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.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Three Little Words

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


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

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

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

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

"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."
You know, I'm getting a bit tired of pulling my punches when it comes to all the many things about the ransom note that over and over again point to John Ramsey. I've constructed displays that reveal very strong similarities between John's penmanship and that of the note, and I've put together a blog post pointing to certain words, phrases or grammatical constructions he likes to use that resemble words, phrases or grammatical constructions in the note. Yet I keep stressing that this sort of resemblance doesn't necessarily mean anything in itself, that I too could be cherry picking just like all the "experts" who've mistakenly decided that Patsy must have written it.

But really now: "withhold her body for proper burial" -- "be denied her remains for proper burial."  ?????

What the HELL am I supposed to think at this point? Add to this the fact that John really loves that word, "proper," as in "Our focus was laying JonBenĂ©t to rest properly," or "And the more proper hunters, on the horseback, are the mainstream media," or "a grand jury was in progress and it simply wasn't proper for us to speak out." Just like he loves percentage figures, as in "You stand a 99 percent chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100 percent chance of getting her back," which over and over crop up in his interviews -- as in, for example, "First of all, 100 percent of the time, the police focus on the parents. . .," or "when we're out…you know: traveling or grocery store, or whatever…100% of the time…not one exception…100% of the time [people] have been kind …sympathetic…apologetic."

It seems to me that at some point one just needs to say, "enough is enough"  -- not in the usual sense of "stop it already you've said enough," but as in "how much potentially damning evidence is going to be enough before we finally make up our minds as to who is the most likely by far to have written that note?" Up to a point one can put it down to cherry picking, but beyond that point, I'm sorry, as such instances accumulate it begins to look pretty obvious.

64 comments:

  1. On a related note, the body would be available (and was) if it were found in the house. The only time not getting the body for proper burial is a concern is if the body is dumped somewhere.

    We can infer that the plan was to dump the body because if the plan had been to have the body discovered in the house, "proper burial" is not an issue. No reason to have put that in the RN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point. Of course as far as I'm concerned, the intention behind the note is pretty obvious. It was certainly intended to give the impression that JonBenet had actually been kidnapped and was being held outside the house. But for those who want to insist that finding the body in the house was part of the plan, then one might certainly want to ask why that sentence was included.

      Delete
  2. they wanted to hold the body because they knew the ramseys were refusing to be interviewed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. John acts really self righteous over this issue, but it was in fact his own outrageous refusal to cooperate with the police that led them to that tactic, out of desperation. It really upsets me that the tables were turned so quickly and that the leading suspect in the case became the one calling the shots, even taking over the investigation with his own team (all of whom would have been under his tight control thanks to lawyer-client privilege.

      Delete
  3. The ransom note could have ended with the sentence "Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter."

    It seems to me that at this point the writer progressed in formulating a decision that the body should disappear forever.

    One consideration was that there should be a proper burial, but another consideration was that the body might reveal incriminating evidence. The writer was struggling mentally between those two considerations at this point in the letter.

    In the next sentence, about "the two gentlemen" , the writer tries to visualize the decision-makers as if the kidnappying actually had happened. Might they decide to provide the body for a proper burial?

    The writer postulates a best-case scenario -- that the decision makers are two "gentlemen" who merely "do not particularly like" John Ramsey. In this scenario, surely the body would be provided for proper burial.

    Nevertheless, the writer prefers that the body disappear forever. After all, the risk of incriminating evidence on the body is the more compelling consideration.

    The next sentence, theatening to behead JonBenet, seems to confirm the writer's final decision that the body should disappear forever. If the body supposedly has been beheaded, then there really cannot be a "proper burial" anyway.

    And, of course, the writer knows the body has not been beheaded and never will be beheaded, and so an eventual discovery of the intact body would contradict the ransom note. Therefore, the body must disappear forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is interesting, Mike. But my primary interest in the phrase "for proper burial" lies in the fact that John inadvertently used exactly the same phrase -- and also used the word "proper" in a similar manner in other interviews that have been recorded. The difficulty with the sort of analysis you're attempting is that we have no way of knowing whose "voice" the writer was writing in at any given point in the text of the note. He could have been expressing some concerns of his own, true. But he also could just have been putting words into the mouth of his "kidnapper," to make the note sound more believable. Frankly, I seriously doubt whether John cared in the slightest whether JonBenet's body was going to get a "proper burial" or any burial at all. If he's the one who killed her, and I feel sure he is, then he was probably hoping he'd never see that body again once he'd gotten rid of it.

