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.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Traffic Jam

This blog has been popular for some time, but at the moment it's been getting an unusual number of hits -- and also a surge of comments. Please keep those comments coming, folks, because I always hoped this blog would become a forum for discussion of this troubling but also fascinating case, and that does seem to be happening, which is great.

On the other hand, with more and more comments piling up I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. I've always tried to respond to every comment, at least where a response seemed called for, but at this point I'm afraid I can't keep up anymore. That's a GOOD thing as I see it -- so long as everyone understands and is willing to cut me some slack. I'll still try to respond as much as I can, especially to questions or theories that haven't yet been adequately addressed. But so long as the surge continues I won't have time to keep up to the extent I've done in the past. Thanks so much for your participation and I do hope it continues. But please forgive me if your comments aren't always addressed by me. I'll continue to read every one, but won't always be able to respond.


  1. In my case it is called "True Crime Fan on Winter Break!" It will all end soon, in the meantime, really interesting forum here, very intelligent compared to the others. Thanks!

  2. Enjoy your blog. Still trying to catch up starting with July 2012. Maybe I'll have something pertinent to add when I catch up.

  3. Do you think JR was going to use the suitcase to move JB's body?

    1. Some people have suggested that, but I find it difficult to believe one could stuff the body of a six year old into that rigid, hard plastic Samsonite case. I think John would have planned on getting Patsy and Burke out of the house first, to stay with friends, and then moving the body to the trunk of the car. The garage was connected to the house so no one outside the house would be able to see anything.

    2. I see that point but I was thinking maybe he was going to try that one first so he staged it there just to test. I think he would not want to put her body directly in the trunk because a trunk lid can always be opened or evidence transferred from the body into the trunk. I live child you'd worry about hurting them but a dead child you wouldn't care. Also, he could whack off her arms and legs and stuff her in there.

    3. Whacking off her arms and legs would produce a whole lot of blood, so I don't think he'd have wanted to do that. Also, I don't see John as an ax murderer.

      Her body was wrapped in a blanket, which suggests to me it was prepackaged and ready to be placed in his trunk. The blanket would have insulated the trunk from any fibers, blood, DNA, etc. from the body so no evidence would have been transferred from the body into the trunk. After dumping the body, he'd have burned the blanket, so there would have been NO evidence linking him to the crime. If all had gone according to plan he'd have been home free. No need to stuff the body into a suitcase.

  4. I know you've probably answered some of these questions before but how did JR do all these things to JBR and not leave any evidence from his body on the victim other than the shirt fiber on her crotch? And, why wouldn't some of her blood be on his clothing? And, how did he clean all the blood spatter? Thanks for your patience.

    1. I don't think that question has ever been asked, and it's a good one. What you need to remember is that John was her father and would have been in close contact with her the entire day, so any traces he might have left on her would not be regarded as evidence and essentially ignored. For a long time it was claimed his DNA wasn't found on the body, but according to Kolar's book it actually was. As was Patsy's. And why wouldn't it have been? I imagine fibers from their clothing were also found on her clothing, again why not?

      John's fibers found in her panties are another story, because it's much harder to come up with an innocent explanation for that, especially since the panties were brand new and were never in the laundry.

    2. As far as blood and blood spatter are concerned: first of all the head wound didn't lacerate the scalp so there was no external bleeding from the head, thus no spatter; secondly the vaginal bleeding was not all that extensive. She was wiped down pretty thoroughly, though that was probably to eliminate any traces of sperm. JonBenet was penetrated with her attacker's finger and that blood could easily have been washed off.

    3. Also, did you ever see pictures of the Mag Lite? With as much force as he hit her with you'd think there'd be signs of some damage to the Mag Lite. I know they're pretty durable but I've use the blunt end to tap some things and they're definitely not made for that. However, I do know police have been known to use them to hit a perp.

    4. Excellent question! No, I don't think the maglite was damaged, I've never seen a report to that effect -- though some of the evidence has been withheld to this day. All I know is that it was wiped clear of prints, both inside and out.

    5. Do we really know that the "inside" (batteries presumably) was wiped clean? I think we know that no prints were lifted but that is slightly different than "wiped clean". Is there some source for "wiped" ?

      What I'm getting at is this. When one puts batteries in a flashlight a common way of doing it is to hold the batteries between the thumb and forefinger (or maybe thumb and second finger) and let them slip into the flashlight. This slipping action would destroy the print as far as being able to lift a useable print from the batteries.

      I'm just asking whether we really know the inside was wiped down, or whether we just know that the inside yielded no prints.

