An Open Window

From police interview with John Ramsey, June 23, 1998:

A Prosecution Strategy

I often hear, even from those who agree with me, that prosecution of this case is unlikely, and I've tended to agree. Because 1. the case is just too complicated for a typical jury to follow; 2. it would be too difficult to overcome the opinion of the six forensic documentation "experts" who ruled John out, 3. it would be too difficult for the prosecution to convince a jury that Patsy was manipulated by John  into lying about certain key aspects of the case. Finally, the fact that the Ramseys had been "exonerated" by DA Mary Lacy on the basis of that "touch DNA" evidence would be impossible to overcome.

Nevertheless, I've come up with a strategy that just might work despite the above-stated obstacles. Pay attention, please. This is going to be long, but it's really quite simple and straightforward:

Some Ramsey Case Flowcharts

[For the benefit of early readers of this post, I must confess to having made some important changes a few minutes after posting it -- hope that's not confusing.]

To summarize and also clarify the various possibilities discussed on this blog, I decided to see if I could put together some "flow charts" illustrating the logic behind some of the most common theories of the case. Instead of literally producing flow chart diagrams, I decided it would be simpler to present my "flow chart" logic in outline form. So here goes:

Three Little Words

Not sure why I never caught this one until the other day. Check it out:

JonBenet Investigation Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnTEbCdQTQ)

Specifically, check out what John has to say at precisely 3 minutes and 28 seconds into the clip:

"To think that they would, uh, withhold her body for proper burial was . . . was barbaric."

Which should, of course, be compared with this sentence from the ransom note: 

"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."

The Power of Inference

Much of the debate in this case has centered on the evidence, and I must say, there's a whole lot of it, far more than in a great many other cases. The problem is that much of it really isn't relevant (such as, e.g., the stun gun, butler door, "pubic hair," baseball bat, Hi-Tec print, DNA, etc., etc.) and  just about all of it is, to coin a term: inconclusive. One might comment that, in fact, there seems to be too much "evidence" in this case, to the point that ones head starts to spin just trying to get a handle on it. A trip to one of the forums will give you an idea of what I mean. We see endless discussions and debates that just go around continually in circles over the meaning of this that or the other piece of "evidence" and there never seems to be any definitive agreement on any of it.

On the other hand, an extremely valuable investigative tool has almost been ignored -- the favorite tool of the legendary Sherlock Holmes -- logical deduction, also known as inference. Let me give you a few examples of how logical inference can be put to work in understanding certain meaningful aspects of this case: