Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at), and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Friday, November 15, 2013

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:

 1. I am, first of all, going to assume that the basement window had been broken on the night of the crime, rather than months earlier, as John has claimed. It's not difficult to see through his lame story about having broken in earlier. It's not credible that he and Patsy were unable to recall whether that window had ever been repaired. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, the housekeeper, denied any knowledge of any broken window and accused them of lying. Especially important is the fact that the investigators insisted on questioning John at great length about this story, and on two separate occasions. This in itself tells me that inspection of the edges of the broken glass revealed them to be fresh, and not encrusted with a layer of dust.

To me it's obvious that his story is a lie. However, Patsy, whom I feel sure was innocent, backed up his story, which creates a serious problem if we want to argue that John and not Patsy wrote the note, and that Patsy called 911 in all innocence, foiling John's plan. There is, however, another approach that I hadn't considered before. The prosecution can agree to accept John's story, or at least not contest it, but focus instead on the findings of the investigators who inspected the broken glass. If they concluded that the edges were fresh, which must have been the case, then that could mean only two things: either John's story is a lie OR the window had been repaired.

If John lied, then obviously his goose is cooked. And if the window had been repaired, then his story about breaking in earlier, lie or no lie, is beside the point. (NB: John would be unable to argue that the window had never been repaired since he's already testified that he can't recall.) The question then becomes: who broke that window and why. It's important to remember at this point that the police saw no sign of forced entry at that window. An undisturbed spider web was found straddling both the grate over the window well and the lawn; another undisturbed spider web was photographed in the window opening itself. A thick layer of undisturbed dust and grime is apparent in a photo of the window sill. Clearly, no one went through that window. If no one went through the window, then there is no way an intruder could have broken the glass. The only other possibility is that the glass was broken from the inside by someone already inside the house. Clear evidence that an intruder breakin had been staged.

So it matters not whether Patsy backed up John's story, because even if his story is true, the evidence tells us the window must have been broken, or rebroken, on the night of the crime, by someone on the inside to stage an intruder breakin. At that point we can forget about any intruder theory. All the unsourced fibers, HiTec boot prints, stun guns, and "touch DNA" in the world isn't going to make that one fly.

2. We can then return to the 911 call to emphasize the fact that it was Patsy and not John who called the police first thing in the morning. The prosecution would point out that if the two of them had been in it together, the call would not have been made, as the discovery of the body hidden in the house nullified the effect of the patently phoney ransom note. And since it was Patsy who made the call, then John must be the guilty one. At this point, John would have no choice but to insist that he forced Patsy to make that call against her will, claiming that, as Steve Thomas has argued, he was not aware at the time that Patsy had "accidentally" killed JonBenet, and written the note to stage a kidnapping.

3. That in itself would be huge, because their story had always been that both agreed without any discussion to call in the police. For the first time, John would be admitting to a lie. And more than just a lie, because what reason would he have had to lie except to cover for Patsy, meaning that at some point, as Thomas argued, he must have figured out that Patsy was the guilty party and decided to collaborate with her on the coverup. And at that point his lawyers would remind us that the statute of limitations had run out on aiding and abetting, so John couldn't be prosecuted.

4. End of case? Not really. Because for one thing it's hard to believe that the CEO of a billion dollar company would want his hysterical wife to call the police rather than take charge and do it himself. For another, it's hard to believe that if Patsy was the guilty party she would meekly have agreed to make that call -- certainly she would have resisted. And if she was refusing to make the call, then why would an innocent John bother to force her to make it when he could easily have made it himself? And finally, once he's admitted to lying, then his credibility has vanished. The jury no longer has any reason to believe anything he says.

5. Regardless of what sort of explanation John might want to offer for not making the call himself, there is a considerable body of additional evidence pointing to him, and not Patsy. First and foremost,  JonBenet was the victim of a sexual assault.  Her vagina was digitally penetrated, drawing blood. And according to the Medical Examiner's report, there was chronic injury to the wall of the vagina, which, in the opinion of many forensic experts, notably Cyril Wecht, was a surefire indicator of prior sexual abuse. Such evidence points very strongly to a mature male, and not a female, attacker. (Certainly not, by the way, to a nine year old boy, in case John might decide to claim he was only covering for his son, the Cub Scout turned sex maniac.) There are also the fibers from John's shirt found in the victim's panties, panties fresh out of their plastic container, as the original panties had been discarded and JonBenet had been redressed in fresh ones. It's been established, moreover, that the fresh pair of panties were from a set Patsy had purchased for another girl, that were several sizes too large for JonBenet. It's far more likely that her father would have made such a mistake, rather than Patsy, who knew very well the difference between the proper sized and oversized pair. Moreover, the device used to strangle JonBenet was made using a fairly sophisticated knot, the sort of thing John might well have learned to tie in the Navy, and not likely to be the sort of thing your typical housewife and pageant mom would know anything about.