    6. I ask because I keep running across "wiped clean", though I note that you said "clear of prints".

    7. That's an excellent question. There are many reasons prints might not show up on an item that was handled, and in this case I think it was simply that no prints were found. That implied the batteries MIGHT have been wiped down. But I don't think that's what was reported. This is one of literally hundreds of "inconclusives" in this case that can drive us nuts if we try to figure it out. The maglite seems most likely because it's the sort of thing that could have produced that particular wound and not drawn blood from the scalp. And since it was sitting in the kitchen for no particular reason, one can surmise that it might have been left there and forgotten by the killer. The absence of prints also makes it look suspicious, but that absence doesn't necessarily mean it was wiped down, no. That's all I'm going to say on this matter because that's the sort of thing that get's argued endlessly on the forums and to no purpose, as far as I can see.

    8. None of Johns fibers were found on Jonbenet private parts or anywhere on her body!

  5. Doc, thanks for the incredible effort you have made to keep up with this blog. I hope those who have not read everything posted will do so first before asking questions that have been asked and answered several times. Also, I find it helpful to "sleep on" some of the things I've read before asking any questions. I know you don't do this for a living and appreciate all that you've done to bring justice for a child. Now if all the readers could just think of ways to get the Boulder DA to pay attention to the facts and this analysis of the facts, your efforts will be rewarded.

    1. Thanks. To quote Patsy Ramsey, "I didn't mean for this to happen." :-)

      Several years ago I get hooked on this case, which has nothing to do with anything else I do or that has ever interested me. And now, years later, I'm some sort of authority on it, which was never part of the plan, and now embarrasses me. I do have a life and I do have other accomplishments under my belt of which I'm proud. All I can say is that there was a sleuth hiding under my lid all these years and it took this case to bring him out. Now if only I could send him back where he came from.*

      *Just kidding. I do find this rewarding and it is definitely keeping me sharp and alert.

  6. Also, one other question for now. I just read the autopsy report. What statement or sentence in the report led you to conclude there was chronic molestation? Thanks

    1. My thinking on this aspect of the case is based on Dr. Cyril Wecht's reading of the autopsy report. Wecht is a leading forensic pathologist, who's been called on as a consultant in hundreds of cases all over the world. He is also co-author of the book, "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?"

      On p. 261 of his book, he refers to the fact that there was little left of JonBenet's hymen and quotes the medical examiner's reference to "chronic inflammation" of the vaginal wall. This "convinced Wecht that his conclusions about a pattern of repeated sexual abuse were inescapable." He presents additional evidence drawn from the autopsy reinforcing the same diagnosis.

    2. The only reference to chronic inflammation in the autopsy report was in reference to the trachea.

    3. You're looking in the wrong place. According to Wecht there were two documents produced by the coroner, an earlier, apparently preliminary report and a later official autopsy report. The reference to "chronic inflammation" appears on p. 94 of Wecht's book, where, referring to the earlier report, he notes that "under the report on the 'vaginal mucosa, Meyer had written 'All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation.'" According to Wecht, "to a forensic pathologist that unequivocal term [chronic] meant the inflammation was at least forty eight to seventy two hours old. 'Chronic' was not open to interpretation." On that basis and also on the basis of some other details in the report, Wecht concluded that JonBenet was most likely being sexually abused by her father prior to the attack that led to her death.

    4. Gotcha. I was also looking on the wrong place on the report. I was wondering if most instance of father-daughter child molestation the perpetrator uses an object or his finger. I was wonder if DNA was ever attempted on the vaginal mucosa?

    5. Jonbenet was not sexually abused before Dr Doberson stated this in the report that no previous sexually abuse other then the sexual abuse at the time of her murder.

  7. I am somewhat confused. Isn't the medical examiner the one who performed the autopsy? Why would he be quoting from his own report?

    1. No, it was Wecht who quoted the me's report. Wecht's book is written in the third person, maybe that's what confused you.

    2. The only reference to chronic inflammation in the autopsy report by Meyer (the pathologist) is chronic inflammation of the trachea.

    3. See my response to the same question, above.

  8. Here's my theory based on more reading tonight, I invite comment from experts!

    I just re-read the privately administered polygraph questions the Ramseys passed. Here is a link to the questions:

    Their results on their first polygraph were "inconclusive." They reportedly passed the second, different set of questions with another examiner. When I read the questions there is a scenario that enables them to actually pass for real.

    The first questions ask if either of them caused her death.....If the initial blow to the head was not committed by either of them -instead by BR- and that is the injury they consider fatal (though it was apparently not), they say no and pass.

    The next question asking if they know "for sure" who caused her death invites doubt.....JBR may have had a heart attack right before she was hit, for example. Any absurd reason could negate the " for sure." Only God knows for sure, etc. They say no and pass.

    And finally, are they concealing the identity of the person who killed her? One way around that? They were not concealing it from each other. This would mean that Patty became aware of BR's role.

    The third set of questions were all about the authorship of the RN, and, i am sure by design, were only administered to PR. She said no and passed, JR never had to answer.

