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) live.com, 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.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

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:


My first, and most important, example is the 911 call, which I won't dwell on since I've already discussed it many times. Knowing that Patsy and not John made that call enables us to infer that John and not Patsy must be the guilty party and that Patsy must be innocent. For my explanation, see, for example http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-911-call.html

Here's another example, less central to the case as a whole, but nonetheless revealing. From The O'Reilly Factor, August 30, 1999:
COSSACK: Patsy, let me ask you a question. When I was a lawyer and before I would let my clients take a lie detector test, I used to made sure that they could pass their lie detector tests. I know you have very excellent lawyers, I know some of your lawyers. Have you privately taken a lie detector test? either of you? or both of you? and have you passed it already?
J. RAMSEY: You were asked the question, go ahead.
P. RAMSEY: I think that is kind of an inappropriate question, if you're so up on -- i think that's lawyer-client privilege and I don't wish to ruin that but...
J. RAMSEY: Being a lawyer, also recognize that any lawyer would tell their clients: Do not, under any circumstances, take a police polygraph test. They are subjective. We've gotten a number of letters from former polygraphers, we got one the other day from a retired FBI polygrapher, who said I could make the pope look deceptive, if I chose to do so. We got a letter from a state attorney general who said: You are absolutely correct, it must be fair and independent if you are going to do this. Don't give up on the point.
It's not difficult to infer from this exchange that the Ramseys were in fact given a privately administered polygraph, and that one or both of them failed. Instead of answering the question, Patsy invokes lawyer-client privilege, which is of course irrelevant, since she is the client and not the lawyer, and is free to reveal whatever she chooses. And John follows up immediately by subtly changing the subject from an already administered private polygraph to a not yet administered police polygraph. If they hadn't been given a private polygraph it would have been very easy for them to say so, and if they'd passed any such polygraph they would certainly not have wanted to hide that fact.

Here's another example, relating this time to the publicly reported polygraph both finally took after being cornered into agreeing to take one during the same O'Reilly Factor interview.
 
From the Rocky Mountain News of May 25, 2000:
Edward Gelb, a respected California-based polygrapher, said he administered two tests to John Ramsey and three to Patsy Ramsey earlier this month. Both were asked whether they killed JonBenet or knew the killer. Patsy Ramsey also was asked whether she wrote the ransom note found in their home.
It should be noted that the Ramseys refused to take a polygraph independently administered by a law enforcement agency, such as the Boulder Police Dept. or the FBI, but chose instead to hire a polygrapher of their own, whose examination, and report, they could control under the auspices of lawyer-client privilege. In this case, the inference to be drawn is not as straightforward but imo no less telling: the one who failed the earlier, private polygraph must have been John, and the question he failed on must have been about the ransom note.

How do we know this? Well, first of all, there was no reason for Gelb to refrain from asking the exact same questions of both John and Patsy. While it's true that, as far as Gelb was concerned, John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, that doesn't mean he had no knowledge of who actually did write it. So the logical question to ask both of them would have been "do you know who wrote the ransom note?" NOT "did your yourself write it?" However, if John had failed the earlier, privately administered, polygraph when questioned about the note, then there is no way he would have agreed to be given the same question in an exam that was going to be reported publicly. And the fact that Gelb asked only Patsy and not John about the note confirms this. By logical deduction we are able to determine that, in all likelihood, John must have failed an earlier polygraph when asked about the ransom note.

For another example, we can turn to a completely different aspect of the case, the broken basement window. John claimed he had broken that window at some unspecified earlier date, possibly the previous summer. If in fact the window had not been broken previously, and the break was in fact fresh, then, given the lack of any evidence that anyone had actually passed through it, that could mean only one thing: someone living inside the house had broken the glass on the night of the murder, to clumsily stage an intruder breakin at that point.

One must assume that the condition of the broken glass was examined by the investigators to determine whether it was a fresh break or an old one, but the results of that examination have never been made public. Recently, with the release of a video showing for the first time a close-up of the broken window, it's possible to see some remnants of a cobweb attached to the broken shards, evidence that, to some, means the break must be old. This would be a mistake, however. Spiders always weave complete webs, not isolated strands of webbing. The bits and pieces of cobweb we see hanging off the glass shards can only be the remnants of a once intact web that was destroyed at the time the pane was broken. And if we have no way of determining when that time was, the bits of broken cobweb can tell us nothing of any use.

Never fear, however, because the condition of the window on the night of the crime can be inferred logically. Not on the basis of a direct examination of the glass, but indirectly, based on what was known to the police when they interviewed John and Patsy, both in 1997 and 1998. In 1997, John was interviewed extensively regarding his story about having broken into his house at an earlier time, after having misplaced his keys. (Or having not taken his keys with him when he flew out of town. Or having given his keys to his older son. His story has taken many different forms.) And, again, in 1998, he was also interviewed extensively and in great detail regarding this same story. Also, on both occasions, both he and Patsy were repeatedly questioned regarding whether or not the window had ever been repaired. (They could not recall.)