      Delete
  4. I think John had very different reasons for saying each of these 2 phrases, but both worked to protect him:

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

    I think John WANTED Jon Benet buried quickly, so that any future analysis of her body could be prevented. Later they refused to have her body exhumed. If examining the body again might give new clues to lead to the killer, why on earth wouldn't they agree to do that, along with all the other things the "Ramsey Team" was doing to find the killer? Why on earth, indeed???


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

    I think John intended to dump the body, as the first commenter says above, and this statement from the "kidnapper" sets the stage for her body never being discovered, which I think he had planned for the same reasons he wanted her body buried quickly. The body of a murder victim (and in this case, molested and tortured as well) is the biggest piece of evidence there is.

    "Proper burial" to John meant getting rid of the body forever.

    Great find Doc. Although I have to admit, now that I am convinced that John is guilty, it's a bit disturbing to watch the man talk. It's a bit creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. it seems to me that John wrote a ransom note, intending to leave the impression that Patsy wrote the letter in a way that mimicked her handwriting (as if she had tried unsuccessfully to distort), and using her pen and mentioning the amount of $ 118,000 that she also knew. Long length script (also her way of expression). Garrotte linked to her art supplies ... Duct tape that she bought ... He succeeded in his intention, everyone suspected her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that John wrote the note to make it look like Patsy. First of all, as I see it, there are no such resemblances, contrary to popular opinion. Also, it was not in John's interest to have Patsy under suspicion because that made him look suspicious as well.

      On the other hand, I think John did deliberately use her pad and pen and paintbrush, not because he wanted to set her up, but simply because these were items not associated with him. He also used Burke's knife for the same reason. Nothing in the crime scene is linked directly to John, which is what I call "negative evidence."

      Delete
    2. We should not assume that Patsy knew about the $118,000 bonus. Maybe she knew, but maybe she did not know. The only person in the home who certainly knew about the bonus was John.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Mike, I agree. I think John was constructing a "kidnapper" who'd had business dealings with him, learned about his bonus by getting his hands on the books of Access Graphics, and was using it taunt him.

      Delete
    4. It's also an amount of money that he could relatively painlessly "throw away" or hide. It was, literally, a bonus. He didn't ask for $1 million.

      Delete
    5. Exactly. He'd have had to destroy that cash so he made sure it wasn't all that much (by millionaire's standards).

      Delete
  6. I tend to agree. John would certainly want the body buried as soon as possible, and would certainly NOT want it exhumed to test for further evidence. And I think you may be right that if he'd managed to dump the body somewhere he wouldn't have wanted it found, so it's possible he'd have buried it. On the other hand, it looks like his tying her hands and placing tape over her mouth was staging intended for the police to see when they found the body out in the woods. Hard to say what that aspect of his plan might have entailed.

    And I agree, watching John do his thing in those interviews and knowing what we know about this case IS pretty creepy for sure. He's certainly very good at acting the part of the innocent victim.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the ransom note the writer says, "The delivery will be exhausting . . . " And getting rid of a body would be too. By writing this, I think John lays the ground for taking a long time delivering the money (when he would actually be burying the body).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That actually makes some sense. Why would he have inserted that bit unless he were buying himself some time? Good call!

      Delete
    2. If John was awake and busy that entire night, he certainly did need to get some rest, as the kidnappers advised.

      Delete
    3. That's also a good point. I think John must have planned on dumping the body the following night, which would have given him an entire day to sleep it off.

      Delete
  8. I think once his plan to remove the body from the house was foiled, and he realized that the body would eventually be found in the house, that's when he disappeared for awhile that morning and probably then staged the body with the rope and tape. I think he even moved her body when he did this because Fleet White said he did NOT see anything in that cellar when he first looked in there. I think John removed her body from where ever he had hidden it (suitcase??) and moved it into the cellar where he then placed the duct tape on her and the rope around her wrists and wrapped her blanket around her. He probably thought that if she were going to be found, she should at least look like she had been bound and gagged by the "kidnappers." Just another scenario to think about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're on a roll, Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous. That's occurred to me too, and it does make sense, yes. The body could originally have been in the trunk of the car, why not? It makes sense that the rope around the wrists and the tape would be staged after the police arrive, as there would have been no need for such staging if he was planning on burying her in the woods. Good thinking.