    I know that the polygraph was not accepted by the police as valid because the FBI did not administer. But I do not think it was nothing. It revealed that JR was the author of the note (there is no other reason for him to decline to answer that section and not the others), and it revealed that PR and JR did not believe they caused the death of their daughter. If valid, it means BDI. Which fits with the very immature sexual assault (fingering), the pineapple, and the very extreme defense that PR launched until she died. If it were JR alone, I think she would have folded her cards and told the truth about the broken window, about anything else she knew, at some point during her fatal illness. But to protect her only living child? Anything. Mm

    1. Interesting reasoning. However, polygraphs are far from perfect so I wouldn't attempt to read too much into this one. We don't know what the standards were because it was administered by someone working for the Ramseys. But even when the standards are high it's possible to cheat the test.

    2. Polygraphs are very flawed tools, as you say. It is common for defendants to take them privately through their attorneys, as the Ramseys did, and not reveal the results if they fail. That said, it is harder to get a false negative than a false positive, and the person who struggled most with the test was Patsy. Her first results were inconclusive, her second negative results were not as conclusive as John's, except in regards to the note. She most definitely did not write the RN, according to the test. John, since he passed on all the other questions probably wrote the note or he would have wanted to be asked the same questions as Patsy.

      My point is that passing a polygraph when guilty is difficult. Not impossible, but the process would certainly not be something a guilty Ramsey would have entered into lightly. Two national experts were involved in administration and scoring. The results seem to indicate that JR wrote the note and neither Ramsey parent believes that they caused JBR's death.

      It seems far-fetched to think that JR murdered JBR in the most cold blooded way possible and no one in his professional or personal life regards him as a dangerous sociopath.... And wouldn't it take a sociopath to pass a polygraph on the question?

    3. The standards for Gelb's polygraph exam were extremely lax. In fact there wasn't even a test for drug use and as is well known certain drugs make it easier to pass a polygraph. Also one of the questions was something like "do you know who killed JonBenet," and if Burke killed her then at least one of them would have known about it. I don't see the polygraph as evidence pointing to Burke, sorry. And I don't see any reason to assume Patsy "failed" a test that was labeled "inconclusive" because we have no way of knowing what the circumstances were. We do know that some of her testimony was not completely truthful and her guilt over these "whilte lies" could have triggered something on the polygraph.

    4. DocG, thank-you for answering my questions. I know i am stuck on this! Here's my thought: it appears to have taken FOUR polygraphs until they got results they could share. One set they refused to answer questions about on advice of counsel (one assumes they failed), they both had inconclusive results with Toriello, Patsy had inconclusive results with Gelb's first set and they both passed the second set on medication, as you point out. I agree that the conditions were VERY questionable, obviously. What I find interesting is what questions they DID eventually pass and publicize. Their lowest score was on the first set: variations on the question "did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of Jonbenet?" They both scored a 10, 9 is passing. They both scored better on the questions that were phrased "do you know FOR SURE who killed Jonbenet?" Any confusion at all regarding her exact cause of death gives them a pass on that question. And again, on the author of the ransom note question, PR passes as a "no" with flying colors. John does not have to answer those since he is "ruled out" as the author, an absurdity as you have asserted many times.

      If JR murdered JBR, all by himself with absolutely no collusion from Patsy, the polygraphs themselves are ridiculous. All he needed to do was continually assert their absurdity on advice of counsel, which is the actual truth. Most defense lawyers in this country advise against polygraph testing for their clients and deride them as flawed. From the beginning JR was wishy washy on the subject, allowed his wife to answer questions about them, and eventually found himself in the position of having to go public with the results after poor results on multiple tests. There was no reason to engage in testing after PR failed the first set, if she was innocent. JR and their lawyers would have had no trouble convincing her of the flaws of polygraphy.

      Respectfully, the events surrounding the polygraph question, more than the test results themselves, speak to some alternative theories rather than yours, that JR killed all alone. Patsy's poor results were a perfect cover for him discontinuing all testing after the first set. The accepted truth that the polygraph results of parents whose children have been harmed can be skewed by definition (all parents feel guilty when harm comes to their children, regardless of the cause) would be even more reason for them to never test again. Instead, they kept the question of polygraphy alive for years. Why?

    5. My problem with taking a polygraph with someone on "your side" is that you don't have the normal stress associated with a polygraph because if you fail the results don't have to be released.

    6. I'm not sure what you mean by keeping "the question of polygraphy alive for years." Patsy immediately said she'd take 10 if it would help the case. John said the very idea insulted him. Nothing more was said on that topic for years until it was unexpectedly brought up in front of millions of people on a TV interview. John had no choice but to agree at that point or be humiliated in public. But nevertheless he refused to take the only type of polygraph that might actually mean something.