6. We come now to the ransom note itself. On the basis of its content alone we can see it as part of a plan that could only have worked for John, as it was addressed to him, and stated that it was "up to you, John," to raise the ransom and get it to the kidnappers. Which would have put him in complete control of the situation, and given him the perfect cover to dump the body while claiming to have been delivering the ransom -- had Patsy not made the 911 call. Additionally, many exemplars in the note bear a striking resemblance to John's hand as we see it in a legal document that managed to get leaked to one of the tabloids years ago, and has never been contested by anyone in the Ramsey camp. I've produced two graphic displays illustrating this resemblance very clearly. And so has an independent forensic document professional, Fausto Brugnatelli. There are also several words and phrases in the note echoing aspects of John's verbal style, such as his habitual use of percentage figures, his use of the phrase "and hence," his use of the phrase "for proper burial," etc.

7. Finally we come to the apparently decisive decision, on the part of six forensic documentation "experts," to "rule out" John as writer of the note. The defense is sure to press that point, arguing that the "experts" determined John could not possibly have written it, and in all this time no one in law enforcement has ever come forward to challenge that verdict. I've offered several arguments questioning that decision on this blog, but of course my arguments aren't going to carry much water in a court of law.

Turns out, however, I have an ace up my sleeve, in the form of an argument presented by, of all people, Lin Wood, John's principal defender. As paraphrased by judge Julie Carnes, as part of her summation of the defense, in the case Chris Wolf brought against the Ramseys, it goes like this:
Defendants argue that the opinions of plaintiffs' expert should not be admitted because the field of forensic document examination is not sufficiently reliable. In their Brief in Support of the Motion in Limine, defendants argue that the "science" of handwriting analysis does not meet the reliability standards of Rule 702: as the theoretical bases underlying this science have never been tested; error rates are neither known nor measured; and the field lacks both controlling standards and meaningful peer review. (Br. In Supp. Of Mot. In Limine 68 at 2.) (Carnes 2003:49) (see online at (my emphasis).


  1. Great work! Please watch Dateline tonight as it involves a case of a guy getting his conviction overturned with the help of Erin Moriarty from 48 Hours. You have to reach out to her and try and get her aboard as she had previously covered the JBR story for CBS.

    The other point on PR making the 911 call is that imo she is so shocked and alarmed that her daughter has been taken that any parents first reaction is get help aka call the police! Whereas JR already knows, so need to panic or make a call. How any person thinks PR is guilty of this crime is honestly baffling.

    Your 1st point above is really well done regarding the window. Honestly, even if JR did break the window and it wasnt fixed for the past 5 months, what kind of father leaves broken sharp shards of glass in a window? Clearly any person would remove the shards when they cleaned up the glass that had fallen on the floor.

    I also dont think much of PR covering for JR as he could have easily played the "everybody including the police are out to get us, so we need to stick together no matter what."

    1. Thanks for the good advice. I'll watch Dateline tonight and think about contacting Moriarty. Though, as a protege of Sherlock Holmes, that name gives me pause. :-)

    2. I have a question, why is everyone so sure Jonbenet was killed in the basement?? It could have been the garage, the kitchen, her bedroom or any number of places. Just because the body was found there, doesn't mean it happened there. Why doesn't anyone think outside of the box?? The scream that was heard by a neighbor could have meant she was killed outside or in the yard. Thoughts???

    3. The very first time I read the ransom note, I tried to imagine what I would do and my answer was, how can I get a message to the police secretly to help me. The note warned not to get police involved. I believe Patsy didn't fully read the note, I think she was frantic, her daughter wasn't in her bed and she instinctually called 911. Its always been interesting to me that she immediately gave her address first thing. That, imo is something you do when you want to make sure police can find makes me wonder if she was afraid of John.

