A judge has ordered the release of the grand jury indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey in the JonBenet case that has been sealed since the grand jury was dismissed in 1999.
Retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled Wednesday morning that the indictment will be released Friday in response to a lawsuit brought by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press seeking the release of the unprosecuted indictment of the Ramseys.While I, like everyone else following this case, am eager to read what the Grand Jury had to say, I must confess I am far from thrilled. Yes, according to what we've heard so far, the GJ did decide to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey, thus ruling against Lou Smit and his absurd intruder theory. That's the good news. The bad news is that the GJ appears to have accepted Steve Thomas's version of what happened, which is equally absurd. The indictment is also meaningless, as far as justice is concerned, since the charge they apparently came up with was something like involuntary manslaughter associated with child abuse, a crime that can no longer be prosecuted, since it carries a three year statute of limitations that expired years ago.
I could be wrong, but it looks very much as though the indictment reflects Thomas's theory that JonBenet was killed accidentally by her mother, who lost it in a rage over bedwetting and unintentionally slammed JonBenet's head against a sink or bathtub. While anyone other than a drug crazed psychotic would immediately call an ambulance after such an incident, Thomas expects us to believe that pageant mom Patsy, known theretofore as a particularly attentive and caring mother, decided instead to stage an elaborate coverup, penetrating her daughter's vagina with her finger, to make it look like a sexual attack, and then strangling her with a garotte-like ligature device to make it look even more horrific. And then, just for good measure, in case the feeble minded Boulder cops might need more convincing, writing a two and a half page phoney "ransom" note, to stage a kidnapping on top of the sexual assault.
According to Thomas, her husband, John slept through the whole disgusting incident, figuring it out only the next morning, and then deciding to go along with his wife's insane plot, in order to save his marriage and his family's reputation. I must say, I've heard of people staging an accident to cover for a murder, but never in the long history of crime have I ever heard of anyone staging a murder to cover for an accident. Nor have I ever heard of anyone saving his reputation by deciding to collaborate in a crime. And as far as saving his marriage is concerned, I've seen no evidence that Patsy and John were all that passionately bonded, certainly not to the point where he'd be willing to risk the electric chair to cover for her murder of his beloved child. But, hey, that's just me . . .
It's hard to believe any body of sane people could accept such an outlandish scenario, but I have a horrible feeling this GJ did more or less that. Why not, since on the many JonBenet forums over the years we've seen more than enough evidence of normally sane people accepting just about anything tossed out there, so long as their suspicions, and prejudices, are confirmed.
I must say I'm not pleased by this development because it's just going to toss more smoke and mirrors into a case that's already confusing enough, and it's not going to solve anything -- not only because of the statute of limitations, but because the GJ was simply not in a position to solve a case in which the only logical suspect had been "ruled out" and in fact given, in the words of Steve Thomas: a "pass." I felt sorry then for DA Alex Hunter, and I feel sorry for him now, because Thomas has many fans who feel sure Hunter did the wrong thing in not prosecuting "the Ramseys" then and there, an effort that would surely have failed. Because, face it, there is and never was any reason to prosecute Patsy Ramsey. And no reason either to assume that the cold blooded murder of JonBenet Ramsey was some sort of accident. The poor child was sexually assaulted, bludgeoned and strangled for God's sake. How is that an accident?
Help me Jesus!
Well let's see how the indictment reads. We already know the GJ wanted to indict both PR and JR and of course there is almost no chance of determining who did what if one sees both of them being involved.
ReplyDeleteAs I've stated many times, there is no way both of them could have been involved. For starters, if both were involved, the 911 call would not have been made first thing in the morning, with the body still in the house. Why was it so hard for the DA to see that? Why was it so hard for the Grand Jury to see that? Why has it been so hard for Steve Thomas or James Kolar to see that ? This is not rocket science!
DeleteIf there was no intruder, and Patsy and John were not collaborating in a coverup, then clearly either Patsy OR John (but not both) was responsible for BOTH the murder and the coverup, with the other an innocent victim, being manipulated by his or her spouse.
I agree. My point was simply that the GJ didn't "figure it out" as so many on the talk boards are claiming. They seem to have gone for the lesser charge because they thought that might stick to both parents. The GJ, like so many others, seemed stuck on the idea that both parents were involved.
DeleteObviously it's not BDI or the charges would have been obstruction of justice/evidence tampering.
Sorry. I wasn't assuming this was your theory, though I should have made that clear. It's just that the phrase "both of them being involved" is a red flag to me, and I felt the need to once again clarify that point.
DeleteDoc, I agree with you 100 percent. There have been some mothers in history who have murdered their child(ren) and have tried to cover it up, but never with such elaborate staging, especially with a sexual assault. Even if PR DID accidentally kill JB, I do not believe for one second that she would allow JR to put that garrot around her daughter's neck and leave her on that cold slab of concrete in the basement. No way. Also, I am a mother. I know the love a mother feels for her children and our worst fear is losing a child, either by kidnapping or murder, or both. I have listened to PR's 911 call many times and she is not acting. You can hear the panic and desperation in her voice. PR had nothing to do with this crime. Now, she may have later figured it out, but she was dying of cancer anyway and probably just looked forward to seeing her daughter again in heaven and didn't want to bother exposing her husband. She was a very prideful woman and I'm sure she wouldn't want the world to know she was married to a monster.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that someday, someone will say something that will expose the real killer. It may be BR or it may be the new wife. But I really believe someone will eventually talk. But I also have a feeling it will be after JR dies himself.
I'm glad you agree. And no, I don't think Patsy ever figured it out. It seems clear to me that John Ramsey is a master manipulator. That may have been the key to his business success. He manipulated the police, the DA, the media, even his own lawyers and in all likelihood the "experts" he hired to rule him out. He manipulated his son and, as seems clear to me, his wife as well. I think she bought into the intruder theory with no reservations. She certainly bought into John's being "ruled out." As did just about everyone else.
DeleteFrom what I've seen in the news, the GJ believed both PR and JR assisted someone known to, and suspected of, committing 1st degree murder. (paraphrasing)
ReplyDeleteThat must mean the GJ did not think JBR's death was an accident. 1st degree murder require premeditation.
I'm also wondering if this doesn't pretty much eliminate BDI theory, as BR by statute didn't have the capacity to commit a crime.
Yes, looks like I was wrong, and Thomas's accident theory was not accepted. Interesting. As far as Burke is concerned, I'm afraid a lot of people will pick up on that possibility, assuming he's the only one the Ramseys would possibly want to cover for. What leads me to believe the GJ did not have Burke in mind is the absence of any charge of conspiracy. My guess is that they must have concluded JonBenet was killed by either John or Patsy, but could not determine which. So the best they could do was indict both for "rendering assitance" and hope the truth would come out during the trial.
DeleteYes, that's my take as well -they couldn't figure out who did what so they charged them both. As we know, that's the same as charging neither as it will be impossible to prove at trial who did what. But I suspect, as you seem to, that the GJ simply couldn't let them off with no charges. And of course the legal standard is lower for a GJ than it would be at the actual trial. Probable Cause vs Reasonable Doubt.
DeleteBDIs will see BDI wherever they look, so that doesn't concern me much. What I'd like to know more about is this - if one of the charges is assisting someone who committed 1st degree murder, and BR can't possibly have committed 1st degree murder because of his age, doesn't that essentially mean the GJ thinks one or the other parent did it? Isn't it pretty clear that the GJ could not mean BR?
Then too, as I mentioned before, 1st degree requires premeditation, which doesn't eliminate all possible BDI scenarios, but it does eliminate most of them. That BR was horsing around, maybe even pissed off, but never intended to kill JB can't be the scenario if premeditation is a requirement.
Your point about conspiracy is good. Apparently there were a list of possible charges the jury could find applicable. They chose only the two. Conspiracy was not one of them, and it would be a pretty basic element of BDI. I'm sure conspiracy was on the list.
Yeah, imo there is no way they had Burke in mind. The authorities had already made it clear he wasn't a suspect. There's a myth that they all knew he did it but were forced to protect him but that doesn't hold water, since obviously they pursued a great many suspects for years. Why waste resources if they already knew for sure who killed JonBenet?
DeleteI think they were caught in a kind of trap, where they felt forced to indict either Patsy or John but had no idea who did what. So they indicted both on a lesser charge, hoping it would all get settled in the ensuing trial. Naive.
The ransom note gives it all away. Patsy most likely wrote it as it has a very maternal tone (make sure you bring an adequate size attaché ((who uses the word attaché and not briefcase or bag - that is something someone tre chic with knowledge of the fashion world would say)) then there is "the delivery will be exhausting so I advice you to be well rested" ((how considerate of the kidnappers! This is indicative of Patsy being exhausted herself when writing the note and knowing the following day would be even more exhausting - perhaps it was some subconscious wish that someone would advise her to get some rest)) .
ReplyDeleteThe note goes on to say that if anyone calls the police, FBI, that JBR would be killed. Many instructions in the note of what not to do otherwise JBR would be killed. Everyone says that Patsy was the one to call 911 so that gives the indication she wasn't the one who wrote the letter as she didn't follow what the letter said - but that was the plan...she is so "distraught" she calls 911 (exactly what the "kidnappers" said not to do otherwise JBR would get killed ("you stand a 99% chance of killing her if you try to outsmart us")...therefore they in a sense killed JBR by not following directions, but they did it out of desperation. So, they come away looking like wonderful, desperate, loving parents. Most people would follow the directions on the ransom note out of fear of having the kidnappers kill their daughter. They would probably get the money and wait for the call. PR and JR already knew JBR was dead so there was no fear of calling 911, and once the police arrived and JBR would eventually be found, her "death" would be because the parents didn't follow the ransom note. I think that was the original plan. According to the ransom note, "you follow our instructions and you get a 100% chance of getting her back". Since PR didn't follow direction, they wouldn't be getting their daughter back. This is also indicated when the detective noticed no one commented on the 10 am deadline for the kidnapper's call had come and gone.This ransom note is very clever considering what we already know about the crime scene.