      Delete
    2. I think I see now why you're on the JDIT track. It makes a ton more sense. I was having a hard time because I thought you were championing the staged foiled kidnapping and that made no sense. I see now you were *not* on that page.

      So it makes more sense that if he killed her or at least set the stage, his intention was to get her out of the home, hence his anxious urgency to get to that meeting, get that jet ready, they were leaving no ifs, ands, or buts. In this case I can see the "logic" in trying to hide her in the suitcase so they could walk out with luggage and nobody's the wiser. He had her hid and ready, wrote the RN, went upstairs and showered, cleaned up...leaving the note on the stairs he knew Patsy would find it. All went according to plan til the cops showed up and all the people and he realized there's no way he can get the suitcase/body out up under their noses....so he moved her to the wine cellar and *locked the door* - that is a crucial problem. The block of wood on the screw, from a kidnapper's point of view, is irrelevant if they put the body in there and bolted...they wouldn't be worried about locking the door. I think the room was so remote that the lock position kind of dissuades any reason to look in there...it's locked, she couldn't reach it, she's not hiding, she's gone. The fact she's IN there means somebody's motive was putting her in there and hiding her, locking the door.

      He hid her and realized he couldn't get her out, so "found" her before he lost total control.

      Delete
    3. I'm glad you agree with me about who dunnit, but you're confused regarding the scenario I've proposed. Yes, John would have wanted to get her body out of the house, but calling 911 could not have been part of that plan. And by the time he called his pilot he had already retrieved the body and taken it upstairs for all to see.

      As I see it, his plan involved NOT calling the police and getting rid of the body the following night, while claiming to be delivering the ransom. Only then would he have wanted the police called.

      Delete
  9. I steered this blog towards a writer who said he was in Colorado and covered the case for 3 years and he argued me down that I did not know anything about the case. He, of course, believes Patsy did it. I just wish somebody in the police department or media would open their eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of people are convinced Patsy did it, and nothing will dissuade them. It all began with John being "ruled out" and just cascaded from there. It's truly amazing and also disturbing that so many otherwise intelligent and logical people are willing to accept the most bizarre scenarios to fit that square peg into the round hole.

      Delete
    2. Please invite your writer friend to read here and comment whenever he finds something he considers an error or a misinterpretation. I welcome opposing views and would love to set him straight.

      Delete
  10. Thanks for affirming my theories as to staging and burying the body. People in my family have long since tired of me talking about this case but your blog has given me the perfect forum to do that. Of course, without the ground work you've laid, I don't think I could have put some of these pieces together.

    It's too bad Patsy made that 911 call and John wasn't able to carry out his plan. I feel certain that if he did and he got the body out of the house and disposed of it somewhere, there would be a very good chance that new clues would be discovered. The crime scene would have become much larger -- beyond the Ramsey house -- which would have very likely unveiled new evidence, new clues and theories for the police that could have led them to suspect John. Think of all the things John could have botched up in that process (manner and place of disposing the body, evidence in his car, evidence on his clothes, possible eye witnesses to his whereabouts that day, etc.) It's ironic that the very thing John did not want to happen (the 911 call so early) actually ended up helping him. Because the body was found in the house and the police could not find evidence of an intruder, that meant someone in the house was responsible. And since John was ruled out (the BIGGEST gift he was ever given), everyone became convinced Patsy or Burke was responsible. Perfect for John.

    Ms. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we certainly do think alike, Ms. Anonymous. John's plan could have worked for him, but he could easily have slipped up. If someone spotted him near the crime scene he could later have claimed he was delivering the ransom. Which makes it an especially good plan for sure. But if he'd been spotted removing a body from the trunk, or digging a hole in the ground, it would have been all over. And if someone at the bank suspected him and alerted the police, they might have kept an eye on him and figured out what was what.

      As you say, the way things actually went down, with his plan falling apart and him being forced to improvise, worked better for him, ironically enough, because the complexity of the situation made it impossible for the investigators to formulate a coherent scenario. And then, once he'd managed to get himself "ruled out," he was practically home free. Of course his career wound up in the garbage can, but at least he's escaped the chair. For now.