    4. There's no agreement on where she was killed. Fibers from the cord were found in her bedroom. And yes, Patsy could have been afraid of John when she called 911. We'll never know.

  2. Doc,

    I'm a supporter of yours and admire the logic you've brought to the case (you'd know my screen name if I used it but I prefer anonymity) - just telling you this so you'll know "where I'm coming from".

    A few problems, I think.

    One; though the logic of your arguments is solid you are depending on a jury to be logical. From years on the Jonbenet forums I think we can both agree that people can be very illogical. The jury might, for example, believe that the Rs (together or individually) wanted the body found in the house. I can't tell you how many people who've followed the case for more than a decade still believe the plan was to have the body found in the house. I don't know how people can believe this, but they do, and these are people deeply involved in the case, reading up on it and participating in the forums. A jury, necessarily, will be 12 people with little to no knowledge of the case. So, the logic that the 911 call would not be placed by PR if she were in on it is going to be lost on much of the jury, at least there is that potential. The case really is too complicated for many people. (Actually it's very simple, but people insist on complicating it).

    Two; now that PR is dead, there is nothing stopping JR from blaming it all on her. He can say he figured out, early, shorty after the 911 call - figured out that PR killed JB. He can also say he figured out that PR broke the window but had not completed the staging, "hence" the lie about breaking it months prior. Sure, he lied, but to protect his wife, and the SOL has run on those kinds of charges.

    Three, the cross finger pointing defense, combined with "reasonable" doubt would make it difficult for the jury to decide that JR definitely did it - again he can claim it was PR with him helping to cover up. No one thinks themselves to be unreasonable, so if any member of the jury has doubts (and they will) those doubts are, in juror's mind, reasonable. JR walks.

    While I firmly believe you have solved the puzzle, I'm in the camp that thinks there will never really be justice for JB.

    1. "I can't tell you how many people who've followed the case for more than a decade still believe the plan was to have the body found in the house."

      Yes, I'm painfully aware of that, having beat my head against so many stone walls for years on the forums. But I don't think the problem has to do with the inability of people to think logically. It has to do with the fact that most following this case made their minds up many years ago that Patsy had to have written the note and for many years kept insisting that this simply HAD to be the case. So it stands to reason that they're going to resist when confronted with an approach like mine, because the plan I've outlined demonstrates that Patsy could not have written it, and this they can't accept. They have internalized Patsy, her guilt has become an essential component of their psyche and they can't let go.

      All this means is that the prosecution will have to be very careful to select a jury of people unacquainted with the case, and thus unbiased, and since the case is now so old, many younger people would fill the bill quite nicely. Imo an unbiased jury would be much more likely to accept the possibility that Patsy could be an innocent dupe than the forum veterans who worry you.

      Also, if you read carefully what I've written above, you'll see that Patsy's role is really beside the point, when it comes to nailing John. If the window break was clean, that means it was broken the night of the crime to stage an intruder breakin. This in itself would tell the jury that this was an inside job. All the prosecution need do next is point to the evidence of sexual molestation, both acute and chronic, and also the knotting on the ligature device, and ask the jury whether John or Patsy is more likely to have sexually assaulted and "garotted" the victim? They can also ask the jury which is the more likely motive - bedwetting? or fear of exposure as an incestuous sexual molester? While the 911 call is an important component of my thinking on this case, it need not play such an essential role in a jury trial. All the prosecution would need to establish is that 1. it was an inside job and 2. John is far more likely to have assaulted JonBenet than Patsy. Whether Patsy was in on it with John or wrote the note to cover for him would be beside the point, because imo a jury is far more likely to see John as the sexual predator and garotte constructor than his "pageant mom" wife.

      I'll add one more important point in my next post . . .

    2. I look forward to the next post.

      It's not just the forum vets that get me down (though it's very depressing to see the same illogical theories over and over) it's also James Kolar that has me down.

      Kolar is undoubtedly an intelligent man, yet he comes up with a foolish theory of the case. Foolish in the way that all BDI is foolish - thinking JR/PR would run the risk of life in prison or even execution to "protect" BR knowing all the while BR is in no legal danger.

      Foolish also in that he chooses to troll the annals of abnormal child behavior, looking for isolated incidences of 9 year olds molesting siblings. Sort of a Ripley's Believe it or not approach to crime solving. Then w/o a shred of evidence linking BR he suggests a BDI theory.

