there is, it's a fake.

  43. She might mean the photo where JonBenet is wearing that black Halloween outfit, but I highly doubt her hands and feet were bound.

  44. I am wondering if there are documented cases of children being abused, where the father decides to kill the child because he thinks the child is going to tell. I really don't think it happens. If it does, it's got to be extremely rare. Of course, it's possible, but when you think of John Ramsey doing such an egregious thing, it seems very unlikely. If he was abusing her and he thought she was going to tell, he had other options than bashing her over the head with a Maglite. Seriously, think about it. I am Vern's Dad and I believe in what I say about this.

    1. There are a great many cases of children being murdered by their father, as should be obvious to anyone who follows the news. And if you look into these cases I feel sure you'll find more than a few where that child had been sexually abused. Instances of incestuous child abuse used to be considered extremely rare, but recently that estimate has changed drastically, as many women have come forward with stories of abuse. Of course those that were murdered will never have such an opportunity.,

      Killing someone to silence them is a very common motive for murder, in case you haven't noticed.

    2. Maybe, but this was a "rich" family. Do you think JR was going to risk everything to kill her? I really don't think so. Your theory about how supposedly John Ramsey killed her either premeditated, or by accident, blows. Yes, I said your theory blows. It sucks and blows together. Not many thngs suck and blow together, but your theory does. I think you need to sit back down at the drawing board, but first take a look in the mirror at what an obstinate fool looks like. Thank you, Duane (Verns Dad)

    3. If JR was convinced his daughter was going to accuse him of sexually abusing her, then he'd be risking everything by allowing her to live. As for the rest, that sort of juvenile language isn't worthy of including here, but I'm letting it go this time. This blog is for serious discussion, not personal attacks.

    4. Ok so what you are saying is that killing his daughter was a "risk management" play? He was buying insurance. And the cost of the "insurance" was the whole coverup, which wound up exploding in his face.

      Hmmmm. Ok. I am going to go with someone else having killed her accidentally, for 250, Bob. Yes that's right, a girl who is too young to even sexually abuse with his member, would not be the kind of "risk" that a Dad would need to extinguish so brazenly. Wouldn't happen, and didn't happen. A ransom note written entirely in Patsy's left-hand handwriting is a pretty good clue that your theory has more holes than the Concordia. Thank you.

    5. Feel free to believe what you like.

    6. Tell me how you would expect a 6 year old to articulate that she's being molested. "Listen, everyone, Daddy has been diddling me". Have you thought of that? A 6 yr old could not even articulate what she means. And she would probably not know that what Daddy is doing is "wrong" to begin with. You assume that for some reason she could and would use what leverage she had against her Dad. Makes no sense. And even more bizarre that he would snuff her out on some wild suspicion. On Christmas night of all nights. But to you, it makes sense because it follows from your brilliant analysis and conclusion that he must have been the sole killer, because Patsy called 911 with a body in the house and that could not be part of the plan. It could never ever in a million years be part of the plan, you are so sure.

    7. Look, "Vern's Dad," the child was clobbered with a single tremendous blow to the head, that cracked her skull from end to end. She was then strangled with a garotte-like device. And at some point she was sexually assaulted in a manner that drew blood from her vagina. Sorry, but that does NOT look like an accident to me. Nor does it look like two children "playing doctor."

      If we rule out an intruder, which most people familiar with this case agree on, including Vern, and certainly including myself, then WHAT are we expected to think? And why is it so important to you that her father be exonerated?

      This was no accident. So if the mother did it, what was the motive? And if the brother did it, what possible motive would the parents have for covering for him?

  45. No I can't, sorry, but it was on a supermarket tabloid cover, I'm pretty sure. I couldn't believe it.

  46. Vern's Dad,

    You make a reasonable point that murder is an extreme solution and the type of sexual abuse involved -digital- probably isn't going to require murder. Of so it would seem. It has often seemed to me that JR is more the type of guy who would talk/bribe his way out of trouble rather than kill. Especially when the consequence of getting caught (killing) is life in prison or even possibly execution.

    But, it remains a fact that someone killed her. It remains true that it's highly improbable that an intruder would have done the various things that were done.