      Delete
  11. Exactly...For now, as you say. The big judge in the sky, for those of us who believe in the same God that John Ramsey claims to believe in, is going to give him the chair, that's for sure. I feel sure he doesn't buy into any of the religious beliefs he says he does If the justice system doesn't get him, there is still justice for Jonbenet in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for me, I'll be satisfied to see him given his day in court. If he can offer a meaningful defense, I'll be all ears, and willing to change my mind. But his story will have to be pretty convincing, and he'll have to be able to answer the tough questions he's managed to sidestep all these years.

      Delete
  12. Doc, looking at the photos of the basement window, unless the "intruder" was 3 feet tall, there doesnt look to be a need for a suitcase to stand on to exit. SO, as an anonymous poster wrote earlier, JR probably was going to take JBR out the window via the suitcase as it would easily fit thru the window and he could store the suitcase with the body hidden away underneath the grate. But then PR called 911, so he had to get the body out of the suitcase and stage a crime scene. Did they ever test the inside of the suitcase for JBR's DNA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry but I just can't picture a 6 year old's body stuffed into that very rigid Samsonite suitcase. My best guess is that John may have stood on the suitcase when he broke the glass in an upper pane of the window. Which could explain the shard of glass Smit found on it.

      Delete
    2. I don't think White found the shard on the suitcase. He found some larger shards on the floor that he placed on the window sill. But I shouldn't have said Smit found the shard on the suitcase, because of course he wasn't at the scene that morning. Smit noticed the shard in a photo, and assumed it must have gotten there when the intruder placed his foot on it to boost himself out. Of course that's complete nonsense as there was no sign anyone had displaced or smeared any of the thick layer of grime on the sill. So how did it get there? My best guess is that John could have used the suitcase to boost himself up when breaking the window, and the shard could have fallen on it at that time. I think he failed to report it at first because it was part of his (uncompleted) staging. But later, having had access to police reports, he realized he needed to account for it because White had reported it. Just a hunch.

      Delete
  13. I wonder if the RN is peppered with a high percentage of JR-isms.

    Didn't some of his (now ex-) friends believe he was involved? Perhaps they recognized fragments of JR's go-to phrasings in the RN.

    Nice find!

    DT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are several words that I would classify as business words or expressions:

      * "delivery" -- three (almost four) times.

      * "represent"

      * "in our possession"

      * "advise" -- two times

      * "gentlemen"

      * "bank authorities"

      These are common words, but their uses here strike me as reflexive use of a businessman's vocabulary.

      For example, the kidnappers "represent" a foreign faction, as if they were salesmen representing some wholesale-supply company.

      The kidnappers's legalistic statement that they have JonBenet "in our possession" brings to my mind the idea that "possession is nine-tenths of the law".

      The writer begins as a terrorist, threatening that "you must follow our instructions to the letter". Later, the writer turns into a lawyer or consultant, careful to "advise" precautions.

      This vocabulary indicates a businessman's mentality -- or at least an effort to mimic such a mentality.

      Delete
    2. Yes, your observations make sense. Of course, if we were considering an intruder, that would suggest he was someone with a business background. But if we're distinguishing between John and Patsy, that terminology definitely points to John.

      Delete
  14. Thanks. Some people have suggested that John could have dictated the note while Patsy wrote it out, so maybe they too noticed something fishy in the content.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must say that the ransom note's first words "Listen Carefully" indicate that one person was dictating to another person.

      If one person alone were writing the ransom note, then the more likely first words would be "Read this carefully".

      Delete
    2. Yeah, it suggests that the note was originally intended to be transmitted over the phone. But the note is far too long and the instructions far too detailed for anything like that. I think it's just an expression John picked up from some movie scene.

      Delete
    3. Oh, I see. You're suggesting it's consistent with John dictating to Patsy. That seems like quite a stretch to me. I doubt she'd have been dumb enough to actually write that down if he said it. As I said, it sounds more like John was trying to make it sound like something he'd seen in a movie. (As I write this I realize I used the word "sound" even though I'm referring to written text. I think that's a common usage, confusing listening with reading.)

      Delete
    4. Listen carefully. It is shortened for - you listen to me carefully. You referring to PR.

      Delete
    5. Listen carefully. It is shortened for - you listen to me carefully. You referring to PR.