I'm sorry, but I can come up with no logical reason why the police would take so much time over such questions  if it had already been determined that the break was old. If the experts concluded from the condition of the glass that this was an old break, there would have been no reason whatsoever to question John about his story, because obviously he would have been telling the truth, and nothing would be gained by learning the details of his breakin, not to mention whether the window had been repaired, since if the break were an old one then obviously it would not have been repaired. We can infer, therefore, from the nature of their questions, that either this was a fresh break, or, more likely, the investigators had not been able to determine whether it was new or old.

[Added at 1 PM: Looking at this situation from a somewhat different standpoint: when determining whether this was an old or new break, all they'd have needed to do would be examine the edges of the broken shards. If the edges were encrusted with a layer of dust, then clearly the break was old. If the edges were clean, then clearly the break was fresh. If the break was found to be old, then John was telling the truth and there would be no need to question him on this matter; nor would there have been any need to know whether the window had been repaired. Which tells us that the edges must have been clean, indicating a fresh break.

At this point I have a feeling the investigators must have been confused. A fresh break could mean a breakin by a real intruder, which I feel sure they strongly doubted, as there were no other signs of a breakin at that point, OR it could mean John was lying and broke the window himself the night of the crime, to stage a phoney breakin. But if he were staging, then why would he lie about breaking in earlier? I believe they were genuinely puzzled over John's story, which is why they never seem to have followed through on what certainly looks to be a blatant deception. As I see it, John's story is puzzling only when one fails to see it as an alibi, which the authorities apparently never figured out.

In any case, just between us, we should have no difficulty inferring that: 1. the window break must have been fresh; 2. John lied about breaking in earlier; 3. the window must have been broken by John on the night of the crime, NOT months earlier.]

One more example:

In his book, Foreign Faction, James Kolar cites research convincing him that a child as young as nine year old Burke could have been the one who penetrated JonBenet's vagina with his finger. Though he presents no evidence that Burke himself was sexually mature at that age, or even interested in girls, he manages to find some examples of nine year old boys who did all sorts of nasty things, including sexually molesting young females. On this basis, supplemented by various bits and pieces of evidence suggesting that Burke could have been a very disturbed child, he strongly implies that Burke must have both sexually assaulted and murdered his sister. It's necessary for him to include sexual assault in the mix, because JonBenet was in fact digitally penetrated and, given Kolar's conviction that there was no intruder, the only other likely candidate would have been her father -- but since Kolar does not want to go there, seeing John as a good Christian who could never be capable of such a thing, then he has no choice but to pin this incestuous act on Burke.

However: sifting through the various police reports we learn that JonBenet's body had been very thoroughly wiped down and, of course, we have to ask ourselves why. We learn also that her original panties appear to have gone missing -- and she was redressed in a pair much too large for her. Since it's very difficult to understand why the attacker would have gone to the trouble of both wiping down the body and discarding the original underpants for any other reason, it's not difficult to infer that he must have ejaculated and that some of his sperm must have spilled onto both the victim's body and her original underpants. We can infer on the same basis that Burke is not likely to have been the attacker for the simple reason that nine year old boys cannot normally produce sperm. According to medical authorities, boys begin to mature sexually anywhere from the age of 11 on. While some boys mature at an earlier age, they are definitely the exception. And I would venture to say with some confidence that sperm production at age nine would have to be extremely rare.



78 comments:

  1. If only the current DA would open his mind and read this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are many other inferences to be made as well.

    One is this - we can infer that the plan was originally to dump the body because the RN is a RN, not a sex killer note, not a crazy man's manifesto. A RN would explain JB's disappearance, but not her dead body - unless one thinks intruder theory makes sense on the face of it.

    As regards Patsy's fibers, we can infer she told the truth when she said she never wore the red sweater/jacket in the basement. She had 4 months between the murder and the first round of police interviews. She had the questions in writing, ahead of time. She certainly would have be informed by her counsel as to the reasons for the questions.

    It would have been to her advantage to say she'd been in the basement shortly before leaving for the party, wearing the jacket. She could have made up most any reason for being down there. It would be impossible to prove was lying. Yet she claims not to have been down there, so we may infer that's the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thinking. I feel sure there are many other inferences to be made, based on the various facts and testimony. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Crusaderadio.com/DouglasMillar, hosting a-LISTEN LIVE, tonight at 9:00pm. EASTERN TIME. The man known as "The 3rd SANTA aka William (Bill) Ramsey, JonBenet's murderer. FYI: jonbenetstruecasehistory.com

      Delete
    3. Sorry but I missed the show. I went to the website, but my virus software would not let me follow the link to the book. There are no end of theories about this case and no end of suspects, but in my experience every intruder theory consists mostly of sheer speculation woven around a handful of carefully selected facts, ignoring all else.

      Delete
  3. Doc, your analyzation of this case is masterful. For a poet and playwrite, you certainly have the mind of a superior sleuth. Do you mind me asking what got you so interested in this case? Have you ever done any other type of investigative work?

    I can't get enough of your blog. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, your kind words mean a great deal.