      If seasoned detectives can't think straight I don't hold out much hope for a conviction.

    3. I want also to make the point that, as I've stated in the past, my principal goal is NOT to send John Ramsey to the electric chair, but to give him his day in court. The evidence and the reasoning I've presented in this blog constitutes, at the very least, probable cause to put him on trial for murder one. Clearly the broken window was insider staging, and since he, not his wife, is far more likely to have sexually assaulted and "garotted" the victim, then there is certainly more than enough reason to indict him for first degree murder. The striking similarities between his writing and his speech mannerisms and what we see in the note can also come into play once the decision to rule John out has been discredited. But whether John or Patsy wrote the note need not be a factor as far as probable cause to indict for murder one is concerned.

      John will imo have no choice but to stick stubbornly to the intruder theory for as long as possible, falling back, no doubt, on Lou Smit's feeble attempt to demonstrate how an intruder could have entered the house via the basement window. Since Smit's theory is easily refuted, John will probably at some point, either before or during the trial, be forced to break down and admit that this was an inside job, and be forced also to admit that he knows what actually happened.

      That's when things will get really interesting. If he can convince the jury that Patsy is the one who killed JonBenet, and he "only" covered for her, then he'd be home free, thanks to the statute of limitations on aiding and abetting. And if pinned to the wall, he could fall back on reasonable doubt, because it will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he and not Patsy actually killed their daughter. However, since he would be forced to admit that he knows what actually happened, he'd be forced to come up with a convincing Patsy-did-it scenario. And since Patsy is no longer around to defend herself, a jury might not be inclined to accept such a story. As for Burke, I doubt John would be so foolish as to attempt to pin the crime on his 9 year old son, especially when that son is now an adult and capable of defending himself. I can't see John getting off under such circumstance, but a good lawyer might be able to convince a jury to go easy, based on reasonable doubt, who knows? And, who knows, maybe John actually is innocent of murder. Maybe Patsy or Burke did it after all. If John's story is convincing enough I might be willing to accept it myself.

      In any case, even if he got off, his credibility would be destroyed as would his standing among all those who've so staunchly been defending him all these years. He would be revealed to the world for the fraud he is.

    4. One more point. I didn't mean to imply that people lack the ability to think logically. As a species we have that ability and most people have developed the skill to a reasonable level. It's just that something about this case gets people goofed up to the point where they can't think straight about it. People aren't dumb, in general, and they don't lack common sense or the ability to reason logically. But many do seem to have a problem directing their intelligence and reason to solve this case.

      It might be, as you suggest, that once people get involved with it they can't let go of preconceptions. Preconceptions may prevent clear thinking.

    5. I think the root of their not thinking straight about this case, and this would be true of Kolar and Steve Thomas also, is the decision to rule John out as writer of the note. That fateful decision truly threw the case into a tailspin, because if you accept that decision, then the logic of case gets seriously skewed.

      Assuming John could not have written it and assuming there could have been no intruder, then LOGICALLY the note could only have been written by Patsy. So the firm conviction that Patsy was involved is in fact the result of logical thinking. The problem is not with the logic, but the premise -- which was never questioned.

      If Patsy wrote the note, we have to ask ourselves "why"? And for most people it would make little sense to assume she'd have written it to cover for John. JonBenet was the apple of her eye, and if John was sexually molesting her and finally killed her, for whatever reason, it's very hard to see why Patsy wouldn't literally want to kill HIM, rather than help him stage a kidnapping to cover his behind.

      So -- logically -- it makes sense to assume, along with Steve Thomas -- that Patsy wrote the note to cover for Patsy. That something Patsy did to JonBenet is what caused her death. And that John initially had nothing to do with it. But then, it's necessary to understand why John would eventually want to go along with Patsy and her kidnapping scenario. And here is where a serious contradiction begins to emerge. If it's so easy to understand why Patsy wouldn't cover for John, then how is it possible to accept that John would cover for Patsy? Which forced Thomas to assume John must have supported Patsy to protect the family name -- quite a stretch if you ask me. And forced Kolar to fall back on Burke as most likely suspect. Because in his mind, and in the minds of so many others, the only one both John and Patsy would want to cover for would be their beloved son. And since it's hard to accept that Burke could have sexually assaulted and murdered his sister, and hard to accept that his parents would be willing to take such a huge risk to cover for him, Kolar's theory was easily dismissed by both his BPD colleagues and the DA.