      Delete
  15. In the 98 interview JR uses the "stray dog" term when referring to the kind of strangers Patsy was known to engadge with randomly when she was out and about. Also the "fat cat" title was known to be used back in Atlanta between JR and his filthy rich friends. They where known to use it as a nickname for that paticular set of friends. I believe the acronym stands for Saved By Jesus Christ. Even JR points out to investigators that the T might really be a J. I feel JR ended the note this way as a form of Christian voo doo that he practiced on Patsy to cure her cancer only a few years prior. We know they were into new age faith healing. It's the belief that just the name itself "Jesus Christ" has magical power and victory (over cancer and now over his coverup) is soon to follow. Just say Christs name and anything you want will be yours. Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, in the interview John says that Patsy liked to bring home stray dogs, which has very different overtones than the use of "stray dog" in the note. Sounds innocent enough to me, but it's an interesting point.

      As for "fat cat" that could be part of John's attempt to make it look like some person familiar with him and his business associates, yes. As for S.B.T.C, I really don't see any reason to associate that with some Christian message. It's possible of course, but who knows? It could mean lots of things -- or nothing at all.

      Delete
    2. I have seen it interpreted as Saved By The Cross, for whatever that's worth.

      Delete
  16. I think Alexandra has a very good point about the usage of the term "stray dog." You said you think the overtones were different when John used it describing Patsy bringing home strangers. That may be true, but you still have to wonder why that term was used in the RN in the first place.

    "Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies."

    Why on earth would the writer use the term "stray dog" in that paragraph? The other warnings make sense and you would expect them from kidnappers --- speaking to the F.B.I., alerting bank authorities, not marking the money --- but "talking to a stray dog" is a phrase that seems totally out of place. The only thing that explains it is that it's a term John used. How many people would use that term when advising someone not to divulge information? The term fits when John used it describing Patsy bringing home random strangers and I've heard it used that way before, but what are the odds that a kidnapper (especially one from a "Foreign Faction") would use that term when warning John not to talk to anyone. I think it's yet another "Johnism."

    Another thing that stood out to me was the phrase "in your situation." I think it is more likely the "kidnappers" would say something like, "Speaking to anyone about your daughter" or "Speaking to anyone about this note" or "Speaking to anyone about the money", but to say "Speaking to anyone about your situation" makes me think that John was, indeed, feeling he was in a "situation" (a desperate one at that).

    You might think I'm over analyzing here and forcing pieces of the puzzle together, but I'm really going with my instincts and focusing on the things that catch my attention --- things that I think are odd. Instincts are a powerful thing.

    Ms. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm skeptical regarding "stray dog" mainly because "talking to a stray dog" is a movie quote and is consistent with other movie quotes used in the note, all taken, I believe, from movies about kidnappings. So I'm willing to give John the benefit of the doubt on that one. Also, I really don't think of "stray dog" as a Johnism because I see no reason to assume it's a phrase he'd have used habitually. Whereas his use of the word "proper" or "properly" does seem to be the sort of thing he could come up with spontaneously, as with his use of percentage figures. It's not so much the words he uses that give him away as the way he uses them -- imo.

      Delete
  17. Ah ... I see your point. And I totally agree that his use of the word "proper" and use of percentages are much more apparent.

    Were these similarities of his speech and the RN ever looked at by investigators? I find it hard to believe they were since he was ultimately ruled out. In your opinion, why, exactly, was he ruled out??

    Ms. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was ruled out solely based on the opinions of handwriting specialists. I don't think they paid much attention to content. And once he was "ruled out" then no one seems to have paid much attention to him at all, the focus was almost exclusively on Patsy.

      As to why he was ruled out in the first place, that's a really interesting question. On the basis of the legal document we've all seen, it's hard to see how they could have ignored all the many similarities between certain letter and word formations and those in the ransom note. My guess is that there may have been very few historic exemplars of John's available to the investigators, since most of his communications would probably have been conducted either through secretaries or by computer. And he could easily have destroyed any documents that might tend to incriminate him. The legal document was most likely never seen by the "experts" at all. So mostly what they would have used would have been exemplars provided by John after the fact, giving him a great opportunity to make sure his handwriting was as different as possible from that on the note. Also, John has claimed to be right handed, but the legal document is back slanted, suggesting it was written with his left hand, so there is definitely room for deception on that score.

      Finally, as I demonstrated in an earlier post (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html), we have good reason to believe the handwriting on the note was modeled on a computer font, an excellent tactic for disguising one's hand.