      I never saw myself as a sleuth, and never had much interest in following crime stories, much less commenting on such stories on the Internet or anywhere else. But the JonBenet case was different, because as the case developed, I was unable to understand why the parents were, day after day, refusing to meet with the police -- and also why the police were treating them with kid gloves and allowing them to get away with such outrageous behavior for such a long time. This situation really began to upset me and so, for the first time in my life, when the opportunity arose and I had the chance to learn more about the case from some of the Internet forums, I got involved. And then I just got hooked.

      This also happened to be a time when I had just completed a major project and had nothing new in the works, and was getting very bored, a condition I find it really hard to tolerate. So my involvement with this case was a great help to me psychologically, at least at first.

      My deep involvement in this case over the years has become, very frankly, a source of embarrassment, as I've been active primarily as a creative artist and also scholar, and have a feeling many of my colleagues would not understand and get the impression that I'm some sort of obsessive crackpot. And since I'm already known for some very counter-intuitive theories that often rub people the wrong way, I fee especially vulnerable.

      Only my closest friends and my sister know my secret, and I get the feeling it embarrasses them as well. I actually lost a good friend over this case, as he was sure the Ramseys were the victim of some sort of witch hunt, and got very upset with me when I began focusing on John.

      At the moment I'm involved with a few different projects, both creative and scholarly, that are important to me. But whenever things slow down, or I get blocked, the Ramsey case is always there to relieve my boredom, for which, I suppose, I should be grateful. Thanks for asking.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous November 3, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      "Doc, your analyzation of this case is masterful. For a poet and playwrite, you certainly have the mind of a superior sleuth...I can't get enough of your blog. Thank you!"

      I'll second THAT. This blog really IS addictive...and it sure beats the hell outta all the other addictions I've battled over my lifetime.

      Delete
    3. The surgeon general has determined that too much of this blog might be dangerous to your mental health. Use with caution. :-)

      Delete
    4. Doc, I feel your pain (about losing a good-friend over this case). Many people are so defensive and tribalistic that they need to surround themselves with people who share exactly the same views as them. This is very childish and immature. At first many people suspected the Ramseys. Now, most people seem to have swallowed the intruder story. I'm like you, I think for myself. I decide for myself.

      In a similar vein, since following Bill Dear's investigation into the Brown/Goldman murders, I fully believe that Jason Simpson (OJ's son) was involved in these killings. OJ also attended the scene, at some point.

      But mention Jason's involvement and most people just roll their eyes. They don't want to listen. This case was solved long-ago in gossip magazines and hair-dressing salons by simple-minded, myopic, one-dimensional self-appointed judges of social morality who despise OJ Simpson.

      I refuse to discuss the Simpson case with people who are ignorant of Bill Dear's investigation. I don't wish to be viewed as some crackpot, as the proverbial soldier of the Japanese Imperial Army, still lost in the jungle, unaware that WW2 has ended and that the battle has been lost.

      Delete
    5. Yes, people too often get locked in to a particular theory and get very indignant when confronted with a contradictory viewpoint. That's certainly what we see all the time on the JonBenet forums. It was my frustration in dealing with this mindset that prompted me to start this blog.

      Delete
  4. A little OT:

    I've been watching JR interviews from the press junket for his book. His demeanour is SO different when Patsy's not there - it's relaxed; there's almost a palpable sense of relief. Sorry Doc, I know this is nothing to do with logic and inference and is probably the sort of pop psychology you consider useless, but I'm curious to know what other commentators think.

    Also, though I do admire your reasoning and am currently leaning towards your theory, it doesn't make sense to me that the guilty party would write a book years later and intentionally draw all that attention to themselves, unless they were that sort of psychotic narcissist that want to taunt the police and the public (which JR doesn't strike me as).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqltPP2GxEo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't seen any of those interviews, so can't comment.

      As for the book I think he "wrote" it because he needed the income. (I put "wrote" in quotes since I suspect he used a ghost writer for most of it.)

      Delete
  5. Thanks for sharing that personal background. I, too, find myself embarrassed when I tell people I am infatuated with this case. Most adults barely remember it, and the students at the high school where I work are too young to know about it, unless they've read about it or seen something on TV. Much like me, when I was young, not knowing about the Lindbergh kidnapping case. My obsession goes so far that I have often said I don't want to die before this case is solved and that the first thing I will ask God (if indeed he exists) will be, "Who killed Jon Benet?" But your blog has offered me the most logical explanations to the many mysteries of this case, and short of an actual confession by the real murderer, I feel this case IS solved. Maybe now when I meet my maker I can say, "I already know -- thanks to a very insightful, intelligent blogger named 'Doc' !"

    Thanks Doc. I am thankful you have moments of boredom and continue blogging. It never gets old for me!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd be very interested in your "counter-intuitive theories" if you'd care to share them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I'd like nothing better than to place some links to articles or books of mine on this blog, so I could share my ideas with friends I've been making here. But that would take us very far afield and be a serious distraction from the matter at hand. Some day, hopefully after the case is finally resolved, I'll feel comfortable about revealing my "true identity" (as the saying goes) and sharing other aspects of my life with my fellow JonBenet fanatics.