The last part of the ransom note is very much directed at JR. There is a lot of aggression directed towards him. "Don't try to grow a brain John" "You are not the only fat cat around" "use that good southern common sense of yours". To me this indicates PR is fearful that JR will blow the whole thing out of the water by not following the plan or it could also mean that she has a lot of anger towards him ("you are not the only fat cat around" - this could mean PR is taking control). "It is up to you now John" to me seems like PR is hoping JR doesn't blow the cover and that she did all she could do so now everything is in his hands. I do not think JR helped write the letter. It is all Patsy.
The entire letter is chock full of clues. I don't know who killed JBR but to me the letter indicates the parents knew she was dead prior to the police arriving.
Well, the person who wrote that note certainly knew she was dead. And also knew where the body was hidden. So why would that person want to have the police called in so soon, before he (or she) had the chance to get the body out of the house? Are you suggesting they expected the police to believe JonBenet had been killed and hidden in that basement room AFTER the 911 call? Because that's what you seem to be implying.
DeleteAs far as the assumption that Patsy wrote the note is concerned, sure, I'm very aware that a great many people see the note as something only she would have written. However, there is in fact no reason to make such an assumption. For one thing, why would she have wanted to leave clues to her identity in a note most likely written by the person who killed her daughter? Second, you are disregarding the many elements in the note that only a male would have been likely to include.
As I see it, the elements in the note directed at John were intended to give the impression that JonBenet's attacker was someone associated with his business who resented him and wanted to harm his family. They were certainly not in the note in order to provide the police with clues telling them that Patsy wrote the note, sorry but that strikes me as absurd.
Patsy, of course, did not want to give clues away. We can only see the clues after careful analysis of the letter and years of being able to sift through other various clues and evidence. If she were writing it in a rush and not thinking clearly due to stress (as I gather she had never written a ransom note before), it is highly likely that some elements of her personality and ways of thinking/speaking were bound to be included in the letter. It has been noted that the ransom note moves from being impersonal in the beginning to personal by the end, so as she wrote and wrote, she became more comfortable/confident, thus releasing more of her personality. The letter starts out saying the kidnappers are part of a foreign faction. What foreigners know about "good southern common sense" and the term "fat cat"?
DeleteIf you are referring to the "male influences" of the letter being the quotes from movies considered to be "guy" movies, it has been noted that Patsy said most of the movies watched in the house were rented by JR and Burke, therefore it is conceivable that Patsy watched many of the movies where the quote came from. Also, JR is extremely wealthy. Why would an intruder not think that he/she could be caught by a home security system/camera while sitting at a table writing out the ransom note?
Why would "intruders" kill JBR, write a fake ransom note (leaving more clues), and then leave the house? Doesn't make sense. If the "kidnappers" were planning on taking JBR and actually going through with the ransom, however accidentally killing her in the basement on the way out and leaving her in the wine cellar, why would they leave the ransom note (evidence), and wrap her body up in her favorite blanket (evidence)? That doesn't work either. Are you saying the purpose of ransom note was to indicate JBR was alive, have JR deliver the $118,000, and only after having the police called to the scene was it to be discovered that JBR was actually dead? Why go through all the trouble of writing a ransom note when JR and PR could have easily searched through their home upon first discovering the note and found JBR themselves, thus then forcing the Ramsey's to not go through with the ransom because what is the point, their daughter is already dead? No other explanation fits. I believe JBR was killed accidentally by one of the three remaining Ramsey's in the home that night.There was a need to stage her body as a murder, though, most likely because once her body was found, it would be discovered that there was evidence of sexual abuse. At the very least, it was done to prevent any one of the Ramsey's being held accountable for accidently killing JBR. Let's apply a similar scenario. Teenagers are playing catch in their home and the ball hits a priceless and irreplaceable family vase, shattering it to pieces. Instead of fessing up and admitting they were fooling around and were careless, they stage a break in (maybe breaking a window or messing up the home to look like someone broke in; claiming they left the front door open when they went out to play football). Instead of being held responsible for breaking a family heirloom, the boys would only be responsible for leaving the front door open, which allowed an intruder to enter their home. Same theory applies to the letter.
If a note was found claiming that JBR was alive, who is not to believe that she is alive? Why would the Ramsey's risk infuriating the kidnappers by calling 911 and all their friends over to the house if they thought there was the potential to save JBR? If someone points a gun to your head and says "don't move or I'll shoot", are you going to move or are you going to run because you don't believe the person holding the gun? Of course it is simplistic to think that JBR would be killed in the basement directly after PR called 911, but in the Ramsey's minds, if they are only held accountable for breaking the kidnappers rules because they are so distraught, then that is far, far less of a punishment than actually accidentally harming their own daughter and causing her to die. There was an account that when JR and Fleet White went to the basement right before JBR's body was found, that Fleet was the one who tried to open the wine cellar door only to be discouraged by JR. There is another account that JR told authorities that the wine cellar was painted shut. Could it be possible that the Ramsey's were biding their time in order to create a space of time where it would be possible that a killer would have "found out" PR called the police and then became so angry they killed JBR and left the house?
DeleteAnother interesting piece of information about the ransom note. Jeffrey Shapiro, a reporter who followed the JBR case for 15 years, found that in 1994, the Colorado Woman’s Daily did a cover story on Patsy in which she admitted that she was relying on Christian faith healing to overcome her illness. In that article, Patsy said she relied heavily on a spiritual book by Dodie Osteen called, “Healed of Cancer.”
Osteen wrote in her book that she recited Psalm 118, Verse 17 every night before going to sleep over and over again. It read: “I shall not die, but live and declare the works of the Lord.”.
Look what JR stated at a later time. Here is an excerpt from an interview JR did in 2001:
2000 March 28 – Larry King Live Interview with John and Patsy Ramsey
Larry King: “Any thoughts as to why. I think you mentioned last night $118,000 — that’s the bonus you got for the year?”
John Ramsey: “Well, it happened to be very close to my annual bonus that I’d received in February I think it was of ’96. I don’t know if that’s significant or not or, if that’s a clue. It means something to the killer, 118, $118,000 means something to the killer.”
Had to break these replies up because I exceeded the amount I can write in one comment box.
DeleteI don't believe John wrote the letter because of the last part being so directed towards him personally. I would think someone writing the ransom note would not want to have such a personal connection nor to have the responsibility of finding their daughter lying all on him/herself. This leads me to believe that Patsy wrote it because she is not mentioned in the letter at all. Similar to people who compartmentalize - she was only able to write it if she was not the one being asked herself to follow the instructions or responsible for her daughter's well being. It also leads me to believe that this is why it was Patsy who called 911. If JR found a note directed towards him, read it had specific instructions to not call 911, and then called 911, he would look incompetent...as if he were not following directions. This is why Patsy called. This was a very carefully, skillfully planned out crime scene.
No, the same theory does NOT apply to the letter. Because the letter is a "ransom note," and there was no kidnapping. What you say toward the end makes some sense until you get to that last sentence. If they'd been planning all along on calling the police with the body still in the house then they'd have staged an intruder breakin and made it look like the intruder sexually assaulted and then murdered her. And they'd have posed the body in plain sight, not hidden it in a remote basement "wine cellar." They certainly would not have written a phoney ransom note because as soon as the body is found it becomes clear that there was no kidnapping and then the note looks exactly like what it was: part of a staged kidnapping that went awry.
DeleteAlso, the phrase "use your good southern common sense" was a phrase often used by Patsy and this was well known. Why on Earth would she have wanted to include it in a note written by her daughter's murderer? The point of the note was to point away from the writer not AT the writer. I think John included it to make it seem as though the "kidnapper" was someone familiar with the family, who had a grudge.
As for male influences, in addition to the "male oriented" movie references, we find "foreign faction," "monitor," "execution," "scanned," "electronic devices," "countermeasures and tactics," "constant scrutiny," the sort of terms a male and not a female would be likely to use.
How we see that note depends an awful lot on our prior expectations. If you are looking for Patsy, you'll see her in the note and if you're looking for John, you'll see him. As for me, I see no point in attempting to read the identity of the writer in the note itself, but in the logic behind it -- which clearly points to John and not Patsy.
"If a note was found claiming that JBR was alive, who is not to believe that she is alive? Why would the Ramsey's risk infuriating the kidnappers by calling 911 and all their friends over to the house if they thought there was the potential to save JBR?"
DeleteSorry, but I'm finding it hard to see the point you're trying to make. If the Ramseys were in it together, as I assume you are arguing, then are you saying that they called 911 because they were hoping the police would believe JonBenet had been killed by the "kidnappers" as a result of that call? If so, that means they expected the police to believe that the "kidnappers" were still in the house when the call was made, and that they somehow found out about the call and then quickly killed JonBenet and left before the police arrived? Sorry, but that doesn't square with the autopsy results, which showed that she'd already been dead for at least a few hours prior to the call.
As far as Psalm 118 is concerned, that's pure folklore. It seems incredible to me that either Patsy or John would equate a Biblical Psalm with a ransom amount.
"I don't believe John wrote the letter because of the last part being so directed towards him personally."
DeleteImo John was deliberately pointing 180 degrees away from himself by having the note addressed to him. You of course see it the other way round. Which tells me, once again, that we can't get very far trying to analyze the psychology behind the note. It can be interpreted in all sorts of ways depending on your suspicions.
Also as I see it, the note says "it is up to you John" because John wanted Patsy to think the kidnappers wanted to deal with him personally. They were literally putting him in charge of delivering the ransom, which is exactly the excuse he needed to get her out of the house so he could complete his staging.
That is a brilliant post. The ransom note is clearly maternal, in nature and substance.
DeleteFrom the very beginning, I was convinced that Patsy was responsible for the ransom note.
The author/ess of the ransom note carries on like a blabbermouth, is obviously NOT a mental giant, and says MANY things which seem to have Patsy's imprint.
Look at the length of the ransom note! Ridiculous!
Look at the 10AM deadline, a ridiculously early deadline.
Patsy was responsible for the ransom note and the very early deadline reflected the character of someone who got whatever they wanted in the proverbial "click of the fingers".
Doc's "why would she leave so many clues pointing at her" question is easy to answer. She was "pageant mom", not a contract killer. She was not a rocket scientist. She was in a frenzy, nervous, scared, confused.