    It's possible the blow to the head was accidental, though I think you have to admit Doc makes a good point - her skull was fractured it's entire length and it's hard to see that happening from kids horsing around.

    But even if we allow the possibility that the head bash was unintended, there is no pretending that the "garrotte" was accidental. There is simply no way to accidentally tie a rope around someone's neck and pull it tight until she dies.

    So overall, we have murder, not an accidental death. Someone very deliberately finished her off.

  47. Thanks, 'Anonymous', some good points. Someone did kill her. But the blow to her head was an accident. Yes, a boy age 10 could impart that sort of blow with enough leverage.

    Much has been made of the injury, the recessed portion which took out a chunk of her skull, and the fissure running to the front of the head. It does outline a metal golf club rather remarkably. However, I have done a lot of thinking about that injury, and it looks like it could be a baseball bat, swung perpendicularly to her head. The curved part of the bat head is clearly seen as the left side of that chunk being taken out, with the right side being rather "smashed". This tells me that the blow could have come from a baseball bat from the left side of her head (her left side), perpendicular to her head. The amount of leverage and moment that could be created from such a blow could be extraordinary, and I opine that a 10 year old could do it.

    Finally, the garrote and string were part of the staging effort, not a murder. The intention was to make the accident Look like a murder. There was only a murder committed that night IF and only IF one of the Ramseys or Burke used that garrotte to snuff the remaining life out of a mortally wounded Jonbenet.

  48. So to correct you Anonymous, what we have is an "Overall Accident", with tinges of murder 2 or manslaughter because of the "mercy killing" aspect to the case.

    Burke broke Patsy's precious pageant princess, and she'd not have it damaged like that -- what would people say -- JonBenet would no longer be number 1 on stage -- so she decided to snuff her out "for her own good".

    JonBenet may have lived through the bat clobbering, we will never know. She would have needed quick medical attention.

  49. Respectfully Vern's dad, we have murder.

    I'm playing along that the bash on the skull was not intended. I don't really think that's the case. But either way, the wrapping of a ligature around her neck is a deliberate act, thought out (not spontaneous) prior to being done. The intent was to ensure death.

    The garrotting is 1st degree murder.

    Burke didn't do it because there would be no reason for PR/JR to implicate themselves in murder to cover for a boy who could not be charged. Really, that's just common sense.

  50. " Burke didn't do it because there would be no reason for PR/JR to implicate themselves in murder to cover for a boy who could not be charged. "

    PR/JR did not implicate themselves by covering for Burke. It's simply a cover, that is what a "cover" is. The intent was that they would not be implicating themselves. They went to the trouble of writing a ransom note as part of the elaborate cover, boldly (and perhaps desperately) believing it would be believable.

    The reason for the cover for Burke was so that the little marauding tyke did not realize what he'd done. The boy was already messed up in the head, they thought that the realization that he'd killed his sister would "do him in". Plus, the whole investigation and police questioning, not to mention possible punishment and loss of school time, would be detrimental to him.

    Obviously they thought the cover would work.

    Your "common sense" is very lacking, and most people would agree that it's erroneous.

  51. "PR/JR did not implicate themselves by covering for Burke"

    You can't be serious. You do realize the GJ wanted both of them indicted?

    1. " You can't be serious. You do realize the GJ wanted both of them indicted? "

      Of course I am serious, it's a major component of my theory of Burke having done this crime (if you want to call it a "crime", I am always mixed about this: I feel it was an accident), and the parents covering for his actions.

      The grand jury would have probably pushed for indictment with, or without, the ransom note. I don't really think it would have made any difference. It was certainly NOT because of the ransom note that they were considering an indictment, if that's what you mean. As things went, the ransom note created about as much positive as it did negative (meaning, for every aspect of it that worked for them, an equal aspect of it worked against them). The ransom note turned out to be a "draw", effectively.

      Since you are so certain that JR did this crime alone, why, then, in your opinion, would the GJ seek an indictment against Patsy? You said she was not in the know, was not covering, and was not part of the crime (all of which I disagree with, by the way).

      "People see what they want to see", you said several times on this board. There is no greater example of that than your own arguments and theories. You intentionally obfuscate what are clear patterns and intuitive conclusions, to your own benefit and to fit your theory. That's bad.