      Delete
  18. Thank you for your exhaustive work on this case. John sought out legal protection for himself first and foremost, and I've never been able to consider his wife or son as the ones who bashed something so powerfully onto Jonbenet's head. Your discussion about the window is brilliant, and the computer modeling for a note one I'd never considered. If this case is, as you infer, and we can't know for sure, then he seems like one of these really clever guys who can con anyone with such guilelessness and religious demeanor . . .truly scary.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, John is certainly a gifted con artist, for sure. An excellent example of how convincing he can be is in the segment of the interview I've highlighted above. He indignantly makes it sound as though the Boulder police are the villains and he the innocent victim, who only wants his daughter returned "for proper burial." Whereas anyone familiar with the case knows that the police withheld the body only because he was refusing to cooperate with the investigation of his daughter's murder. He was apparently more concerned with her "proper burial" than with assisting the police in figuring out who killed her. And when we consider that the person who allegedly murdered JonBenet would still have been out there and would still have posed a threat to him and his family (assuming he existed at all), then John's refusal to cooperate with the authorities is especially difficult to understand -- unless he had something to hide.

    He was able to con the makers of this documentary so completely that they clearly swallowed hook line and sinker his masquerade as innocent victim of a malevolent law enforcement conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc, reading thru the 1998 interview this was something else that stuck out to me:

      TT: How did you sleep Christmas night?
      JR: I took a Melatonin tablet because I wanted to get to sleep fast because we had to get up early, and I slept through the night.


      JR cant remember ANYTHING that actually matters. Every detail is so important because the cops are trying to find who the "killer" was, and JR doesnt remember anything and always says "I think" to every question. Yet, he remembers that he took a sleeping pill so he could go to sleep "fast." It just seems like he tries to create an allibi for every single thing and by always saying "I think" or "Im not sure" it allows him to recant anything. Maybe Im reading to much into this, but to say he got to sleep fast and slept thru the night so quickly with no hesitation seems like a guy that wants to completely eliminate himself from any more questioning on the subject.

      -J

      Delete
  20. I agree his answer sounds too pat and planned. He partied that evening and very likely had beverages to drink. Many if not most men his age need to get up at least once during the night to urinate. "I slept through the night" just doesn't ring true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. And he should have been questioned on that, because after a certain age most men do need to urinate at least once and often more than once in the middle of the night. It's just not credible that he would have slept soundly all night long. Also melatonin pills are not knock-out drops, it's a mild sedative that might help you get to sleep but is not going to conk you out all night long.

      Delete
    2. As a man in may later 50s I can attest that it's a rare night when I don't get up at least once to urinate.

      Delete
  21. Not being familiar with Melatonin, I checked on-line and it said that Melatonin needs to be taken 90 minutes before sleep for it to be effective. That's won't help someone fall asleep "fast" in my book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The placebo effect might make it work faster. It does for me.

      (Though I don't believe the horse**** about melatonin from JR.)

      Delete
  22. Doc pointed out in another post how the RN directly points to JR as the one to have to do everything. This sentence really struck me as an "ah ha" moment:

    "I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an early delivery of the money"

    Docs theory about JR thinking he would have all day to do what he needed to do to cover up this crime makes all the sense in the world after reading the above sentence. Obviously we know PR called 911 foiling this plan, but JR thought PR would wake up, see this and JR could immediately get the body and himself away from the house. He could be gone all day as well since the note says "I advise you to be rested."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the note put John in control and gave him all sorts of options. You gotta hand it to the guy, he really thought this through.

      Delete
  23. If John's persona was business-like and succinct, then why would he have written such a long and rambling note that went on for three pages? I mean, why not just write "I've taken your daughter. If you contact the police or anyone else, she dies. My demand is x amount. I will call at x time. Warning: Do not call the police or she dies"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John didn't write that note to express his personality. He wrote it as part of a plan, and it needed to contain certain elements essential to that plan. For the details, see: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-note.html

      Delete
  24. "Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial." ........So basically, if the Ramsey's don't follow the instructions precisely the kidnappers will execute their daughter but they will stick around and still be in contact with the Ramsey where they will "deny" her remains?? When somebody is kidnapped and not found, I don't think its referred to as remains being denied, I think they are just never found. To me, whoever wrote the note was in possession of her body at the time the note was written, where they would be able to give her remains or not. I believe John wrote the note.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Most people would not use that turn of phrase.

    They would say something like "the BPD won't let us bury JBR. How cruel"

    If JR is trying to bottom fish for Public sympathy, he would use laymen terms rather than "deny proper burial"

    JR'S appeal is to the court of public opinion. ..why jot speak to the target audience?

    ReplyDelete