She used the word "attache". That is Patsy all over. A man would not use that term.
What I'm getting from the above comment is a very clear bias against Patsy, and also against women in general. You are long on opinions but short on either facts or reasoning. It is NOT a fact that the note is "clearly maternal," that's just your opinion. An injunction to "be rested" means nothing in itself as the writer was clearly trying to hide his (or her) identity. What if the note said, "Oh John be a good boy and do as I tell you." Would that mean it was written by his mother???? Get real, nothing in that note should be taken literally.
DeleteHonestly, I expected a much better response from you.
DeleteCiting "a very clear bias", etc is really childish, desperate and capricious, a last resort on your part. That is what someone says when they really have nothing of any import, to say.
Next you'll label me "a hater", like a teenager would, or a "misogynist", a term which very few people (who use that trendy, fashionable term) actually understand the meaning of.
If you honestly cannot see that a female is more likely to have authored the ransom note than a male, then you are either mentally-retarded or mentally-dishonest. I'll assume the latter.
THE RANSOM NOTE IS MATERNAL IN NATURE AND SUBSTANCE !!!!
Is the above opinion sexist? Sure, of course it is. I've observed thousands of males and I've observed thousands of females. The ransom note was authored by a female. It's obvious, crystal clear.
This does not mean I hate Patsy, not at all. I'm simply thinking this through. I'm giving my opinion, based upon my observation of many thousands of males and many thousands of females, in my experience. Your experiences may be different. I don't know.
Moreover, I've seen your opinion that Patsy could not possibly have tied those knots around the child's neck, because she's a female and a female would never do this. This is equally sexist reasoning, by you. This shows a bias against men, on your part, to assume that a man must have necessarily done those things, not a woman. You must therefore be a misandrist. Your reasoning on this and other issues is purely sexist. But that's okay, because you are presumably allowed to do this.
You are allowed to make generalized deductions based upon gender, but no one else is, I see.
You have exonerated Patsy, you have taken the bait, swallowed the acting performances, believed the lies, felt the tears.
You also have the arrogance to label my opinion as an opinion "against women in general." Excuse me, I mentioned one woman only in my comment, namely Patsy Ramsay. Cut out the low-blows, the cheap-shots. You seem desperate and lost for a response, seriously.
By the way, my spouse also believes that a female drafted that ransom note, as does my daughter. They have no doubt whatsoever about this. My son has no interest in this case.
Moreover, I could reply to you by saying that YOU are biased against John. Sure, my theory reflects my opinion, but so does yours. This is a forum for opinions. You have made errors, you have admitted making errors. You do not give the impression that you have totally-mastered this case, so ease up on the grand-standing and insults.
I strenuously and unequivocally re-iterate that I see Patsy all over that ransom note, as do many millions of others. The ridiculously early deadline (from someone who obviously had no clue what she was doing and expects everything in an instant) is but one example. There are dozens of other examples. The ransom note rambles on and on and on forever.....if you cannot see Patsy-isms all over that ransom note, then you are being intellectually-dishonest, in my opinion. You are basically part of Patsy's cheer-squad.
You also rely on the contention that Patsy was apparently a "doting" mother, and surely this rules her out of any possible guilt. This is an utterly ridiculous viewpoint. Ludicrous. John was also doting, Sherlock.
You have not swayed me one iota. In fact, I'm even more certain now of my contention, as you need to resort to silly insults, in your retort.
Let's just agree to disagree. I'll leave you to your blog. I will not label your blog a vendetta against John, nor as a disingenuous, highly-selective and fawning crusade on behalf of Patsy.
The fact that you strongly believe you have solved this case is laughable.
I will not be posting any more comments on your blog. Good luck and good day!
For what it's worth, the websleuths website posed the question: "Did Patsy write the ransom note?"
Delete* 91.49% of websleuths responded with "Yes".
* 8.51% of websleuths responded with "No".
Take out the Patsy Ramsay cheer-squad component, and virtually no one felt that Patsy did not author the ransom note, it seems.
For what it's worth, I only discovered the websleuths website today. I tried to register and post comments, but there was a technical problem. I sent an email, seeking registration.
"The author/ess of the ransom note carries on like a blabbermouth, is obviously NOT a mental giant, and says MANY things which seem to have Patsy's imprint."
DeleteOh no, you're not biased. The above is an objective, carefully reasoned assessment, for sure.
Websleuths is and has been for a very long time a Patsy-dunnit forum. Those with any other opinion on the case, such as myself, have been systematically drummed out. There have been other forums similarly controlled by Ramsey defenders, and on those forums you'll also find very few if any dissenters. I've had the "honor" of being banned by both camps.
I certainly have my opinions and I could certainly be wrong. I happen to think it unlikely that a mother so strongly bonded with her daughter in so many ways would want to murder her. And I also happen to think it possible that a father might, in a weak moment, sexually molest his daughter, and then live in fear of exposure. I certainly do see this as a possible motive for murder.
However, very frankly, these are my opinions, and I would never accuse anyone on the basis of an opinion, even my own.
My analysis of the case is NOT based on my opinion, however. If you read through the first few posts especially, you'll see that it is based strictly on the facts of the case. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Everyone has them and they often say more about the person expressing the opinion than they do about the object of the opinion. They are of no use whatsoever in understanding a case such as this, or putting one's finger on the perpetrator. To do that you actually need to dig deeply into: the facts.
You strike me as a misandrist, a sexist. A mother "so strongly bonded with her daughter" is an angel who could do no wrong, in your eyes. I'm utterly amazed by your view. Do you really think like that ??? You sound like a mother protecting her daughter. You are believing what you want to believe and ignoring the actual evidence regarding John's relationship with his daughter. You've been watching too many fairytale-stories. I truly hope that you are never called to serve on a jury where the only two suspects are a sulking, sneaky female and a man. God help men, in your fictional, insular world.
DeleteIn your opinion, yes opinion, a father similarly bonded to his daughter and who provided everything for her (and who had lost another daughter to tragedy, no less) sexually molested his daughter repeatedly and then murdered her. You find that proposition logical, incredibly. That is sexist and displays a bias against loving fathers. You present as a misandrist, a sexist.
You also want to totally discount the ransom-note. This indicates to me that you agree that the ransom note exhibits feminine touches. You prefer to think that it was prepared by John and intended to hide his identity....what? By implicating Patsy? You yourself have stated that John would not wish to implicate Patsy, because this harms them both and could well destroy the plan.
Are you male or female? I'm getting a strong feeling that you're a sexist misandrist, quick to generalize based primarily upon gender and nice little fairytales portraying females as perfect, divine little creatures and men as deranged sexual perverts, even with zero evidence.
"..in a weak moment..." How ridiculous. What about Patsy's weak moments?
You're tripping over yourself to candy-coat Patsy's behavior, while demonizing John, with zero evidence of child-abuse on John's part. On the contrary, John gave his daughter a great life, on the evidence, or are you selective about the evidence? Yes, I think you are. The evidence is that John was a doting, loving father, but this evidence conflicts with your opinion, so you discount it, conveniently.
You write fictional stories, in your real-life. How apt? Are you aware that females are also capable of committing heinous, vicious, hands-on crimes against so-called "loved ones". Are you aware of the Jodi Arias case? Are you aware of mothers drowning their babies in bath-tubs? etc...
(1) Are you male or female? Yes, it matters.....it really matters.
(2) Is your position one of agreeing that the ransom-note probably WAS prepared by a female, but let's sweep-it-under-the-carpet because the so-called real author of the ransom note prepared it, to hide his (John's) identity and to implicate someone else? OR, do you maintain that the ransom note does NOT exhibit a maternal nature, in the expressions used, which is your current position? It's either one or the other. You can't hold both viewpoints.
re: the websleuths website
DeleteI know nothing about the websleuths website. I discovered it only last-night, after you said I was strongly biased against Patsy and women in generally, which I found incredibly petulant and lacking in class.
You seem biased against men, whom you find to have the propensity for committing the most disgusting crimes against their child, with no evidence. Your gut-feeling about angelic females and demonic-males just totally blew any respect that I previously had for you, seriously. I'm being honest here.
I tried to register on websleuths, but failed. I sent an email, I'm still waiting to register.
I cannot accept your subjective views on that website. I'll judge it for myself. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don't know.
"Is your position one of agreeing that the ransom-note probably WAS prepared by a female,"
DeleteI see nothing whatever in the note that suggests a female. In fact there are many terms and expressons suggesting a male author. I certainly don't think it was John's intention to make it look like Patsy wrote it because I see nothing of Patsy in it. Imo with a note clearly intended to be deceptive we have no way of knowing whether a male or female wrote it. And as I've already made clear, my conclusions regarding this case have nothing to do with my opinions regarding either Patsy or John, or how likely it is that either one is a molester or murderer. My conclusions are based for the most part on the facts and logic of the case, supplemented by certain key pieces of evidence.
So you're a female, obviously.
DeleteI love how you completely ignore issues which you are not comfortable with and avoid unpalatable matters.
Why are you embarrassed to be identified as a female? Why are you so defensive? Just admit you are female, it's quite obvious from your comments that you are female.
Detective Arndt was also female and she was completely useless, is that what troubles you about me knowing your gender?
You present as a mother covering up for her daughter, or blindly hoping-against-hope that her daughter is innocent. It's obvious. Terms such as "so strongly bonded with her daughter", are more likely to come from females than males. You used that term, all was as many others, which tells me you are female.
Women seem to love feelgood, lovey-dovey terms like "closely bonded". Real Mills & Boon stuff, romance novels, fictional fluff. Let's candy-coat everything, shall we?
But guess what? Linda Hoffman-Pugh is also a female. She was the Ramsey's house-keeper and had the perfect opportunity to personally observe all the players in this story, as well as in your sexist, misandristic, ridiculously biased, fictional adaptation this story.
Linda has said she firmly believes that Patsy killed Jon Benet. This is not me speaking, but a personal-link to all the players. A female, like you. Linda says that Patsy (your "closely bonded" pin-up girl) demonstrated multiple personalities, in her (Linda's) personal observation.