      As the "logic" behind Patsy's involvement began to crumble, someone should have taken a hard look at the premise behind that logic. But no one did, so the case became literally impossible. It's the premise, the decision to rule John out that's been the real stumbling block all along. Once that decision is questioned, all should become clear. And, ironically enough, the ONLY instance in the history of this case where the expertise of the doc. examiners has been questioned is in an argument presented by Lin Wood, to discredit the "experts" who fingered Patsy. (See last segment above.) As Mr. Spock would say: "Fascinating."

    6. Yes, you're right, it's the premise that PR wrote the note that is the main problem.

      As an aside, on Websleuths SD is at least slightly questioning the validity of the QDE profession and their collective opinion. Whether or not he'll go as far as questioning PR as the author remains to be seen. There may be some hope yet for the internet sleuths.

    7. Yeah, he finally figured out that the Ramsey "experts" spent hardly any time at all looking over both John and Patsy's documents. Judging from PMPT, they spent all of 3 hours before coming up with their verdict -- which at that time ruled out BOTH John AND Patsy. What a joke!

      But notice how SD assumes that this fiasco applies ONLY to their exoneration of Patsy. John is, as usual, off the radar.

      He's happy to accept that the entire QD profession is a fraud, but it never dawns on him to question the decision to rule out John, who was, after all, the leading suspect until his own hired "experts" got him off the hook. He goes along with Epstein's judgement that all these "qualified" experts had been overly influenced by John's hired hands. But ONLY as that applies to Patsy, never John, the teflon suspect.

      The obvious bias is literally drooling out of SD's posts, but no matter, because Patsy has long been the designated perp and nothing could possibly change that, right?

    8. Oh, and by the way: you can quote me on that when next you post on Websleuths.

    9. I don't comment on Websleuths any more. Tired of the endlessly circular discussion. I do take a peek now and then, but don't comment any more.

      My hope is that others may start to question the QDEs and sooner or later one will get the idea that it cuts both ways, PR and JR.

    10. I don't believe that Patsy killed JonBenet.

      However, I'm less convinced that Patsy didn't know more than she disclosed, about what really happened.

      Continuing to refer to her as the "pageant mom"-type cuts both ways. You then make inferences based on this view of her, which commit you down various avenues.

      It is not completely out of the realm of possibility for a "pageant mom"-type drama-queen attention-seeker not thinking clearly to have made the 911 call, even if she WAS directly involved in the crime. She also called her circle-of-friends over. Who knows what she was thinking or what she knew?

      You also rely heavily on the improbality of a "pageant mom"-type person to effect a garotte and tie JBR's neck in that fashion. You could teach a monkey to do these things in a few minutes. Also, never under-estimate what an enraged woman will do.

      You keep referrring to bed-
      wetting. But if Patsy killed JonBenet, it could have been for a myriad of reasons. Even something as sick as her knowing about John's alleged perverted
      pedophillic activities and being jealous of Patsy.

      Remember, this was a "pageant mom", a drama-queen attention-seeking petulant-type creature. This is the inderence which you continually rely on. That she was basically immature, not very intelligent, not very analytical, hardly a rocket-scientist.

      Sure, JBR was redressed with ill-fitting panties, so what? John may have put those on her, while Patsy left the area after killing the child.

      You have pigeon-holed PR as a dope, basically. But that works both ways. It explains why she could have killed the child, then did those seemingly incredible things, which in your mind clears her of any chance of involvement. You can't have it both ways.

    11. Correction: line 4 of paragraph 7 should read ".....inference...."

    12. Correction: line 8 of paragraph 6 should read "......jealous of JonBenet."

      Sorry, typing while travelling is not the optimal scenario.

    13. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought Patsy was "a dope" or a "drama queen." I don't find that to be the case at all. By "pageant-mom" I was referring more to her tastes and interests than her intelligence. I find it difficult to believe that someone focused on beauty pageants and home-making would be interested in learning how to tie a slip-knot, much less assemble the sort of device that was used to strangle JonBenet. And when I referred to her as a "dupe" what I meant was that imo she'd been duped by John, i.e., manipulated by him into agreeing to tell some "white lies" to support his version of what happened. You can be very intelligent and still be duped, as con men know very well. No, Patsy was certainly intelligent, and if she'd written a note so clearly designed to provide the killer with an excuse to dump the body before calling in the police, then I'm sorry but I can't see her blowing that plan by calling them while the body was still in the house. That makes no sense at all.