      When asked whether they'd been given a poly already, they both dodged the question, which tells us they must have taken one -- and failed. And when we see John not being asked about the note, then we know he must have failed on that question during the initial, private, test.

      I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this is all we need to know about John Ramsey and the polygraphs. Patsy may well have produced "inconclusive" results on one of Gelb's earlier polygraphs as well, but that wouldn't surprise me since she definitely lied about certain things.

      Gelb's test was a sham in any case. As I've said many times, we can get bogged down forever in all the various aspects of the case that are clouded in uncertainty, which is why I've based my conclusions on what we know WITH certainty. Patsy could not have known anything about any kidnapping staging or she would not have called 911 when she did. An intruder is an absurdity. That leaves John.

      If Burke had killed JonBenet then it seems to me they'd have called 911 right away, especially because there were no signs of serious head injury on her scalp, and I seriously doubt they'd have been inclined to inspect her vagina at that moment. And assuming a decision was made to stage a kidnapping to "protect" Burke, which I seriously doubt, it would have been made jointly by the two of them, not just one. This coupled with all the other reasons to seriously doubt Burke's involvement, including his being too young to be interested in sex, or even girls, and too frail to have inflicted the tremendous head blow, makes any speculation regarding the exact wording of some questions on a polygraph beside the point.

    7. I just want to add that as far as Patsy is concerned, I think she passed that final polygraph because she was telling the truth. She had no idea who'd killed JonBenet and knew nothing about the note. And I think John passed because he'd learned how to beat the test, either with or without the aid of drugs. There are ways to beat those tests, but if you take the sort of test administered by the FBI it won't be so easy because they will be on to you. A privately administered test under YOUR control is another matter entirely. Gelb obviously allowed himself to be used. The test was a sham!

    8. DocG, I have spent the last 24 hours reading everything I can on the polygraph and on this case. I agree that there is so much extraneous information as to make one's head spin. I was wrong about the " keeping the question alive" regarding polygraph, i incorrectly dated several interviews in 2000 in my mind, I stand corrected. I also believe as you do that they had earlier taken private polygraphs and failed them on one or more questions. Why on earth would they allow Barbra Walters or Katie Couric or whomever to talk them into it after the fact? I still cannot see a reason for them to keep this case public, to go on TV in 2000, etc.etc. The more I read the more confused I get. Burke was initially asleep, and then, several years later, according to JR, Burke was awake. How on earth did PR reconcile THAT change in story? It seems beyond belief that she did not at some point start to actively engage in cover up.

      I believe truth is easy to remember and lies are hard. One reason I respect the internet boards and reporters and authors who keep this alive is that it forces more conversation, more discussion, maybe more lies or truths to emerge. I really thought I was on to something, but now see that no, probably not :(. Mm

    9. Dear Doc G,

      I want to please respond to your assertion above and in the blog posts
      rebutting Kolar that Burke is an unlikely suspect.

      I understand that if Burke "only" hit his sister on the head, then it
      is not rational to imagine either of his parents strangling their daughter
      rather than calling 911. They are not going to inspect her for sexual
      abuse, or decide if the blow was fatal, they are going to call for help
      and let the chips fall regarding the consequences for their son.
      This has been called a
      crime of rage, and parents know that sometimes there can be nothing
      more volatile than the jealous rage of siblings toward each other.
      We don't know, but it is not hard for me to imagine an event of
      sibling rage. Still, a blow to the head, still breathing, call 911. Pray.

      BUT if his sister was undeniably dead, if Burke did the entire crime,
      the blow to the head and the strangulation and the sexual assault,
      then I CAN imagine his parents covering the crime.
      A wealthy couple in the UK recently covered for
      their son after he murdered his girlfriend in their home, including
      destroying his letter of confession, and he was not a child.
      They are now in prison for 27 months.
      Their son, for life.

      If Burke killed his sister in the heinous fashion with which we are all
      familiar, then his parents may have simply reacted in terror at losing him too. Surely, they would reason, children who do something that awful will go away for a long time. Even if they could lawyer up enough to spare him institutionalization, there is no doubt that their son's life and future
      -and theirs-
      will be changed forever, all because of a moment of rage.

      As a parent, this is not a huge stretch for me to imagine protecting my
      child from horrific lifelong consequences. If I imagine these parents,
      living large in the public eye, they will want to protect their child AND themselves from any hint of the truth getting out.

      Continued Below

    10. But, they had their limits.

      After his parents discovered her death and together wrote the note, there must have come a moment of reckoning in the
      early hours. Covering their boy with a fake note could perhaps be pardoned in a court of law but dumping their daughter's body in a ravine somewhere took the crime to a whole new legal level. It took their moral
      culpability to a whole new level as well. It is a cold parent who can dump
      their baby's body. They may have disagreed on this, perhaps "proper burial" meant more to Patsy. She called 911 right away, and together they tried to ride the kidnap story as far as it would take them.