She would seem okay, then suddenly she would be screaming at JonBenet like a cranky, angry person. She was explosive and volatile.
NO SIMILAR EVIDENCE AGAINST JOHN EXISTS IN THIS CASE, Mrs Sherlock.
This was happening with increasing frequency around Christmas 1996. I'm sure Patsy had many "weak moments" (your words to hang John with zero evidence of child-abuse, Mrs Sherlock).
Patsy probably killed the child in one of these moments of rage, it may have been an accident. One thing's for sure, if the house-keeper observed John displaying multiple-personalities, YOU would have been all over that evidence, screaming it from the roof-tops.
You are a sexist misandrist, you believe that all men have the propensity to be deranged perverted molesting killers (with ZERO evidence of deranged sexual activity), while you ignore the clear observations of the house-keeper who physically observed all these people and clearly sees your pin-up girl as the killer.
I'm speechless, your blinkered, intellectually-dishonest position astounds me, seriously.
So much for your "strongly bonded" mother and daughter. They were strongly-bonded, alright. The poor child was strongly-bonded to an immature lunatic, an entitled person, a person used to getting everything she wanted. In your "weak moment", your pin-up girl killed the child, probably accidentally. Then the cover-up began.
Linda Hoffman-Pugh says she loved Patsy, Linda loved Patsy. Linda did not want to believe that Patsy killed the child. But she was compelled to, due to what she knew and what she had personally observed.
Various items found in the vicinity of JonBenet could only have been found by Patsy. One was a Swiss Army knife, which Linda took away from Burke and secreted amongst linens, so cleverly that only Patsy would have found it. There were others.
Yes, they were closely-bonded, alright. That poor girl was closely-bonded to a fruitcake, a lunatic, a ticking time-bomb.
Seriously, wake up and smell the coffee, come down off those clouds, put down those fictional novels.
"Why are you embarrassed to be identified as a female? Why are you so defensive? Just admit you are female, it's quite obvious from your comments that you are female."
DeleteAll sorts of things are "obvious" to you. That doesn't make them so. As it happens I'm a guy, not a gal. Nor am I gay, by the way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.:-) ) Which says a lot about your ability to identify the gender of the note writer.
Normally I would simply delete a personal attack such as this, but I find your posts amusing, so -- for the time being at least -- I'll make an exception.
Linda Hoffmann Pugh initially defended Patsy, claiming there was no way she could have done anything like what she was being accused of doing. Later, however, she was devastated when she learned Patsy had named her as a possible suspect. So she was fair game when Darnay Hoffmann approached her as part of his plan to nail Patsy to the wall. Suddenly Patsy, who she'd been portraying as the perfect mother, morphed into a horrible witch capable of any crime imaginable. Hoffmann Pugh's opinion of Patsy has nothing whatever to do with JonBenet's murder. She was not a witness, nor did she have any knowledge relevant to the crime, aside from her comments about the knife and the broken window, which were based on fact, not opinion.
I fail to see why Patsy was the only one who could have found Burke's knife. Linda was the one who hid it, not Patsy. John could just as easily have found it.
Your bias is literally dripping from your fangs, my friend. Get over yourself.
"Of course it is simplistic to think that JBR would be killed in the basement directly after PR called 911, but in the Ramsey's minds, if they are only held accountable for breaking the kidnappers rules because they are so distraught, then that is far, far less of a punishment than actually accidentally harming their own daughter and causing her to die. There was an account that when JR and Fleet White went to the basement right before JBR's body was found, that Fleet was the one who tried to open the wine cellar door only to be discouraged by JR. There is another account that JR told authorities that the wine cellar was painted shut. Could it be possible that the Ramsey's were biding their time in order to create a space of time where it would be possible that a killer would have "found out" PR called the police and then became so angry they killed JBR and left the house? "
ReplyDeleteThis keeps coming up on forums and by people who seem intelligent and quite knowledgeable on many aspects of the case. I struggle to understand why people can't see the problem. (It's also one of the reasons I don't bother with the forums anymore)
Simply put, JBR cannot have been killed around midnight in retaliation for violating the instructions in the RN when those violations don't begin until almost 6am.
What you are suggesting could only possibly make sense if the body was dumped outside the home - which is further evidence that there was in fact a plan to dump the body. (Even then the reason for the "kidnappers" killing JBR could simply be to prevent identification rather than because instructions were not followed).
With the body found in the house, even several hours after her death, the TOD can be established with reasonable accuracy. (By contrast, had the body been dumped, TOD might not be established with any sort of accuracy, depending on how many days/weeks it took to find the body).
With TOD being established at roughly midnight, it is obvious, even to BPD, that she was not killed around 6 am by kidnappers still hiding in the basement.
With the body in full rigor at the time JR "finds" her, the TOD cannot be brought forward significantly. There would be no doubt in the minds of the police that she died several hours before the 911 call.
It is the fact that the body is in the house (and therefore TOD can be established) that makes the scenario you've outlined impossible.
Yes, thank you. The bottom line on this is that the Ramseys would have had no need to come up with an explanation for why JonBenet had been killed by her captors, because kidnap victims are often murdered simply to prevent identification, as you say. What they WOULD have needed to do would be to get the body out of the house first, before calling the police. Once the body is out of the house it's much easier to blame her death on the "kidnappers." With the body found in the house, it looks a lot more like an inside job.
DeleteSo I am assuming you believe JR did this all by himself and PR got in the way? I don't know if I buy that because of the scream that was heard in the house. Do you think PR and Burke slept through that? Why would he have left JBR in the basement and not put he in the car in the middle of the night so that when he went to go to the bank he wouldn't have to go into the basement to get her. If that is your theory, that PR wasn't in on it, it would had to have been John who found the letter. Either way, if one or both were in on it, and there was in fact another stage to take place, then there would have been no need to put JBR in the basement.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read the note, I actually read many accounts that stated it was believed Patsy wrote the note and that JR dictated what to say. After I read the note in its entirety, I felt that it was all Patsy. Remember, Patsy had a degree in journalism. That would indicate someone with a creative mind and a flare for writing. I think if JR wrote it, it would be more technical and curt; very business oriented. The letter to me is emotional, maternal, creative, and dramatic. The oddest part of that entire letter is the line "the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be well rested". It is like an alarm went off in my head when I read that. On top of it all, PR's technical handwriting was the closest match out of anyone else.
Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to see the point you're trying to make. If the Ramseys were in it together, as I assume you are arguing, then are you saying that they called 911 because they were hoping the police would believe JonBenet had been killed by the "kidnappers" as a result of that call?
You have to remember JR and PR did not have experience doing this before. They had limited time, were probably in shock on top of being exhausted, and were trying to get the blame off themselves...any way possible. They didn't know the technicalities of determining time and cause of death. So the execution is not going to make sense and it shouldn't because they are not professionals. In fact, the less it makes sense, indicates more that it is a fake ransom note. Because the ransom note dictated that they were under constant surveillance, that leaves a lot of room for the killers to do whatever they wanted in almost every capacity. I'd say 3/4 of the letter is describing what not to do or else JBR dies. The fact that PR and JR broke almost all the rules as soon as they pick up the letter, indicates that, yes, it was part of the plan to explain away why the "kidnappers" would kill JBR. It could also explain why her body was put in the basement and why the suitcase was placed there to make it look like they got out on the ground floor. Real kidnappers would most definitely not hide out in the house with the victim after placing a ransom note, but this was not a real kidnapping. This could also explain why the garrote was put on JBR after the blow to her head. They had to make a visible "cause of death" because the initial cause of death wasn't visible enough and wouldn't mesh with what PR and JR thought law enforcement would immediately think a kidnapper would do to a child whose parents didn't comply with a ransom note. Remember, it was described she would be "beheaded".
DeleteFirst of all, it's not clear that there was in fact a scream. The person who reported that later had second thoughts and was not sure when she heard it or even if she heard it that night. It could easily have been a sound coming from the street or another house, possibly even a cat screaming, which can sound very human.
As for the rest you are making all sorts of assumptions based on your own personal response to the various bits and pieces of evidence. As we've learned from the forums, such assumptions can take people in all sorts of different directions. To you "the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested" might sound like something a woman might say. I, on the other hand, see nothing "motherly" about a phrase such as "I advise you to be rested." To me it just sounds rather sinister and threatening. No way to determine who is right, so why bother arguing over it?
When assessing this case, as with any other research I do, I try not to assume anything, but concentrate as much as possible on the known facts. The fact that Patsy is the one who called 911 tells me far more than any speculation regarding the psychology behind the various statements in the note.
What you've written explains why you believe what you do, but realistically it has no bearing on the case itself. And to me it sounds like special pleading. If your theory makes no sense, that couldn't possibly be because it's wrong, it must be because the Ramseys were confused and upset and did all sorts of irrational things. But I'm sorry, when I say the case has to make sense, I'm not talking about the perpetrator(s), I'm talking about the case itself. It simply makes no sense to see Patsy as someone who would write such a note and then call the police while the body is still in the house, thus negating her own staging. I don't care how confused or upset she might have been, that does not strike me as a logical interpretation of what happened.
As for the body hidden in the basement, the most logical explanation would be that the killer was trying to hide the body from his or her spouse. If John and Patsy were trying to stage a kidnapping, then, regardless of how upset or panicked they might have been, the last thing they would want to do is hide the body in the house. Leaving the body lying in a bedroom or the living room is something they might do in a panic. Deliberately hiding it is NOT something you do in a panic, it's something you do as part of a plan.
As far as Psalm 118 is concerned, that's pure folklore. It seems incredible to me that either Patsy or John would equate a Biblical Psalm with a ransom amount.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it if folklore. If she read a book about a person who used a particular Psalm to help themselves heal, could it would be possible, considering how religious PR was, that she looked into this Psalm herself? Perhaps that amount was on her mind because she thought it was some kind of message that JR received a bonus of $118,000 that year and her healing Psalm is 118. There had to be a reason that amount stuck out in PR's head and that she didn't pull some other figure out of the air.