      Delete
  7. "Good thinking. I feel sure there are many other inferences to be made, based on the various facts and testimony. Thanks."

    Sure, you've already made most of the inferences in your blog. One I particularly like is that we can infer that both PR/JR could not have been covering up together, otherwise the pineapple snack would have been incorporated into the story they tell the police. Either they were both ignorant of the pineapple -quite possible imo, or one and only one knew of the pineapple and could not let this be known by the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's also a very interesting inference, isn't it? It's hard for me to believe that people would assume they'd want to hide the fact that JonBenet ate some pineapple that night, whether both were innocent OR both guilty. Clearly, as you say, either she helped herself to some without anyone knowing about it, or the person who ultimately attacked her lured her by offering her some. Obviously that person would want to keep that secret. But if they were both involved, they certainly would have had no problem admitting that she'd had some pineapple, why not?

      Delete
  8. Regarding the body being thoroughly wiped down and the panties replaced, I can’t imagine a nine year old boy (I raised one) doing anything thoroughly, much less wiping down a sister who was close to his own weight (I’m guessing). Patsy would have used the right size replacement panties, and an intruder wasn’t even there.

    Any man who would ejaculate over the dead body of his daughter was insane, at least temporarily. I have no doubt that his eyes were wild. He could have gathered fibers on the ligature and tape deliberately, since Patsy was asleep and her red Christmas clothes lying nearby. He was trying to save his ass at that point.

    John had no history of child pornography. He may be happy that Patsy’s gone since he probably blamed her for dangling an irresistible temptation in front of him. Those child beauty pageants are pretty shocking (Little Miss Sunshine).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your apt comments. The only thing I'd take exception to are your comments on the fibers, because I don't see anything suspicious at all about Patsy's fibers being found at the murder scene and I really doubt that John would have planted them. The last thing he'd want to do would be to implicate Patsy. His plan was to stage a kidnapping and an intruder breakin, and that would have been enough. The fibers could easily have been transferred via JonBenet and/or her attacker.

      Delete
  9. Is there a police report that says JonBenet's body had been very thoroughly wiped down?

    Or is that your inference from what actually was said in some police report?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I remember reading that she'd been wiped down in one of the books, probably Perfect Murder Perfect Town, but probably some other sources as well. I don't think anyone has ever contested those reports, so I'm assuming they're accurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that any police report has said anything along the lines that the body was thoroughly wiped down.

      Delete
    2. "Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (PMPT 1999:132)

      Delete
    3. Still, your inference that semen was wiped away is dubious. Maybe there was only blood (never any semen) and some of the blood was wiped away.

      Also, since some blood indeed did remain, I would not use the word "thoroughly" in characterizing the wiping.

      Delete
    4. Well, the blood showed up only under the special lighting they used. The body was described as "wiped clean," which implies the wiping was pretty thorough. The question in my mind is the meaning of "there was no semen." That could mean they determined via the fluorescent lighting that no semen had ever been present, or it could mean that no traces of semen were seen under that lighting because she'd been "wiped clean." It's hard to imagine what motive her attacker could have had to wipe her clean if no semen were present. And also hard to understand why he'd want to change her panties if no semen were present on the original panties. I'm not an expert, so can't say for sure that semen had to have been present, but it certainly looks that way.

      Delete
    5. For the sake of argument, imagine that Patsy killed JonBenet and then cleaned the body and changed the underwear. So, there was some blood, that she wiped away. And there never was any semen.

      The logic of your own inference (there was some semen that was wiped away) is compelling to you because you have concluded that John was the killer. That logic is not compelling to people who have not reached your conclusion.

      Delete
    6. Well, first of all, we know that Patsy could not have killed JonBenet, because the person who dialed 911 to report a kidnapping would not have done so if she'd known the body of her victim was still in the house. And that person was Patsy.

      Second, my logic ought to be compelling to anyone following this case because we can assume the killer did what he did for a reason. And I can't think of any reason for wiping a body clean just to clean up some blood. Nor can I think of any reason for getting rid of the original panties if they did not contain evidence that could incriminate the killer. (Nor, by the way, can I think of any reason for Patsy to redress her in panties that she knew very well were much too large.)

      And under the circumstances (sexual assault) I think it reasonable to assume that the evidence the killer was trying to obliterate would have been semen.

      All of the above should make sense to anyone, even someone not convinced that John was the killer. I'm not claiming I have to be right and that there could not be any other explanation, but the above does seem like a reasonable explanation under the circumstances.

      As far as whether my inferences seem logical to me because of my opinions regarding this case, one could say the same about your skepticism regarding my inferences, since obviously you'd rather see Patsy as the guilty party. I have no problem with that, assuming you can offer an alternative scenario that's equally convincing or better.

      Delete
    7. I would not "rather see Patsy as the guilty party".

      I just don't agree with your inference that the absence of semen proves that semen had been present and was wiped away.