      If discovered, perhaps they simply hoped that their parental
      instincts would excuse them. Presumably, if they were indicted they
      might have decided to come clean and throw themselves and their child
      on the mercy of the court.

      In this way, the crime is very simple. It explains the passion of the
      parents to keep the limelight on themselves and their intruder theory.
      It explains the strange behavior of inviting their neighbors and the
      minister to muddy the crime scene, an action which the most simple
      minded TV-watcher would figure was a problem, never mind ignoring the note threatening the immediate death of their child if they told a stray dog.
      What has always struck me as even more strange was that these hugely wealthy people would sit around the house
      with a few neighbors, a minister and a rather inexperienced
      lady detective for HOURS while their precious baby was missing. No.
      If they were not going to follow the instructions on the note,
      one or the other - the innocent one - would be raising holy hell and calling
      the Governor of the state and bringing in the calvary.
      But they sat around tensely or paced, ignoring the phone deadline,
      knowing she was dead, knowing they did not kill her. Colluding, just as they did on all the other details, like the broken window. Like Burke asleep.

      One thing I read over and over is the theory that the parents would NOT
      protect Burke if he murdered their darling daughter. I could not
      disagree more. Burke was their darling too.
      If anything, the death of Beth set them up to do this.
      They must have felt they had no choice, and it joined them together for the
      rest of their lives.

      If this guess is correct, then it explains everything. I know it is a stretch to imagine a child to be that angry, that sadistic. I work with kids, and it is not a stretch for me. It is also not a stretch to imagine that this event changed this boy forever, and he is no longer dangerous. The perceptions of children are very different from ours, and they have the ability to grow and change in ways we cannot predict. That is my hope, if, as I said, this guess is true.

    11. One more thing. I dispute that assertion that Burke was "frail." He was almost ten, and I have seen a picture of him at 9 that show he was almost as tall as his mother. He was a Scout (knots), he sailed (knots), and he played baseball. And he lived in a household where he watched his role as oldest and thus most special (really, most oldest kids feel this on some level), be taken over by his younger, spoiled, and sexy little sister. He must have loved her and hated her. The household was chaotic and mostly female. It must have been very hard to have his beautiful little sister steal his mother's time, attention, and hugs and kisses. Unbearable, really. Maybe made even more intense at Christmas.

    12. If you were on a jury where a grown man has been accused of sexually assaulting a 6 year old girl, and that man were to claim that in reality the assault was perpetrated by his 9 year old son, who had never shown the least sign of being interested in girls or having any awareness of sex, and had never been in trouble with the law or anyone else, then what would YOU think?

      Would you give him "a pass" on the basis of such an argument? I doubt it, but I'll wait for you to reply.

      As I see it, you (and also Kolar) are making the same mistake that so many intruder theorists make, when they come up with all sorts of bizarre theories of how some burglar could have surprised JonBenet while she was eating pineapple, or how she let "Santa" into the house, or some satanic cult had regularly been meeting at the Ramsey home, etc.

      You confuse what might POSSIBLY have happened with what actually did happen. Kolar's whole case against Burke is based on the POSSIBILITY that a boy of his age could have been sexually active AND could have known how to tie that knot, and the possibility that the Ramseys could have desperately wanted to cover for their only remaining child.

      But you can't accuse someone based on possibilities. There is simply no evidence pointing to Burke or even suggesting Burke, nor is there any reason to assume Burke, or any nine year old, would have been likely to sexually assault his sister.

      Also there is a huge difference between parents "protecting" their child or covering for him and parents conspiring on an elaborate kidnap staging, complete with 2 1/2 page "ransom" note.

      And if Patsy had been reluctant to dump the body, then what was the point of staging a kidnapping in the first place, since obviously there was no kidnapping?

      Just as the many intruder theories make no sense once we take all the facts into account, so no BDI theory makes sense either. The most likely one inside the house to have sexually assaulted JonBenet was her father. And if Kolar had been willing to question the authority of the handwriting "experts," then he too would no doubt have focused on John. But he wasn't and thus had no choice but to see Burke as the only possibility.

    13. Thank-you for your response. Here is my rebuttal: your scenario hinges on the definition of the adult male in the home as the sex offender by virtue of his sexual maturity. It requires that a jury believe that a mature, sexually active man (with a history of sexual affairs with grown women outside the marriage who traveled extensively, had credit cards and planes at his disposal and who could presumably attract a wide range of interested women) would "finger" his child repeatedly to obtain some sort of sexual gratification. That is an extremely immature and childlike sexual activity that is frequently engaged in by children playing "doctor." It is not fully sexual as much as it is experimental and immature. You are assuming that children have no sexual impulses or behaviors until adolescence and that is simply not true. Your entire theory hinges on "sexual activity equals sexual maturity," and it is a false equation.