  3. Although I agree that we've seen some illogical juries on highly publicized cases like the OJ trial and the Casey Anthony trial, I do think this case has harder evidence against JR. It can be shown that the ransom note and JR's handwriting match, whereas the biased analyses of Patsy's writing was based on cherry picking. Actually, the Johnism's that Doc wrote about seal the deal for me on the note, and would have to be compelling if presented in a trial. The sexual molestation, John's shirt fibers in JBRs underwear, Patsy calling 911 (not John), John's disappearance for hours and looking at mail when he should have been trying to get an attache of $118K together, John finding the body, and finding it very quickly even after Fleet White had already checked the WC, John's lawyering up with higher profile lawyers for himself than he got for Patsy, John making sure Patsy stayed medicated (if she did it, I doubt she would allow herself to be so vulnerable by staying drugged up), Linda Arndt's observations about his demeanor, etc, etc....all of it adds up. But in the end, who believes that a mom like Patsy would sexually molest their little girl, bang her over the head with such a strong force, and then strangle her with a garrott tied with a fancy knot? Not I...I cannot buy that. I can buy that there are a lot of dirty old men in this world who put on straight face for the world to see, like Jerry Sandusky. In fact, when you start talking to people, you learn that almost every family has a strange male somewhere in their bloodline that had or has a sexual issue that could have led to, or did lead to, incest. No, that doesn't make JR guilty, but it makes the prosecution's case believable. Now, I wouldn't have acquitted OJ over a glove that didn't fit, because I know that leather fabric shrinks a lot when it gets wet. Pshhh, I would have discounted the glove immediately. I would not have acquitted Casey Anthony on the premise that the prosecution didn't "prove" that George Anthony didn't do it. In the OJ case, there was racial bias and pressure. In the Anthony case, the jurors were not intelligent and some were cowards, and add to that the prosecution didn't put package their case as well as they could have. But I do believe that you can find a jury in Colorado that is intelligent, not biased in favor of a rich, caucasian fat cat, and you could get a conviction.

    1. Thanks for this very thorough review. And yes, I too think it likely that an impartial jury would convict John. But for me the most important thing is to put him on trial and confront him with the sort of tough questions he's been evading all these years.

      The real problem, however, would not be the jury. The real problem is a DA too timid to take a stand when it's easier to just shrug your shoulder and repeat that time honored dodge: "who knows?"

  4. Also didn't John send Burke immediately away from the home to stay with friends as the investigation began? That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me as a parent. There is no way on earth I would allow my other child to leave my sight
    (or at least not under direct 24 hour police protection) if there was an angry kidnapper hell bent on getting even with John. That alone tells me John knew there wasn't an intruder.

  5. I believe that John & Patsy conspired to murder JonBenet, and did so.

    I believe that JonBenet confided in her mother that her father was molesting her, at some point.

    Patsy was obviously utterly disgusted by this horrible, grotesque information, but she then had the following choice:-

    1. Report John to the authorities and have him arrested and jailed, thereby putting at risk her lavish, jet-setting, plush, opulent, easy lifestyle? or,

    2. Dispose of JonBenet, who would almost certainly tell others about John's despicable activities, at some later time. This would also dishonor Patsy, who would be disgraced by the public for not having acted earlier, after JonBenet notified her of the sexual-assaults.

    That is what I believe occurred, in a nutshell.

    1. This solution, although certainly possible, is hard to accept just as a matter of probabilities alone. I should think it is extremely rare that a father would molest his 6-year-old daughter, number one, AND upon being confronted with possible exposure, decide to kill her. If you then factor in the likelihood of a doting mother joining in the scheme, it just becomes too unlikely for me to accept.

      Also, Patsy would have had a third option: taking the kids and leaving John, threatening to report him in the event he ever sought visitation privileges. I'm not suggesting she would have chosen it over option #1, just that she could have.

    2. " is extremely rare that a father would molest his 6-year-old daughter...."