      The absence of semen might mean simply that there never was any semen on the body.

      Furthermore, maybe that part of the body was not wiped away at all.

      Delete
    8. If you two don't mind a 3rd party entering this discussion -

      Doc's inference is valid, which does not mean it's necessarily correct. It is a very reasonable inference. One wipes things clean to remove something. That something could well be semen.

      But, I wonder if the killer might have cleaned up blood just as a sort of gut reaction.

      Delete
    9. No pun intended? :-)

      Actually we have no way of knowing for sure why the body was wiped down, but if there was a fair amount of blood I suppose that's possible. But the combination of wiping down the body AND changing the panties sounds more to me like semen spill than anything else.

      Delete
    10. It may have been that Patsy put the large replacement underwear on her daughter after cleaning up a urinary accident and expecting to bring out some protective wadding, or one of the diapers observed to be hanging from a bag on the cabinet just outside the child's bedroom. These might have been the "bad girl" underwear that she went back to bed with after an accident. She might have even have had an accident this night due to a late serving of (watery) pineapple.

      Delete
    11. If that's what happened, then why wouldn't Patsy have reported it? Even if you think she's guilty, there'd be no reason for her to lie about changing some underwear. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.

      Delete
  11. I’ve never read any of the books, but I remember that she was washed. That was in the news almost right away. I knew then that it was an inside job; what intruder risks being caught while washing a victim?

    I wish someone could find the picture of JBR with her wrists and ankles tied with ropes. I know I didn’t imagine that. It seems the publication was pulled off the shelves almost immediately (very bad taste), and I can’t locate it on the internet. She was posed in a farm/ranch/haymow setting. Did anyone else see that? It was there and gone in a flash.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I know which picture you're referring to, but it just showed her in some sort of cowboy outfit near some rope that looked like it could be used as a lasso. The picture was a bit suggestive, I guess, but I don't recall that she was tied.

      Delete
  12. DocG, QUESTION: Can DNA from the Ransom Note be recovered by the Touch DNA Method? If so, believe the Boulder PD should be requested to process that piece of evidence!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was an attempt to lift fingerprints from the note very early on and in that attempt the note had to be destroyed, so all that remained to work with were copies. Techniques to analyze touch DNA hadn't been invented yet, so they made no attempt to find any. Now it's too late, unfortunately.

      Delete
  13. This picture? http://jonbenet-forever6.gonetoosoon.org/photos/list__2/
    Clearly dressed as a teen, imo. Patsy's wardrobe tastes are typical of the childpageant scene and tacky, but this stuff in no way means she's a child-abusing killer. If so, arrest all the pageant moms and redneck moms in America!

    ReplyDelete
  14. hi doc. like you said 9 year old kids dont produce sperm. didnt wecht mention something about talcum powder being used when her body was wiped down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I vaguely remember something about talcum powder, but not sure where that was or what the circumstances were.

      Delete
  15. did someone take photo's of jon benet in the basement. patsy was questioned regarding certain pictures of jb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, no photos were taken at the original crime scene, because John immediately scooped up the body and brought it upstairs. That in itself is very suspicious, by the way, because he knew very well he was looking at a crime scene and anyone who's ever spent time watching a detective movie or TV show knows very well that you leave a crime scene alone and touch nothing. Patsy was shown autopsy pictures of JonBenet's body that must have been awfully difficult for her to deal with.

      Delete
  16. As a mother of 2 small children, I find it hard to believe the Ramseys would leave a broken window for months, especially that this window leads to the basement room where kids play (train set) and where Patsy put wrapped presents. The basement of the house was in use by the family. Though this is not evidence but I think it's an important piece to add to what investigators call the "totality of evidence."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you're right. Of course. Obviously. And if you look at the video released by Kolar you'll see a very nasty looking piece of dangling glass just waiting to be knocked loose by a gust of wind and fall to the floor. Their story about John breaking in earlier and Patsy cleaning up after him is a complete and obvious fabrication, a blatant lie. The real question is why the Keystone Kops bought it.

      Delete
    2. I don't recall reading any comments from the housekeeper to back up (or not) on JR's story of the broken window. She would know.

      Delete
    3. Excellent point. She did know. She testified that she knew nothing about any broken window and later accused Patsy of lying about that. Like me, she suspected that the window had been broken the night of the crime to stage an intruder entry, only she'd been convinced by Darnay Hoffman that Patsy was the culprit and had nothing to say about John.

      Delete
    4. Not only the housekeeper never "backed up" john's story about the window being broken for months, she blatantly denied it. Patsy told police that she (patsy) and the housekeeper cleaned up the broken glass together. The housekeeper had no recollection of that. I believe this is in ST's book. In any event, as has already been said, it is not believable at all that a wealthy family with a stay at home mom AND a housekeeper would allow a broken window to go unrepaired for several months, especially with 2 small children in the house, and the window being next to where they play. Certainly someone would have remembered to make that call.