As far as the "good, Southern common sense" remark, as I stated I feel that as the letter went on, PR became more confident and less focused on pretending to make it seem she was someone else. Hence, the "Victory!" at the end. As PR is not a professional investigator, she is not thinking outside the box of what would tip off law enforcement to wording she normally uses. She got more careless as the letter went on.
The simplest explanation for the $118,000 is that it is roughly the amount of John's bonus that year. It was most likely chosen to make it look like the "kidnapper" was someone associated with John's business who had a grudge and was being sarcastic.
DeleteThe simplest explanation for the $118,000 is that it is roughly the amount of John's bonus that year. It was most likely chosen to make it look like the "kidnapper" was someone associated with John's business who had a grudge and was being sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteI guess both our opinions could be true as JR himself stated that the number 118 means something to the killer and that $118,000 means something to the killer. He said it himself...we are not interpreting based on the amount simply being in the ransom note. Also, who is to say your interpretation is the simplest? The writer says they respect JR's business, just not the country the business represents. At no other point in the letter does the write say anything about JR's job. So, they are a foreign faction, who actually like and respect JR's job, but hate the USA, and happen to know JR's annual bonus, this leads you to believe the writer was trying to make it appear that they actually hate JR specifically on top of hating the USA? Where do you get that the writer was holding a grudge and was being sarcastic? Are you not now "making all sorts of assumptions based on your own personal response to the various bits and pieces of evidence"? To me, the letter was wildly creative yet unsophisticated - a foreign faction who hated the USA and wanted to kidnap a little girl in the Midwest only to exchange her for a paltry $118,000. "Don't try to grow a brain" and "you are not the only fat cat around" are so disconnected from what a foreign faction would speak or write, it is laughable. How would someone from JR"s work know the lingo PR uses? Remember, no other fingerprints were found in the house and all JR's coworkers past and present were checked out. Put the content aside for a second, the fact that PR was never ruled out as the writer of the note and that she changed the way she wrote after the day JBR was murdered points me in the direction that she wrote it more than anything else.
I can see where you might be going with JR being the only one involved with the police report being such a jumbled mess and there are no concrete details as to when JR went to the basement that morning and if he had the ability to mess around with the crime scene, however what leads me to believe they were both in on it was the fact that they both read the letter and spoke to police and all their friends over to the house (that was being constantly surveilanced??) right away. Wouldn't both or one of them think, wait a minute, the letter says my child will be beheaded if we speak to anyone and not follow their instructions to the "t" so maybe we shouldn't call the entire town to come over to our house. Why did the police not question them on why they disregarded the instructions on the ransom note? It isn't like they called just the police to come over and deal with it because the Ramsey's wanted their help, why call all their friends too? To me, for two reasons. First, the more people in the house, the more confusing it would make the investigation (fingerprints, dna, more people talking and moving around so less focus and pressure on JR and PR), and the second, to disobey the ransom note, thus explaining why JBR would be killed. I have a difficult time believing two parents who were scared for their daughter's life would so blatently disrespect the ransom note - doing exactly what the kidnappers asked them not to do.
Also why I believe PR was involved, the fact neither JR nor PR made a comment about the ransom call. 10 am came and went, no word. Wouldn't you be handing by the edge of your seat for that call? Wouldn't you break down if the call didn't come as that call would be the only indication that your daughter could possibly still be alive? I'm astounded that reporters/police did not focus on this more. This is the most crucial, tell-tale sign that they were BOTH in on it, otherwise PR would have been a mess, broken down and made some kind of comment about the call not arriving.
ReplyDeleteI don't care how confused or upset she might have been, that does not strike me as a logical interpretation of what happened.
As for the body hidden in the basement, the most logical explanation would be that the killer was trying to hide the body from his or her spouse. If John and Patsy were trying to stage a kidnapping, then, regardless of how upset or panicked they might have been, the last thing they would want to do is hide the body in the house. Leaving the body lying in a bedroom or the living room is something they might do in a panic. Deliberately hiding it is NOT something you do in a panic, it's something you do as part of a plan.
I guess your interpretation of logic is different than mine and that leads me to believe that you are making assumptions, as well. Why is it that the most logical explanation is that you think the body was hidden in the basement to hide it from the other spouse? Your belief is that JR did it without the aid of PR, so of course that would be the most logical explanation to you, but why is it the most logical? I am definitely interested in hearing your thought process on how JR did this himself and what you believe his motive was. I think something happened to JBR, they panicked and staged a murder and that both PR and JR were participants. Each had a job to do and each were dependent the other for executing the staging start
to finish. If JR acted alone, why is it that his handwriting didn't match and only PR's did?
What bothers me though is the enhanced 911 call. The Ramsey's lied to police that Burke was asleep but he was heard on the tape speaking to his parents. Since it was reported that Burke was awoken at 7 am, did he go back to bed? Why did they lie that he was asleep the whole time?
"otherwise PR would have been a mess, broken down and made some kind of comment about the call not arriving."
DeletePR WAS a mess. And we don't have any information regarding what she may or may not have said at that time. John was the one who was delegated to deal with the "kidnappers" when the call came. According to Det. Arndt Patsy was a basket case and too upset to deal with much of anything. And again, I really don't think we get anywhere arguing back and forth about the psychology of the principals in this case, which can be interpreted in any number of ways.
"I am definitely interested in hearing your thought process on how JR did this himself and what you believe his motive was."
Well, that process is spread all over this blog, so just keep on reading and you'll learn all about it. I think he placed the body in the basement to hide it from his wife, because it makes sense in the context of my theory, yes. But I also think that way because I can't think of any other explanation for why the body would have been hidden in that remote spot. It doesn't fit with the intruder theory and it certainly doesn't fit with any theory where both Ramseys are in it together.
"If JR acted alone, why is it that his handwriting didn't match and only PR's did?"
On the contrary, JR's writing matches the note much more closely than PR's. I put together two displays that illustrate how close John's writing is to that of the note: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html
As far as the enhanced 911 call, I've listened carefully to that call and even enhanced it myself and I've never been able to hear anything like the voice of a young boy or anything else unusual for that matter. If you play the recording backwards you'll also hear all sorts of things that mean nothing.
"who is to say your interpretation is the simplest?"
ReplyDeleteImo the link to John's bonus amount is in fact much simpler and more reasonable than the link to Psalm 118. But as I see it, that's not really the point. The real point, as I see it, is that there are all sorts of very different interpretations people have offered for any number of passages in that note, and there is really no way to know for sure who is right, or even any way to investigate it. So what's the point of going around in circles and arguing back and forth over the psychology of the person who wrote the note, because there is no way to tell for sure what that person had on his or her mind when writing it. I have my own take on these passages and you have yours. The best we can do is agree to disagree on those points. However, my theory of the case does not depend on my assessment of the psychology of the person who wrote the note, but the overall logic of the case as a whole.
"what leads me to believe they were both in on it was the fact that they both read the letter and spoke to police and all their friends over to the house (that was being constantly surveilanced??) right away. Wouldn't both or one of them think, wait a minute, the letter says my child will be beheaded if we speak to anyone and not follow their instructions to the "t" so maybe we shouldn't call the entire town to come over to our house."
As I see it, this is exactly the argument John would have presented to Patsy. And if they were both in on it, then not calling the police would have been fully justified for the same reason. So please explain to me what reason they would have had for calling 911 at that time if they were in it together? The note gave them the perfect excuse NOT to call. If we stop speculating and actually look at the facts, we see that Patsy DID make that call, despite the warnings in the note, and we need to ask ourselves why. What good would it have done her, assuming she was in on a plot to stage a phoney kidnapping? And I'm sorry but I can't see that it would have done her any good. So the only reason I can think of is that either she just panicked and decided she needed the police there regardless, or she might possibly have been afraid of John, who might well have been acting strangely.
"I have a difficult time believing two parents who were scared for their daughter's life would so blatently disrespect the ransom note - doing exactly what the kidnappers asked them not to do."
Yes, but the same could be said if they wanted to give the impression that they "were scared for their daughter's life." It seems very clear to me that the call could have been made only if Patsy had no idea what was going on and just wanted someone to come over there as soon as possible and help her.
This case reminds me of an abstract painting in which different people see different things and the viewer is convinced that what he or she sees is the only thing that can be seen. Even those most familiar with all the evidence (including you, Doc) have their own theories: Lou Smit believed there was an intruder; Steve Thomas believes Patsy killed JB; James Kolar believes it was Burke. And, Doc, you feel certain JR is responsible. I think that's what makes this case so fascinating and addicting. One can pretty much come up with their own theory and find someone else to back it up. Everyone can "see" what they want to see in this "abstract painting."
ReplyDeleteI am certainly at fault for this too. At one time I felt certain Patsy did it. Then along came Lou Smit and I was convinced there was an intruder. I even thought (albeit briefly) that Mark Karr was the culpit. (I never bought into the BDI theory though, even after reading Kolar's book) But nothing convinced me more than watching Linda Arndt's interview. In my mind, she was the only unbiased witness to everything that was going on that morning in the Ramsey house. She also was present during JB's autopsy. She states, "there is no doubt in my mind" who killed JB. I have watched this video many, many times and I truly believe her instincts are correct. She was there. She saw and heard and felt everything happening firsthand and although she wasn't a witness to the actual crime, she certainly saw enough --- just hours after the murder. So after watching that video, I became a firm JDI believer. Doc, you just tied up all the loose ends (masterfully, I must say) and confirmed what Linda already knew that morning.
Thanks. You make an excellent point, and I agree that everyone tends to see the case through the lenses of his/her own pet theory. As I see it, however, what makes my take on this case different from all the others is the fact that I've uncovered what is potentially THE great error that has led everyone else astray, i.e., the very puzzling and also really outrageous decision to rule John out as writer of the note. I'm not insisting that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I do feel I have the right to insist on a very thorough review, by independent professionals, of that crucial decision. Once it's established that John cannot be ruled out, then the case needs to be re-investigated, and I'll be willing to abide by whatever conclusions the authorities then come up with. (Unless of course they still want to insist John didn't write that note. :-) )
DeleteAnonymous, I too found the Linda Arndt account of that morning the most convincing information. However, Arndt doesn't let PR off the hook.