      Of course it is rare. It is a horrific proposition, the mere thought of which makes me sick. But there was evidence of chronic damage to JBR's vagina. The author of this blog is convinced that JR was responsible for the ransom note. So put 2+2 together.

      As for PR running away....could she support herself? What would she do for money? JR may have threatened her that he would use his vast wealth to have her "rubbed out", and made to look like an accident.

      PR was a beauty-pageant type person, the superficial ME-ME-ME type. It was all about her and what was best for her. It was a choice between an easy life with abundant money, or a life on the run, possibly being "rubbed out", and scraping the barrel for funds.

    3. "I believe that John & Patsy conspired to murder JonBenet, and did so."

      If you read the first two posts on this blog you'll see why I can't go along with your scenario.

    4. Moreover, if Patsy knew that John was molesting JonBenet, it's hard to believe she would not have left him. And it's especially hard to believe she'd conspire with him to murder their daughter, on whom she clearly doted. As far as money is concerned, she could have threatened him with exposure, divorced him and gotten a humongous settlement.

      In any case the bottom line is that she called 911 with the body still in the house. If she'd been conspiring with John she would never have done that.

  6. I find it hard to imagine that Patsy conspired with John; I think it would have been impossible for her personality not to finally crack and accidentally or on-purpose eventually slip up and/or spill the truth. It would have been a constant stress on John to wonder if she'd crack especially as she got closer to dying. I think John was able to handle everything because he knew he and only he knew the truth so he had full control of the cover up.

  7. And I've always thought that goes back to John wanting to Burke out of the house and away from police questioning as soon as possible. What if Burke admitted to the police '"Yeah, I saw (or heard) my dad up during the middle of the night but he didn't know I saw him." That's not something John would want the police to know.

  8. When will people quit trying to nail Patsy? Have they listened to that 911 call and heard Pasty's very convincing state of panic because her daughter is missing? Pasty is completely innocent! And, as Doc has repeated so many times on this blog, she would NOT have made that 911 call if she was guilty (either alone or with John) of murdering JB and the body was still right there in the house! Why invite the authorities over to discover the body?

    Pasty is innocent my friends.

  9. Brilliant work Doc! But could you enlighten me on the lawsuit brought by Chris Wolf. I guess I never heard about that and I'm not sure what that was all about. (And rather than searching through the web, I would much rather get the information about this case from you.)

    1. Lol! Just think of me as your handy Ramsey case search mechanism.

      Well, Chris Wolf was a young Boulder journalist whose girl friend became suspicious when he arrived home the morning after JonBenet's murder in a disheveled state and later showed an unusual interest in the Ramsey case. The girl friend also decided that Wolf's handwriting matched the ransom note. So she contacted the BPD with her suspicions and from then on his life became Hell. After being mentioned in the Ramsey's book as a likely suspect, he was persuaded to sue them by, you guessed it, Darnay Hoffmann, the "New York Lawyer" by then obsessed with the idea that Patsy Ramsey must have killed her daughter and written the ransom note. Darnay's plan was to use Wolf's lawsuit as a vehicle with which to put the Ramseys on trial for murder. For the gory details, see:

  10. Well since I already spend literally hours reading your blog, I thought you might be able (and willing) to give me a concise, factual summary of the Wolf case and possibly also direct me to a reliable website. And you didn't let me down! Thank you, Doc.

    I'm still reading through the various articles and interviews on this site about Chris Wolf's lawsuit. Most interesting for me so far was reading the transcript of Katie Couric's interview of the Ramseys. JR made quite a few statements that I found suspicious, although I'm trying not to "look" for these things with a JDI state of mind. I'm sure you've read this transcript, but if you haven't, it's worth reading.

    1. Thanks for reminding me of that interview. Very interesting. Thanks to you I found yet another very revealing lie.

  11. Anonymous above said that if they were to get JR to trial, he could always claim "PR did it." The main problem I see with that defense would be that imo BR wouldnt sit back and let his Dad destroy his moms reputation. BR clearly knows more than he has ever said, so I think JR would have a real hard time shifting blame to eith PR or BR without some very incriminating testimony about him coming out. Also, if JR ever did go to trial, I dont think he would ever take the stand, because he would open himself up to cross examination and absolutely get destroyed on so many of the lies he has told.

    1. Well if BR were willing to talk, the case might have been solved years ago. I have a feeling he knows some things that could be very bad for John. Apparently, though, he's loyal to his father. Or afraid of him.