      Delete
    5. Yes. Nothing about that story is believable. Yet, the authorities were willing to accept it, probably because they were unable to understand why John would want to point them away from that window if he were staging a breakin there. It's called "misdirection," aka "blowing smoke."

      Delete
  17. hi doc. there were supposed to be pictures of jon benet taken in the basement before the night of the murder. thats what i meant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I see. Yes, some people came up with the theory that porno pictures of JonBenet were being taken by some pedophile group, is that what you mean? Nothing like that has ever been revealed and I strongly doubt that story.

      Delete
  18. no, not porno pictures. just normal ones taken in the basement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never heard anything about that. The basement was hardly the ideal place to take pictures I'd think. (Especially with all that cold air blowing in from the broken window :-) )

      Delete
  19. If Patsy is innocent of both the murder and the cover-up, I don't understand why she would tell lies, as here about cleaning up the broken window some time prior to the murder. I will confess to having no mastery of the facts (still working through this blog) but is it possible that John confessed to Patsy early on that he had committed the murder and written the note and sought her assistance in the cover-up? In such case, she might have concluded, in a drugged and traumatized state, that she was partly responsible for the murder (beauty pageants as sex fantasy, etc.) and that continuing a life with John was better for Burke than bringing shame and disrepute to the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must admit that Pasty's story about cleaning up the glass from that broken window does make it seem like either the two of them were in it together from the start, or, as you suggest, Patsy had figured out what happened, but nevertheless decided to support him, out of some misguided notion of spousal loyalty.

      What we do know is that Linda Hoffman Pugh, the housekeeper who supposedly helped her clean up the glass, denied any knowledge of any broken window from the start, and ultimately accused Patsy of lying about that incident. Her testimony, combined with all the other aspects of John's version of what happened that don't add up, plus their inability to recall whether the window had ever been repaired, makes it literally impossible to believe either of them is telling the truth regarding the earlier breakin. So we know Patsy lied. We just don't know why.

      But we also know that the 911 call would not have been made when it was if John and Patsy had been conspiring to stage a kidnapping. So we are faced with a genuine conundrum when we see Patsy consistently supporting John's version of what happened.

      I really don't think she would have supported him if he'd confessed that he'd killed JonBenet, or if she'd figured it out. That's really hard to believe, because what he did was in itself so horrible and placed all of them in such an impossible position.

      But I do think he could have manipulated her -- aided by the fact that he'd been "ruled out" as writer of the note. He'd been ruled out and she hadn't and as a result, he would have been above suspicion as far as she was concerned, and she would have been extremely vulnerable. For more of my thoughts on this issue, see the last segment of this blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-4.html

      Delete
    2. Maybe so. I prefer to believe that an innocent party (no involvement in murder or cover-up) would be truthful with law enforcement authorities who are attempting to solve the murder of her child.

      Now, refusing to cooperate and lawyering-up is another matter entirely. This can make perfect sense for innocent parties in certain circumstances (see Richard Jewell case).

      Delete
    3. Under most circumstances an innocent party would have no problem telling the truth. Understand, however, that if Patsy told the investigators that she knew nothing about John having broken the basement window at some earlier date, and as far as she knew that window had been intact up to the night of the murder, then she would, in effect, have been accusing John of lying. And it might well have been all over for John at that point. Now why would she have wanted to send John to the electric chair when she "knew" he must be innocent because he'd been "ruled out"??? Also, by accusing John of lying she would have been creating a rift between them that could be harmful to HER. Because she had NOT been ruled out, and he had, he would have been in a far stronger position than her if he'd accused HER of lying. And their whole facade of innocence would have been wrecked.

      As far as lawyering up is concerned, yes, certainly, if you're a suspect you are justified in hiring a lawyer as soon as possible, yes. But if you are innocent, it is in your interest to talk to the police as soon as possible. Sure, you bring your lawyer with you, but why pass up the opportunity to explain what happened to the authorities? If the Ramseys were innocent, then what information could they have provided to the authorities that would have made them look more suspicious than if they'd refused to be questioned? Also, if they are both guilty, they could have gotten their story straight so they'd be sure to support one another's version of what happened. But if one is guilty and the other innocent, then the innocent one could innocently spill the beans on the guilty one. It seems clear to me that this was John's greatest fear. He needed time to work on Patsy to make sure they'd both be on the same page.

      Delete
    4. I don't know. Good arguments on both sides. I'm inclined to think simpler answer is more likely scenario: that at some point after the initial flurry of activity Patsy became a knowing participant in the cover-up. This appears to be one of the counts adopted by the grand jury although they of course are not infallible.

      Delete
    5. I can see John manipulating Patsy into lying for him -- but ONLY because of her knowledge that he'd been "ruled out" and must be innocent. So it would only be a white lie, to get "the man" off their backs. But if John had actually confessed to sexually assaulting and murdering her beloved daughter, whom she doted on endlessly and who was in fact the center of her whole existence at that point, then no, I'm sorry, I can't see her lying to save his neck.

      Delete
    6. Of course, you may be right. I'll give this more thought as I work my way through the wealth of information amassed on this blog. Thanks for all your efforts, by the way.