ReplyDeleteFrom an article:
"The primary reason for Arndt's suspicion is what she calls the unusual behavior of both John and Patsy Ramsey on the morning of the investigation. Despite a promise by the alleged kidnappers to call that morning at a designated time with further instructions on how to go about collecting their daughter, neither of the Ramsey's commented when the call never arrived.
Also, despite the ransom letter's explicit warning that law enforcement was not to be called and that no one was to be made aware of JonBenet's kidnapping or the child would be "beheaded", Arndt was shocked to find the house crowded with friends and neighbors, all of which had been notified of the situation and invited to the home by the Ramseys themselves.
Perhaps Arndt's most shocking revelation in regard to the events of that morning is what Arndt's describes to have occurred after sending John Ramsey and his friend Fleet White to check the house in search of anything out of place.
According to Arndt, it was then that John Ramsey went to the wine cellar and claimed to have found the body. After carrying JonBenet's lifeless body up the steps and lying the child on the floor under the Christmas tree, Arndt claims that Patsy Ramsey looked on unphased out the window as chaos surrounding the discovery of the child's body ensued."
You also have to consider that before the ransom call was to take place, before JBR's body was found, and there was still this cloud of suspicion as to where JBR was, they let Burke leave the house with Fleet White and John Fernie, and without police escort. What mother, who has one child held by "kidnappers" lets her only other child leave the house, the house that is "under constant surveillance", without police protection? Maybe a mother who knows there is not a kidnapper.
Doc, I respect your investigation into the handwriting analysis, however I am more inclined to believe experts who have studied handwriting analysis for years. Also, PR is the only one who changed the way her writing appeared after the murder. JR didn't.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to assess the psychology of the person who wrote the note...as it provides much evidence. The FBI look into the psychology of someone who writes ransom notes. That is part of their job.
As I see it, this is exactly the argument John would have presented to Patsy. And if they were both in on it, then not calling the police would have been fully justified for the same reason. So please explain to me what reason they would have had for calling 911 at that time if they were in it together? The note gave them the perfect excuse NOT to call.
If you are asserting that JR would have tried to talk PR out of calling police as a way to make it seem that he was genuinely concerned about getting her back, that is speculating if I have ever heard speculating. This is an unsolved crime scene. It is ALL speculation until the crime is solved. Therefore, there is nothing we can do other than speculate.
A 911 call HAD to be made, otherwise what would they have done with the body? You stated that you believe JR had intended to take JBR's body out of the house as the next phase, but what is your belief that he would have done with it? If the 911 call wasn't made, then we would have had a Casey Anthony situation. So if JR was going to take JBR's body out of the house and dispose of it, wouldn't that potentially provide more evidence than if the body is found in the home where the parents live and have dna, fingerprints, footprints all over? If JR knew JBR was dead, Patsy didn't, and they didn't call the cops due to the note, they would have been sitting around for a very long time because JR knew that ransom call was not going to happen. Something had to be set in motion. I think if PR were not in on it, he would have run a very risky situation with PR not wanting to call the police out of fear of hurting her child. However not only did PR call the police and not inform them of the threat to their daughter, she called everyone else they knew and told them to come over to their "surveilanced" house while their daughter had the potential to be beheaded because of this. If she just called the police out of desperate fear, I could see your theory potentially working, but she called too many people. They wanted a buffer when the police arrived.
You also have to consider that detectives and the FBI follow ransom note requests out of fear of potentially harming the victim. They get whatever the kidnapper wants in hopes to bide their time and collect evidence such as phone number/location/identity, and keep the victim alive. Why make the kidnapper mad by not following their rules? There is no way to tell how sophisticated the kidnapper is and what information they have access to at the time you pick up the letter.
The note gave them the perfect excuse NOT to call. If we stop speculating and actually look at the facts, we see that Patsy DID make that call, despite the warnings in the note, and we need to ask ourselves why.
I did ask myself why and I gave you my thoughts. JBR was dead and they needed to provide a way for the police to discover her dead body in their house. JBR couldn't just disappear into thin air, especially when they had a planned trip in place that morning. People were expecting them. If they didn't show up, the police would have been called anyway by JR's older kids. If JR called and cancelled the trip to Michigan, then it was later found out that JBR died that night, JR would be under suspicion. The police HAD to be called that morning.
"Doc, I respect your investigation into the handwriting analysis, however I am more inclined to believe experts who have studied handwriting analysis for years."
DeleteBut they also found it "unlikely" that Patsy wrote the note. If you feel sure Patsy wrote it then you too are challenging these same "experts."
"Also, PR is the only one who changed the way her writing appeared after the murder. JR didn't."
First of all, Patsy did not change her writing, that's a myth. See item two in the following post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/10/dispelling-some-myths.html Secondly, we have no way of knowing whether John changed his handwriting, as none of the examples he provided to the investigators have ever been released.
As far as speculating is concerned, yes I agree that at times we have no choice but to speculate and I've certainly felt forced to speculate in order to better explain why I see things the way I do. However, the case I've been making is NOT based on speculation but on facts and logical inference based on those facts. I speculate only to fill in certain gaps for which we lack conclusive evidence.
"So if JR was going to take JBR's body out of the house and dispose of it, wouldn't that potentially provide more evidence than if the body is found in the home where the parents live and have dna, fingerprints, footprints all over?" No, because John's original plan would have enabled him to get rid of the body and all the other evidence. I realize this blog has become very long and complicated so it's easy to pass over some of the essential points. My analysis of the note and John's plan can be found here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-note.html
"People were expecting them. If they didn't show up, the police would have been called anyway by JR's older kids."
No. They could easily have cancelled their trip, claiming someone got sick. Or they could have reported to the older kids that JonBenet had been kidnapped and that they were waiting for the kidnapper's call and it was important for them to be patient and above all not call the police.
There is simply no reason for them to make that call with the body still in the house, if we assume they are collaborating on a coverup.
I read a very interesting and detailed explanation of what is believed to have happened the night of the killing. I don't know if I believe all of it but it does give some good insight.
ReplyDeleteIt states the letter was written in a way to give explanation as to why JR would be out of the house early in the morning, most likely disposing of evidence. The part that describes leaving early for the ransom money and being able to get JBR back earlier would explain this away. While JR is out of the house, he disposes of evidence (duck tape and boots), and goes to public bathroom stalls to get pubic hair and put stains on JBR's underware. I don't know if I buy this but it could explain why no one else matches the dna found on her. This account is on shadowgov.com.
John would not have been able to collect the ransom money until the banks opened, which would have been no sooner than 9 AM I'd imagine. So I don't see how the note could have provided him with any cover for leaving the house prior to that time. As far as pubic hair and stains, where does that come from. Nothing of that sort was found to my knowledge. They did find a single maxillary (underarm) hair, but that turned out to be from Patsy.
Delete"However, Arndt doesn't let PR off the hook."
ReplyDeleteIt's very clear from Arndt's account that she has John in her sights, not Patsy. I happen to agree. But not because of Arndt's suspicions. As I've stressed several times, we can't get very far trying to solve this case by psychoanalyzing the principals. Patsy's lack of an immediate reaction could mean she was in a state of shock at that point, and not able to respond. And the look Arndt saw in John's eye could be as much due to Arndt projecting her own suspicions as to John's guilt.
For me the most significant aspect of Arndt's version of what happened is her observation that John was off the radar for a significant amount of time that morning. That is not only suspicious, it also means he had an opportunity to tamper with the evidence, cleaning some of it up and getting rid of some of it.
I think Arndt's account of the Ramsey's behavior is the clearest piece of evidence that JR was involved with the murder or at the very least responsible for covering it up. She also had reservations about PR, although not as strongly as she did with JR, but those reservations were there. Arndt does describe PR's emotional state as being very distraught at times, however this does not prove neither here nor there that PR was not a part of covering up the killing. I think PR mourned not only her daughter's death but the death of a "perfect" life that morning.
ReplyDeleteAs you may have gathered from what I've written on this blog, I'm not a big fan of profiling. I very occasionally watch "Criminal Minds," but mostly for laughs. Whenever I hear them pontificating about the "unsub" I go into hysterics. Profiling can be useful after the fact, when we already know who dunnit, and are attempting to understand why. It can also be helpful when assessing the mental state of someone who's been convicted, to assist in determining what sort of institution is most suitable for that person. It could also be useful in developing leads, as long as it's "findings" aren't taken too seriously.
DeleteHowever, as a method of determining guilt or innocence, it's simply inadequate. As I see it, there is no substitute for: evidence, facts, logic, common sense.
Has Stan ever responded to your letter? Can John still be charged with this crime?
ReplyDeleteNo, he has not. I sent emails to both Stanley Garnett and Chief Beckner, and did not receive a response from either. That doesn't surprised me, since they are regularly inundated with all sorts of theories, I'm sure, and must be overwhelmed. I corresponded some years ago with Charlie Brennan, who took my ideas seriously but felt, at that time, that the case was hopeless, so he was no help. I recently emailed him again, with a link to this blog, but so far nothing. The biggest problem is getting the attention of someone in a position to make a difference, because the case has been inundated with so much "noise" over the years, no one anymore knows what to think.
DeleteI definitely believe John can still be charged, yes. The first step would be debunking the decision to rule him out. It would take considerable courage on the part of the DA or Police Chief to call these "experts" on the carpet and challenge them to prove John could not possibly have written that note. I doubt anyone could ever prove that, simply on the basis of the handwriting, but it no longer seems to matter. The decision appears to be written in stone.
Without overcoming that hurdle there would be no way to prosecute him, no.
It really is discouraging to read that. I've read pretty much every post you've written and I am firmly convinced that John did it. I visited the other forums and still had some nagging questions about them covering up for Burke but you filled in the gaps. Going by logic and the evidence and the motive, there is no doubt that there is only one killer. I just wonder if Burke saw or heard anything that could blow the lid off this case but he won't talk either.
ReplyDeleteI feel sure Burke must know something that could incriminate John. But from what I understand he is now claiming he's forgotten everything that happened that day. More likely he's simply forced himself to blot it out. Especially revealing is the fact that NEVER, to my knowledge, has he publicly defended his parents.