      Your scenario also requires us to believe that John was so cold as to assault, torture and murder his daughter, set up a complex kidnapping scenario, and then fail to convince his wife of the rest of his plan, which involved sending her and Burke to safety while he dealt with the kidnappers. Patsy, the fully innocent party, who stood up to her murderous husband so effectively as to completely undo his entire plan, then sat quietly for hours while Boulder police bumbled about and appeared to do very little to get her daughter back. THAT is another scenario I cannot believe. Nor can I believe that she and her entire family were not suspicious of him further down the line....she was repeatedly blamed by experts for the ransom note, and she NEVER thought it was her husband because the same experts said it was not him? Sorry, it defies all logic. Patsy went on to live the rest of her life totally committed to her husband, including campaigning for him enthusiastically in his Michigan House race. There is nothing to explain that behavior except collusion, and why would two adults collude on such a terrible crime? Only if it was the immature, rageful actions of their only remaining child.

      There is no stretch here. Everything fits, everyone's behavior makes sense. But if this is true it becomes a tragic story now, not a crime story. I think that is why we want to reject it, because it is just so sad.

    14. I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this: docG:And if Patsy had been reluctant to dump the body, then what was the point of staging a kidnapping in the first place, since obviously there was no kidnapping?

      I propose that the entire kidnapping scenario was a Hail Mary to throw doubt and confusion on the cause of their daughter's death. Dumping her body may have been part of the initial "plan" but again, it took them from accessories after the fact to a whole new level of culpability. I think they simply tried, over and over again through the years, to confuse the scene, to confuse the authorities and the media, and to lawyer themselves up to the gills.

    15. Your conviction that Burke was the killer is based exclusively on profiling, with no reference at all to any evidence or facts. It also depends very heavily on assumptions, because there is no evidence at all linking Burke to this crime.

      Well, I happen to have a very low opinion of interpretations based on profiling and imo one of the major reasons this case has gone unsolved for so long is that so much in the thinking of the investigators was based on assumptions.

      So we are definitely thinking along VERY different lines.

      If you want to insist that JonBenet was brutally battered over the head and then strangled with a "garotte" like device, after her vagina was penetrated to such an extent that it drew blood -- if you want to see that as the outcome of two children "playing doctor" then I can't stop you from thinking that. But it seems clear to me that in a court of law such a theory would go nowhere.

      The Grand Jury investigated this case very thoroughly and at no point was there even a hint that Burke was a suspect or even "under the umbrella of suspicion. He was the only Ramsey to be interviewed, by the way, so there would have been ample opportunity to get the truth out of him -- he was, after all, only a child, not a lawyer. And if the GJ decided the parents were covering for him they would certainly have been indicted for conspiracy. But that word is absent from the four indictments we've recently seen.

      Throughout the entire proceeding the authorities made clear over and over again that Burke was not a suspect. And for very good reasons. Sorry if you can't agree.

    16. I am a little surprised that this is the sum of your rebuttal, as I believe my questions regarding your theory were legitimate. For example, your assertion that Patsy would never question John's innocence because the handwriting experts cleared him expects us to accept that she trusted the same experts who said she wrote the note. There is also no evidence to suggest that Patsy had the kind of power in their relationship that she could dissuade him from his entire kidnapping cover-up, a plot that would save his life, just by arguing with him that fateful morning. I'm sorry, because when I first started reading your theories I was a fan. But you ask me to suspend disbelief in too many areas.

      In this country, parents who fail to protect their children from harm when it is in their power to do so are liable for child abuse. Thus, the grand jury charges fit the Kolar scenario perfectly. Juvenile testimony and investigations are also extremely confidential, so no one would have heard anything about the minor child as suspect and still will not. The fact that authorities said very little on the record regarding their evidence or theories re: Burke is completely normal for law enforcement vs. juvenile defendants.
      This even applies to juveniles whose parents DON'T have high powered legal teams. They are treated carefully and for good reason: they are simply not guilty of crimes in the same way adults are. They are held to an entirely different standard. When siblings harm siblings, the legal onus for harm is on the supervising adults. They are guilty of child abuse through lack of protection.

      This is my area of expertise, by the way. I am not just blowing smoke.

    17. From a news report on the second part of the Grand Jury indictment: On a second count of accessory to a crime, it alleged that each parent "did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had "committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

      There is nothing in this charge that precludes a Burke scenario. Grand Juries do not indict minors unless they are being adjudicated as adults.