      At this point, it seems counterintuitive to me that an innocent person would deliberately mislead investigators who are trying to identify the killer of her beloved child, unless she had the ulterior motive of protecting the killer. I understand your point that she saw her statements only as 'white lies' to protect herself (John being ruled out) and was vulnerable to being manipulated by John.

      In reality, of course, she wasn't doing herself or the investigators any favors and instead should have stood on her 5th amendment rights if, as an innocent person, she sensed that she had become the focus of the investigation.

      Delete
    7. Doc, I don't think she was covering for John out of "spousal loyalty". Perhaps it had more to do with John as "meal ticket"? He was wealthy, successful, and she certainly enjoyed the lifestyle he provided. I guess that is spousal loyalty in a sense, but maybe she was loyal only to his income lol

      Delete
    8. If Patsy had been willing to blow the whistle on John's absurd window story, and he'd been convicted of murder as a result, she would have been in a position to sue him for everything he had, and she'd have wound up a millionaire, so for me the "meal ticket" theory doesn't work. It seems clear to me that Patsy never suspected John at all, partly because he manipulated her so effectively, partly because he'd been "ruled out" as writer of the note. The bond between her and JonBenet was so powerful that she would certainly have blown the whistle on John if she thought it even remotely possible that he'd killed her beloved daughter. She certainly would never have written a phony ransom note to cover for him, that's for sure.

      Delete
  20. Additionally, LHP was washing windows sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas, getting the house ready for Christmas (PMPT p. 62) She, her husband, her daughter were cleaning windows and bringing in Christmas decorations. They had to bring the Christmas trees out of the WC to various rooms in the house (there were several trees displayed throughout the house)

    So, it's likely LHP or her husband, or her daughter, would have noticed a broken window. Arguably the basement windows didn't need to be washed as there would be no tree display there, but I get the impression this was a general clean-up of the house in preparation for Christmas. I think it unlikely no one noticed the broken window.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Moreover, it's just impossible to believe the housekeeper would not have been aware of a window anywhere in the house that had been broken for months, letting in all sorts of insects in the summer and cold air in the fall and winter. Aside from Patsy, NO ONE has ever come forward to confirm the existence of that broken window. If John's story were true than at the very least the window would have been patched with a piece of cardboard or some plywood to keep insects and weather out. Patsy claimed Linda helped her clean up that glass, but Linda denied that and accused Patsy of lying. The whole story is clearly a fabrication from beginning to end, as should be clear simply from reading John's ridiculously lame testimony.

      Delete
    2. Doc, obviously now records would be hard to obtain, but couldnt they have checked credit card records and local glass companies to see if a window was ever paid to be fixed? JR just makes things up and somehow has gotten away with it.

      Delete
    3. You'd think that the BPD would have investigate that matter, wouldn't you? Come to think of it, you'd think the Ramseys' would have investigated. All they would have needed to do was ask Linda's husband, since he was apparently the one who did all the handyman work in that house. Yet neither one thought to ask. Not prior to their 1997 police interview, NOR the following year, apparently. That window is important. If it had been repaired, then, from the Ramsey point of view, it had to have been broken by the intruder. Which would make it important evidence. But, as John well knew, the police had already determined that no one went through that window. So better not to know whether it had been repaired. And as John well knew, it hadn't been repaired, because it had never been broken prior to the night of the crime.

      John very well knew what he was doing. As for all the rest . . . sheeesh!!!! Pretty hopeless I'd say.

      Delete
  21. One powerful way to use inference comes to us when inference A requires another inference, B. If we can assess the likelihood of B, we know something about A's chances of being correct.

    Concretely, if one infers (for various reasons) that JARDI, that requires the additional inference that the seven people in Marietta who provide him an alibi are lying.

    If we regard a wide ranging conspiracy as unlikely, we can say JARDI is unlikely.

    We can't always assess the likeliness of the second and necessary co-inference, but when we can we might save a lot of time speculating on unpromising theories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, a wide ranging conspiracy to "protect" JAR (John's first son by an earlier marriage) is unlikely, which as you say means JAR's involvement is also unlikely. And this same logic can be applied to all the theories involving conspiracies, such as the existence of some satanic organization, or a group of pedophiles secretly taking photos of JonBenet, etc. The more people involved, the more complicated the situation, the more likely that over time someone is going to reveal something that cracks the case. This, of course, has never happened.

      Delete
  22. Refuting JARDI theory, in and of itself, is not really that important. Anyone reading Shiller and/or Thomas should have dismissed it more than a decade ago.

    The power comes simply from the fact that sometimes one inference depends on the existence of a second inference. That second inference may be unlikely
    because it's a conspiracy theory, or it may be unlikely for other reasons. When we find these pairings of inferences we sometimes (but not always) have the power to dismiss an inference (or even an entire theory) as unlikely.