      But I'll be happy just to see John indicted. And if he is put on trial, I very much doubt he'd be so foolish as to point the finger at either Patsy or Burke, because once he admits to knowing what happened his credibility goes down the toilet. My guess is that he'd never take the stand at all and his lawyers would just keep talking endlessly about that magical "touch" DNA and his being "exonerated" by Mary Lacy.

  12. John probably set up a fund for Burke before he lost most of his wealth. Burke may be beholden to him now. Money has bought his silence.

  13. 1 comment and 1 question for you Doc.
    Not that this matters at all, but the quote "dont try and grow a brain" you had stated was from Clint Eastwood, but it is also from the 1994 movie Speed. Dennis Hopper says it to Keanu......doesnt mean anything, just a little tidbit.
    My question though is did Fleet White ever say the position of JBR's body when they found it in the windowless room? Or did JR scream, then run in and pick up the body before the light came on? It may not matter much, just curious if we know for a fact that she was lying on the ground like JR said.

    1. Interesting that the quote came also from the film "Speed." Never seen that one.

      And no, Fleet White reported that John screamed first and THEN turned the light on, which made White suspicious. And as far as I know, John lifted up the body before White could see where it was originally. It could have been hidden under a blanket in a corner, but John claimed it was right out in the open. If that's the case then why didn't White see it when he entered that room earlier?

  14. Doc, I watch the show Pawn Stars alot and anytime they have an autograph come into the shop, they will always bring in a handwriting expert to verify if a celebrity signature is authentic or not. The expert will sometimes say its a phony based on a curly cue or slant being in the wrong spot or whatever. My point is that if JR or PR wrote this note, they obviously would purposely try to disguise their normal handwriting as they would be the first suspects looked at. My question is, wouldnt it be theoretically impossible to determine who wrote the note due to the fact that it could only show similarities and not be definititve of either PR or JR's handwriting? Any person could disguise their handwriting multiple ways, so how is it even possible to rule out or prove any person wrote it? The more important thing would be to look at content "and hence" (see what I did there) we can determine JR being te author of this note.


    1. Good point. Forgery is all about making something look like it was written by someone else, in other words, by emphasizing (false) similarities and disguising (real) differences. The Ramsey ransom note involves a very different type of deception, as it is intended, very simply, to disguise the real writer's hand, with no need to make it look like anyone else's. Deception of this kind is much easier to do than forgery, and detecting the hand of the person who actually wrote the note is far more difficult than detecting a forgery. And, as you say, very likely impossible. Because we have no way of determining how the writer went about disguising his or her hand.

      I have a feeling the "experts" who ruled out John were simply looking for similarities and, not finding very many, must have decided he didn't write it. Huge mistake. Because given this type of deception, we can expect mostly differences. Any similarities would be the result of carelessness, and might not mean anything at all, because it's impossible to say what was going on in the person's mind as he or she wrote each letter and each word.

      I'd love to see the exemplars John gave the investigators but you can be sure they were either hand picked by him or deliberately written by him to emphasize as many differences as possible. So when people talk about how, for example, Patsy used "manuscript a" and the note contains so many examples of "manuscript a" that means nothing, since the person who wrote it may well have decided to avoid using his or her usual methods of writing certain letters. Thus the absence of "manuscript a" in the document we have from John most certainly does NOT argue for his innocence, simply because it represents a difference from his usual style. That difference was most likely a deliberate part of the deception.

    2. You could have every single person that was alive in the world at the time of this crime submit a handwriting sample and not find 1 match to the author of the RN. Not to mention the writer of this note (JR) had to be under stress from the whole situation which would affect his normal handwriting style anyways. I guess what Im saying is that the RN could have been written in crayon in bubble letters and it wouldnt change the content of the note that points to JR.
      All that would have to be testified to in court by an "expert" is that it was possible for JR to have written the note. Any expert who rules him out should lose all credibility immediately as nobody should be able to completely rule JR out as it would be simply their opinion based on no actual fact.


    3. Yes. And in many cases, forensic document "experts" are not permitted to voice their opinion, but only present evidence. In a trial all that would be necessary would be to call a forensic doc. specialist to the stand to testify that there is in fact no scientific method that enables anyone to be ruled out in a case of this kind.