    18. You are poorly informed regarding this case. First of all it was not the same "experts" who ruled John out and accused Patsy of writing the note. The "experts" who ruled John out also stated it was "unlikely" that Patsy wrote it. Secondly, just about everyone who's investigated or even followed this case has taken for granted that John could not have written the note. I am among the very few who have ever challenged that. I see no reason why Patsy would be an exception, since John being ruled out was and still is an unchallenged opinion. If she, like so many others, was convinced John could not have written the note, then from her point of view, it could only have been written by an intruder. And this would certainly have given John huge leverage in manipulating her.

      Also there was a case recently of a young child who apparently killed his sister or brother and that was NOT withheld from the media, but reported like any other case. The idea that if the authorities knew Burke killed JonBenet they would have withheld that information is a myth. And the parents would have been put on trial for conspiracy to cover up his guilt.

      It's inconceivable that this notorious cold case would still be presented by the authorities as unsolved if in fact they knew who did it, that's totally absurd, sorry.

      The GJ indictments reflect their uncertainty as to whether John or Patsy is guilty of murder one. That should be obvious.

    19. I am aware that the handwriting experts said it was unlikely Patsy wrote the note. I was including Steve Thomas etc. in the category of experts. The very strange position for Patsy to have in your scenario is being subject to whatever arguments John had against calling 911 that day and then maintaining no suspicion of him, trusting that an inept kidnapper/intruder killed her baby. All while watching the "Patsy Did It" scenarios become a widespread and credible theory. Oh, and her entire family would have to accept his innocence as well. The mind boggles.

    20. While I'm extremely skeptical regarding any Burke Did It scenario, I have to admit that my theory regarding Patsy's willingness to go along with John's lies and not get suspicious is hard to swallow. You do have a point that's not easily dismissed. That's the most difficult aspect of my theory for sure. It always did look from the outside that they were in total lock step together, so if we think one is involved the other would almost have to be also. The mind does boggle, yes.

      However, I must insist that my method of sticking with the facts and NOT letting myself get distracted by questions that have more to do with the psychology of the principals (i.e., the profiling aspect) is a more objective and thus more reliable method than any other.

      As I see it, it's a fact that, given the absurdity of any intruder theory, the note was intended as the staging of a kidnapping. It's really impossible to see it as anything else -- unless of course you prefer to see a real kidnapping attempt by a real intruder, which doesn't fit the facts either. And if you see that staging as a collaboration between John and Patsy, then it's impossible to explain the 911 call. The 911 call, plus the absurdity of the intruder theory, tells us they were NOT in it together. And the fact that Patsy is the one who made that call, plus all the other evidence pointing to John, tells us she must be the one who is innocent.

      Given that, then we have no choice but to conclude that she was being manipulated by John. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation. And if we want to understand how she could have let herself be manipulated and why she would not have become suspicious, we have the perfect answer: the decision to rule John out. Since everyone else bought into that decision why wouldn't she?

      If John is the guilty party then he certainly has manipulated a great many people, so why not also his wife?

    21. DocG: thank-you for your comments. As for my bona fides, you might
      well question them as, until 2 weeks ago, I have never before posted on a forum or a blog regarding this case. So far, I have read the Schiller book, the Thomas book, all the source documents posted on the Candyrose site and an encyclopedia site, several forum discussions of Burke, Patsy and John scenarios, most of your posts regarding your theory and your posts disputing the Kolar theory. I have not researched the various intruder theories because I never thought them credible. I have not read the Kolar book. I have been amazed at the foolishness on some of the forums in contrast to your blog. I work in the area of children's mental health and have experience with sexual abuse and violence by and against children.

      I do not pretend to have the years of research or thinking,about this
      case that you do. Still, I think I bring a perspective that has some

      I appreciate your acknowledgement of the Patsy-accepted-John's-
      innocence problem.
      My other issue with your theory is the complete lack of ability of John
      to control his wife's behavior. One would assume that he could have
      prevailed upon her to accept the idea that Boulder police are
      inept and small town, and that he needed to follow the ransom note directives in order to save their daughter....AND as a matter of fact he has already called in his military friends and CIA friends to assist. She and Burke need to flee immediately, and a security guard will be there to
      escort them to the airport in 30 minutes. He has a plan.
      He could have invented anything to control her, and apparently he did not.
      He had vast resources and an elaborate kidnapping plot already written. Then we are to believe that he lost complete control right at the point when he needed it most, and allowed her to call 911? That he ceded control to her and the Boulder police in such a calm fashion that she never considered him to be the murderer?
      It is in complete contradiction to all that has gone before if he is the sole perpetrator. It makes no sense.

      Your second point, and I believe it is crucial to your theory, is this
      quote from you above: "And if you see that staging as a collaboration
      between John and Patsy, then it's impossible to explain the 911 call."

      I think I have explained why it is not impossible to do so. Rather
      than a very well planned staging, I see a disorganized and desperate
      staging. It even appears to be done by two different people: one
      rational, logical, and under control: one emotional and impulsive and
      random. One who wiped a lot of surfaces and showered when he was done, one who wore the same clothes and appeared hysterical.