DeleteBurke knows at least one thing - whether or not the window had been broken since summer. His train set up was there and he'd surely have noticed a broken window, if not in the first month then certainly by the second or third month (lol).
DeleteHe'd also know if it had ever been repaired.
Yes, he'd certainly know about the window. But would he be willing to tell the truth, or is he also, like Patsy, being manipulated by John and his legal team?
DeleteIf Burke publically said anything, he would be hounded by questions left and right. He will never do that, at least until her is older. Right now I am sure he wants to feel as normal as possible. I can't imagine how he deals with things because just going through a few reports and websites about the JBR murder, I feel drawn into such darkness and feel an overwhelming sense of despair. At least I can pull myself out of it the next day, but Burke is tied to it for life.
ReplyDeleteI do doubt that he does remember much at this point, though. Do you remember mundane things from when you were 9 years old such as a particular window being broken or not? That ship has sailed. They should have gotten to him when things were fresh in his head. One of the biggest tragedies in this case is that Burke was not questioned enough by police the day of the murder. He was overprotected by lawyers and the Ramseys. Look at that case with the Utah doctor accused of murdering his wife so he could be with his mistress. All the young kids in the house were questioned. Why was Burke not pushed for information? As far as I know, his account of that night has never seen the light of day. Everything is said through his parents....that he was asleep all night. There is also too much of a focus on the events that happened after the ransom note was found and not enough on what happened from the time they got home from the Whites.
I think he'd remember about the window if he'd been pressured by his father or the lawyers into telling a "white lie" about when he first noticed it was broken. I'd like to ask him some other questions about the legal team and what sort of interactions he had with them, and whether they tried to influence him in any way.
DeleteBurke was in fact questioned, but the questions were not the tough sort of questions a homicide detective would ask of an adult witness. He also testified before the Grand Jury, but that testimony is sealed. I have a feeling he could offer to release his GJ testimony to the public, if he felt so inclined. But my guess is that the lawyers still have him in their clutches.
Doc, do you think John penetrated JonBenet with the paintbrush handle to hide his prior abuse, thus accounting for the digital penetration?
ReplyDeleteNo. That's a myth. If she'd been penetrated with the paintbrush handle her wounds would have been much more severe. The medical examiner referred to "digital penetration" and that's most likely what it was. I have a feeling John probably thought the digital penetration, which drew blood, would have been enough to draw attention away from the evidence of chronic abuse. And if his plan had been carried out, that would have been blamed on the "kidnappers," not him.
DeleteIt really is interesting that there are so many who believe that John did not do it because they are determined to believe Patsy did it.
ReplyDeleteYes, someone could write a book about this case, once it's resolved, and the mass psychology behind people's reactions to it. Once the Patsy bandwagon got started there was no stopping it. Sometimes I get really discouraged because whenever I try to argue that Patsy could not have been involved I come up against a stone wall. Most following the case just can't accept that although to me it's clear as day.
DeleteRemember...this case has not been solved.
DeleteDo you think it is possible that either Patsy or Burke accidently killed JBR and that JR freaked out about it because he had been abusing her and knew that once an autopsy would be done he would be found out? It could justify why the parents were so in synch with one another and never waivered. If one waivered, they would both be found out.
I have not made my mind up as to whom I believe could have actually killed JBR, but I do believe PR was involved in the staging.
Doc, since you have a lot of evidential knowledge, do you know if the Ramseys ever revealed their phone records from the 25th and 26th of Dec. to police? Did the Ramsey's ever reveal why they called all their friends over to the house when the ransom note specifically said to not talk to anyone? Did the Ramsey's actually call JBR's pediatrician to come over to the house that morning? If the autopsy revealed that JBR was sexually abused chronically, and she had gone to the pediatrician 33 times that past year, did the police every look into the pediatrician to find out why he did not pick up on any signs that she could have been abused? Were JBR's medical records handed over to police? If so, were they ever reported to the press?
As I see it, there is no way Patsy could have been involved, either in the murder or the staging. The 911 call in itself tells us that Patsy and John could not have been conspiring in the coverup. And John's suspicious behavior after the 911 call (as documented by Kolar), including his absurd story about breaking the window earlier, tells us that he, and not Patsy, must be the guilty party.
DeleteAlso, when we consider motive, I see no motive for Patsy killing the child who was so important in her life, either by intention or accident. One doesn't just "accidentally" kill one's daughter, it's not that easy. She was struck over the head with a tremendous blow reported to be powerful enough to fell a grown man. How could that have been an accident?
On the other hand, if John had been abusing his daughter, that in itself is more than sufficient motive for murder, as he could well have convinced himself that he was about to be exposed, which would have destroyed his cozy, comfortable millionaire life.
As far as the phone records are concerned, as I understand it they have never been released, probably due to privacy laws having nothing to do with the case. And as far as inviting friends over, I think what they said was that Patsy felt she needed the support of her friends in this time of crisis. It's clear that she didn't take the warnings in the note too seriously, possibly because she never read it all the way through, possibly because she just got hysterical and was following her instincts rather than her intellect. I have a feeling she could have been afraid the "kidnappers" were still in the house, or could have been afraid of John at that moment, so felt the need of others in the house as protection.
I'm not sure when the pediatrician was called, but he was there at some point to administer sedation to Patsy. Dr. Beuf claimed he never did a vaginal exam, so was not in a position to evaluate whether or not she was being abused. And of course he, like so many others, was thoroughly investigated.
I'm sure JBR's records were handed over to the police, yes, but due to privacy laws I doubt they will ever be released to the public.
The 911 call in itself tells us that Patsy and John could not have been conspiring in the coverup.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your reasoning behind this belief?
You say that JR had a motive to kill JBR, however where is your evidence that JBR was about to spill the beans? Also, where is your evidence that it was JR that was molesting JBR? Most family molesters do not resort to killing the victim if they suspect the victim has told someone or about to tell. An adult can out manipulate a child that age so their first course of action would be to lie and deny. You state that PR wouldn't kill JBR because she was the most precious thing in her life. Couldn't you argue that JBR was even more important to JR as you claim he had more than a father/daughter relationship with her? It wouldn't be easy for him to find another victim to manipulate so easily.
Also, you mention that PR couldn't have had a motive for accidentally killing JBR. I think there are plenty. It was the holiday, she could have been stressed about the trip to Michigan, maybe JBR was being defiant and it set PR off, the conflicting bedwetting theories all could have set PR off. Was there any motive for why Burke hit JBR in the face with a gold club? Was that an accident? If so, couldn't the same thing happen again? Maybe JBR fell off the counter when they were in the kitchen or off the toilet when her mother could have been cleaning her after a bedwetting incident and she hit her head on the tub or sink? Maybe JBR and Burke were arguing over something and Burke took the flashlight and hit JBR on the head, just as he "accidentally" did with the golf club? Sometimes there is no motive.
I think it is suspicious that PR called over JBR's pediatrician that morning. That to me would indicate there was more than just a doctor/patient relationship and the doctor should have been investigated much more. 33 visits to the doctor in one year? An autopsy report indicating chronic sexual abuse? Pediatrician is close enough to family to be called to the house while police help with to deal with their "kidnapped" daughter?
So, you state that PR could have been afraid of JR that morning of the 26th? Where is the evidence that they were anything other than supportive of each other at any point of time? If anything, this provides more evidence that PR was in on it. If she had known nothing, don't you think she would start questioning things after the autopsy report came out that her daughter was sexually abused? Do you know if the Ramsey's ever address with the press the sexual abuse reports from the autopsy? What mother learns her daughter was chronically sexually abused and doesn't have a response? Doesn't start suspecting that maybe her husband was abusing her? The pieces of the puzzle are the pediatrician, the autopsy report stating chronic sexual abuse, the Ramsey's phone records of the 26th (to see if they called a lawyer earlier on than believed), and JBR's medical records.
My reasoning is spelled out in the second post, entitled "Case Solved." It is elaborated elsewhere, notably in this post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-911-call.html
DeleteThere is of course no direct, obvious evidence that John killed his daughter or that JonBenet was about to "spill the beans." In my view direct evidence of that sort isn't necessary, because the facts of the case tell us that 1. there could have been no intruder, and 2. Patsy could not be involved (since she is the one who called 911- see above). Which leaves either Burke or John. Since Burke obviously did not write the ransom note, it could only have been written by John. And since it is highly unlikely that a nine year old could have sexually assaulted JonBenet, and since it is highly unlikely that a child as frail as Burke could have cracked open her skull with a single blow, and since it is highly unlikely that anyone would risk the electric chair to stage a phoney breakin and leave a note in his own hand for the police to find, in order to cover for someone who killed his own daughter, especially when that person is a minor immune from prosecution, as his lawyers would have informed him on the following day -- then we have no choice but to infer that the murderer and note writer can only be: John Ramsey.
As for the rest, much of it is, frankly, conjecture, based on what seems to be the most likely scenario. Since there were clear signs of sexual molestation, both acute and chronic, then it makes sense to conclude that John had been molesting his daughter. And since she was clearly murdered (this was no accident) it makes sense to conclude she was murdered to prevent her from exposing him. No direct evidence of that, no. And maybe there was some other motive for him to kill her. But you know what? I can't think of any. And neither, I dare say, could you. Or anyone else.
You find it difficult to accept my contention that Patsy had no motive to kill her daughter, so you come up with all sorts of ideas taken from thin air, that could possibly constitute a motive, but you have no evidence for any of this either. The FACT is that Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning -- and would not have called 911 at that time if she were staging a phoney kidnapping. The phone call itself is all the evidence anyone needs. Much of the rest is based on what seems most likely, given the situation overall and the capabilities and inclinations of the various principals.
Sorry, but I don't see a pageant mom reacting to her daughter's "accidental" death by penetrating her vagina (as Steve Thomas argues) and then assembling a "garotte" to strangle her with. That's not only sick in itself, but the very idea that a mother would do this to her dead child, as staging or for any other reason, is also sick.
"Where is the evidence that they were anything other than supportive of each other at any point of time?"