    We see this in BDI theory as well, where covering for Burke is inferred, but necessarily it requires the second inference, that the Ramseys would risk indictment and prosecution for murder to protect the family "honor". (Or one of several other unlikely inferences) The second inference is so unlikely (to anyone thinking rationally) that it doesn't support the first inference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, exactly. Lots of people see no problem in parents wanting to cover for one of their children, and in itself that does seem to make sense. But when we apply such an inference to the actual facts of the case, then that first inference clearly fails to hold water. Parents have been known to provide alibis for a child and to staunchly defend that child even in the face of the most obvious evidence. But it's simply unbelievable that parents would cover for a child by staging an elaborate kidnapping, complete with a phoney baloney, hand written "ransom" note, and garotte strangulation, not to mention that in this instance the child would have just murdered one of their other children. I can see them trying to cover it up by reporting it as an accident, but I can't see them going to such extreme lengths and taking such a huge risk to protect the killer of their most beloved and doted upon daughter, no.

      Delete
  23. The people blogging about conspiracy theories are fantasists, not interested in the principles of logical reasoning. As you point out, the police don't explore fantasy theories, as a rule. However, it just amazes and baffles me that Steve Thomas could make the leap that Patsy was motivated to kill Jonbenet or even harm her accidentally for the reasons he made up, and then write that RN! Pure fantasy on his part, and he is a police investigator! Further, he chooses to ignore the sexual abuse, simply because of a bogus handwriting analysis, that he of all people should know is bogus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In defense of Thomas, virtually everyone investigating the case and just about everyone who ever commented on it bought into the decision to rule John out. And once John is ruled out then only the most fantastic and unlikely scenarios remain.

      Delete
    2. Doc, the evidence is clearly pointing in the direction of JR as the killer. But if it wasn't him, who is your best guess and how did it go down?

      Delete
    3. You know, it's questions like that which make me realize how certain I am that John and only John could have done it. When I try to think about some alternative possibility, I draw a total blank, sorry. No intruder scenario makes any sense at all, or else I'd say if John didn't do it, then it must have been an intruder. But an intruder just doesn't work, those scenarios always go nowhere.

      Delete
  24. I absolutely agree that words reveal!

    One line in the RN provides an excellent example of this. "If we monitor yoy getting the money early...."

    Hypothesis #1: This RN line is uneccessary for the "success " of the theoretical kidnapper's plan.

    Hypothesis #2: This RN line is absolutely necessary for the success of JR's plan (at least in his mind)

    Hypothesis #3: The RN was written for one primary purpose: to control PR and buy time for JR to dispose of JBR body.

    Ratonal #1:
    Kidnappers had already established a bar of expectations when the hoped to receive the Ranson money. They know that banks aren't open. They know that they asked JR to be well rested, which takes time. They asked JR to use an appropriate sized attache, which if JR doesn't have, may tske time to acquire. They know that the delivery of the ransom money may be exhausting which implies a physical demand as well as a tacit time element. They expect to place the first call on the morNing of December 27th and give delivery instructions from there. So they basically expect to receive "their" ransom money after December 27th. Perhaps one or two days after that.
    Once reasonable expectations are set, why, as an afterthought, insert specific instructions for getting the money early ? Are they that desperate for $$$that they had to include this ?

    Rationale #2: JR had a body in his house and had to get rid of it. The clock is ticking. December 27th is too far away. He had to buy a reasonable time window to take care of JBR body on December 26th, but how ?

    Get PR to give him that time window. How?

    By attempting or "trying" to get the ransom money earlier. What parent wouldn't want to get their child back ealier.....or at least try to. JR could pretend to try and get it from a friend, from a work safe, from a hard money lender....something.

    It doesn't matter if he is successful or not. He just needs to tell PR that he is trying, even if it takes him all day and all night on December 26th.

    This gives JR perfect cover to removed JBR body and bury it.

    RATIONALE #3: JR wrote the ransom note to only control PR to buy time to finish his crime.

    But the problem is how did he fail ?

    JR is a master salesman. JR is a master closer. He knows PR better than anyone including her moods and emotional makeup. Although no one can predict how a parent will respond to a kidnapping. It's reasonable to expect that the RN was created to control for those elements.

    JR couldnt close the sale on PR with the easiest sales pitch of all time: if you call the police your daughter dies.

    JR also lost control of the sales cycle. This is the most crucial sales pitch of his life, and he is in his home, just PR and BR and he lost control of his pitch. He lacked the ability to get PR to pause orreconsider, before she called 9.1.1.

    As a man of persuasion and control, how did he fail to a bottle of water in the desert?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Considering the laws of economics, the contents of the RN included only what was absolutely necessary in the mind of the author. Each line serves a specific purpose or thought or agenda.

    Each line serves a Master.

    Which master do these RN lines serve ?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is it possible JR already had the $118,000 cash ?

    Is it possible that not even PR knew about his bonus or if he cashed his bonus check or had it DD into another account?

    ReplyDelete

  27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFMrNtTPaSY
    0:11 "Hell William!" - Patsy shouts. Perhaps Bill McReynolds- Santa Claus, or William Ramsey- still need to ascertain who he is?

    ReplyDelete