It was reported that they essentially ignored each other than morning. Neither approached the other with any attempt to console or comfort. I do think it reasonable to conjecture that Patsy might indeed have been in fear for her own life when she called 911, yes. But that's just a conjecture and there may be some other reason she wanted police and friends at the house at that time. As far as solving the case is concerned, it really doesn't matter, because both the facts and the logic of the case point to John and only John, as I have demonstrated literally all over this blog.
"If she had known nothing, don't you think she would start questioning things after the autopsy report came out that her daughter was sexually abused?"
No, because by that time she "knew" John had to be innocent, because he'd been "ruled out," remember? And there were medical experts on both sides of that issue, some claiming the chronic damage to the vagina could have been produced innocently, via bubble baths, for example.
"I have a feeling she could have been afraid the "kidnappers" were still in the house, or could have been afraid of John at that moment, so felt the need of others in the house as protection."
ReplyDeleteThere is of course no telling what was going on in PR's mind, but, the RN suggests JB has already been taken and is being help, implicitly, at another location. I PR read that far I see no reason for her to think the kidnappers were still in the basement.
If she was afraid of JR doesn't that suggest she at least had suspicions of his involvement? Otherwise what's to be afraid of?
You're assuming Patsy would have been thinking rationally at that point, but from the tone of her voice on the 911 call she was clearly hysterical. It's possible she did suspect him at that point, at least on some gut level. Maybe she saw the same wild look in his eyes that Det. Arndt saw. But once the police were there and her friends were there, she must have calmed down a bit, and realized she had no basis for such a suspicion (assuming she actually had one). In any case, John made sure she was heavily sedated in the following days, and probably even weeks. By the time she was coming out of her fog, she would have learned that John had been "ruled out," so she would no longer have had any basis for suspecting him.
DeleteMaybe she recognized some elements of JR's handwriting in the RN? W/o having time to do an exhaustive "analysis" of the writing, she might simply have had what police refer to as that "hinky" feeling and decided she needed the police, and others.
DeleteLater when JR is ruled out she can set aside her suspicions.
I've always had a problem with the idea that either JR or PR wrote the note then allowed the spouse to read it. Unless the writing were very well disguised, it might be a tip-off.
Of course w/o the RN there is no way to stage a kidnapping, and no way to explain what happened to JB - it's evident no intruder did it. So the RN had to be written, despite the danger.
Well, as I demonstrated in an earlier post, it looks like the note was traced or copied from a computer, to disguise the hand of the person who wrote it. Nevertheless, there are in fact some striking similarities with John's hand, so Patsy might have suspected something "hinky," yes.
DeleteWhile it's true that a RN of some sort might be needed to stage a kidnapping, that would work only if a kidnapping had actually taken place. Which is why I feel sure Patsy's call blew John's plan.
How do you know John was heavily sedating her?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the logic that PR couldn't have written the note because she called 911. Just because she sounds believable on the tape doesn't mean that she was not faking. You know who also sounds believable on the 911 tape? The doctor who is being accused of murdering his wife after she had plastic surgery so he could be with his mistress. It is possible to sound very believable and it wouldn't be the first time someone acted very believable when they were in fact guilty.
To me it goes against logic that PR called the friends over because she didn't read the entire letter. I don't think she would not at any point read the entire letter....scour that thing looking for information. So, neither JR nor PR read that entire letter and realized at some point that they made a mistake and called the friends back to tell them to not come over because the house was being monitored and that their precious daughter would be beheaded if they were to arrive? They didn't turn the friends away at any point, realizing that they needed to follow the kidnappers instructions? They also certainetly brought over quite a crowd. Why not call one couple that they were closest to? What did all the people that were there think to themselves when they read the note? Did they say "hey, we should get the heck out of here because this ransom note says don't talk to anyone or else JBR would get beheaded"? It also goes against logic that PR would not have a breakdown once the phone call from the "kidnapper" didn't arrive if she wasn't a part of it. If there was no call, what was the fate of her child? The "kidnappers" held the key to this information and PR and JR made no comment that this window of opportunity had come and gone?
It's well known that Patsy was under heavy sedation during the days and weeks following the murder. This would imo have played into John's hands, which is the reason I said he was making sure she was sedated, but that's just my opinion, not a fact, admittedly. Being heavily sedated it would be difficult for Patsy to formulate any clear ideas about what might have happened, and it also would have made it possible for John to challenge her memory of what happened the morning after the murder.
DeleteAs far as the 911 call is concerned, my thinking has nothing to do with whether she sounds believable or not. You need to read the first two posts of this blog to understand my reasoning about the meaning of that call.
As for the rest I'm sorry but I don't have any solid answers for you as to why Patsy called her friends over, but calling them doesn't mean she killed her daughter or wrote the note. There are things that might seem suspicious to you but I don't find them suspicious at all. You have very fixed opinions about what is appropriate behavior and that's fine for you, but just because someone does something differently from the way you would do it doesn't make them a killer or doesn't mean they are necessarily guilty of anything at all, sorry.
Here you go.
ReplyDeletehttp://dailym.ai/16ywZzJ via @DailyMailUS
Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of the link you've posted. I'll give you a day or so to explain - otherwise I'll remove it.
DeleteYou can remove it if you like. It is your blog.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty self explanatory in that here is a woman who in a fit of rage knocked down a small child and caused her to have a fatal skull fracture. The child died. It is very connected to the argument that PR could have killed young JBR in a fit of rage. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors in a home. I am not saying PR killed JBR, but this article proves it is possible for a woman to have done so...by knocking a child down in a fit of rage! I am sure the woman in the article didn't mean to kill the child, she didn't know her own strength and let her temper get out of hand (not at all justifying what she did). Couldn't it be possible that PR got upset with JBR and maybe knocked her down, causing the child to hit her head? Couldn't it be possible Burke and JBR, who were wound up after all the fun of Christmas, were fooling around, and he pushed her causing her to fall? I am not saying I am right, I am simply providing evidence that someone else did something very similar to a child, and that it is not impossible that a woman inflicted the wounds that JBR received on her head.
OK, thanks. I see your point and won't delete the link. It is certainly relevant, yes. I don't doubt that under certain circumstances a mother could attack her child in a rage and accidentally kill her, and your link presents a clear example of how something like that could happen. However, JonBenet's skull was cracked from end to end, a wound that could only have been produced by a really heavy, brutal blow. That's not the same as a concussion or even your ordinary skull fracture. Also, I've never heard of an instance where something that could have been reported as an accident was staged instead as a brutal murder. While a mother might possibly kill a child by accident, it's hard to believe that under such circumstances she wouldn't simply call 911 at that point rather than stage a complicated and bizarre "kidnapping."
DeleteI agree and that is a good point. PR would be more inclined to call the cops if she or Burke accidentally killed JBR, even if it was an act of rage. I never argued that JR wasn't the lone murdered, however I do believe that it is possible that Burke harmed JBR and that JR and PR covered up for him so that they wouldn't lose two children or have his life ruined. Also, if any of them accidentally killed JBR however it would have happened, it is possible that JR would encourage the staging as he knew the molestation would be discovered. He could have manipulated PR into believing that they would go to jail (or he would and that he would lose the company - thus they would lose all their money) and that they would lose everything if it was found out they accidentally killed their daughter. This would be more possible if JBR were dead and there was nothing they could do to bring her back. Some people do actually care more about their reputation and money than anything else. No that they don't care for their child, but if the child is gone and noting can be done, they would rather live the rest of their lives not being talked about as the parents who accidentally killed their child. Having sympathy is much more attractive to them.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the need for such a complicated scenario and the only reason I can think of that anyone would propose anything like that would be if they are absolutely convinced that Patsy and only Patsy wrote the note. Which tells me that as far as you're concerned, my arguments as presented in my second post and defended in many others haven't convinced you. As I see it, if you absolutely have to have Patsy as writer of the note then you have no choice but to come up with a convoluted and imo highly unlikely theory of this sort.
Deletehi doc. you say patsy had a feeling the kidnappers were still in the house, yet she leaves burke in bed. this is very suspicious.
ReplyDeleteI'm just trying to understand why she would call 911 despite all the dire warnings in the note and I think she might have been afraid for her own safety, yes. According to her version of what happened (in the A&E doc.), John went up to check on Burke while she made the call, so she was thinking of his safety as well.
Deleteits strange that both of them ignored the dire warnings in the note.
ReplyDeleteWell, as I said, Patsy may have been afraid for her own life at that moment. As for John, I feel sure he'd have argued against making that call.
DeleteI recently watched a Nancy Grace Mystery on this case and her level of irrogance regarding how unfairly JR and PR have been treated makes me sick and angry. I also love 48 hours and case about Ryan Ferguson who was wrongfully imprisoned has been airing and just recently due to the attention that Erin Moriarty at 48 Hours brought to the case, his conviction was overturned. You have to e-mail
ReplyDeleteE-MAIL: 48hours@cbsnews.com
The ONLY way to get any justice on this is for media attention to the case.
Hah. "Irrogance," combining "ignorance" and "arrogance." I like it! Yes, John has handled his public relations really well, and of course the decision by DA Mary Lacy to "exonerate" the Ramseys hasn't helped. So they do have a great many supporters, and the media seems to have decided it's better to go with them than against them, especially since the latter course could lead to a lawsuit. The problem is that so many red herrings have been tossed out there and that so few people in the media have bothered to dig very deeply into the evidence and logic.
DeleteA while back I contacted 48 hours or one of those shows and did get a call back from someone on their staff. He sounded interested and was sympathetic, but was either skeptical or unwilling to stick his neck out too far. Can't blame him.
Glad you caught that! This case is just so frustrating because a 5 year old lost her life due to her father and due to a number of factors, he has been able to live his life. Whether or not this blog was intended for justice or simply discussion, you are doing a great thing and hopefully somebody from Dateline, 48 Hours, etc will jump aboard and try and bring attention back to this case.
DeleteThis blog was definitely inspired by a need to see justice done, and also outrage at the ease with which the person I believe to be the killer was able to deflect attention from himself. It was also intended for discussion, and to give others a chance to open up other possibilities just in case I might be on the wrong track.
Delete