      It appears to me that the Ramseys spent a horrible night staging a cover-up for the death of one child by the hand of their other child, and in the
      wee hours they backed away from the last step, the disposal of her body, probably for legal reasons, maybe emotional, or both. They then presented a confusing, even ridiculous crime scene
      to the Boulder police and tried to get to Atlanta as soon as possible.
      I would expect that no one was more surprised than they were to avoid
      detection, and as the weeks, months and years rolled on their success
      probably became more and more important to them. One can even suppose that they started to convince themselves that something awful MAY have happened to JonBenet by the hand of a stranger. They behaved as if it were their job to believe this crazy stuff, and they sort of made it their job by writing books about it and talking about it on TV.

      It is not profiling to say that this level of protection for their only living child
      is biological. Parents have been known to sacrifice everything to
      protect their children, this is not surprising behavior. The surprising part was their success and the extent of their protection, which was a function of their wealth and circumstances. It was never a coherent plan; it seems to have worked in spite of them.

    22. Well, you and I have very different notions of what is reasonable and what is bizarre. To me it's not reasonable to assume that parents would go to such bizarre lengths to protect the son who had just murdered their daughter, by concocting a dangerous kidnap staging, complete with long, hand printed note, that could backfire and send THEM to prison for life.

      And it's also not reasonable to assume that after going to all the trouble to concoct their staging they would then agree to undermine it by calling the police while the body was still in the house, thus negating the kidnapping they went to such pains to stage -- especially when their note gave them the perfect excuse NOT to call the police until they'd had a chance to get the body out of the house.

      Such a scenario also fails to explain why the body would have been hidden in the tiny basement room rather than displayed openly where it could easily be seen. Of course you would argue that if it's displayed openly they wouldn't have been able to report a kidnapping. But how does hiding it somewhere else in the house make a kidnapping scenario any more convincing?

      Regardless of what you yourself might think, I believe you'll agree when I assert that such a scenario would not get the prosecution very far in a court of law.

      As for the rest, we have no way of knowing what went on between them prior to the 911 call, so there's no point in insisting that John would not have allowed Patsy to make it. What we DO know is that the note is clearly designed as kidnap staging and that the 911 call undermined that staging. Which tells us that the call could not have been made if the two of them were conspiring together to stage a kidnapping. That's the logic -- based on the FACTS. The rest is conjecture, pure and simple. As is the BDI theory, for which there is not one shred of actual evidence.

    23. DocG, Thank-you for all your responses to my theories. As an amateur armchair detective I am sure I have left out essential evidence that you have found in your research. My theory is full of logical holes, I suppose, because none of the people I envision that night were criminals. They were family: a desperate, angry, grief-crazed family. If one of them was indeed an actual murderer, then my theory is completely wrong.

      Thank-you again for your time. I wish you a safe, healthy new year :)

    24. You're welcome. I'm just an amateur armchair detective also, and I could be wrong. And you're right, none of them were criminals. As I see it, something that might have started out as perfectly innocent got out of hand and finally led to a tragedy.

      I can't completely rule out your theory, which is intelligent and well argued. Part of the problem with this case is that everyone filters it through their own experiences and preconceptions, and none of us is immune to that sort of distortion.

      Happy New Year to you too as well. And thanks.

    25. They were not differt set of questions and its only natural to fail test when you are being accused of a murder you didn't do! Fbi and cbi and bpd both have admitted the Ramsey's are not guilty

  9. Hey, Doc. I, too, would like to thank you for all your work on, and dedication to, this blog. I've been impressed with your ability to answer most questions and comments posed to you, but I understand how that can become unsustainable. I've noticed recently that the blog has seemed
    a bit slow, and a couple of my comments were never published, so it's good to know why. That's the price of success! :-)
    Congratulations, thank you again, and Happy New Year!

    1. If you're comments aren't published it might be because the page has filled up. You need to go to the bottom and select where it says "More Posts" or something like that. If that doesn't work, email your posts to me and I'll make sure they get published here.

  10. Thanks for the excellent blog. I've read it since it first appeared. It's the only theory that makes sense of there being both a body and a RN. That's the thing that has most bothered me about the case, right from the beginning. I wasn't clever enough to figure it out, but I'm smart enough to recognize the right theory when it's presented to me.

    1. Thanks, Chris. I appreciate all your support, both here and on the forums.

  11. Doc, you continue to be such a gentleman when it comes to managing your blog. I can certainly understand the "traffic jam" it has created, but you don't need to apologize for not responding to every single comment! Having said that, I know how much everyone yearns to read everything you have to say.

    I continue to think you need to write a book. If anyone out there knows a good publisher, let's get Doc connected! I was one of the first to read Kolar's book, which left me a little disappointed. I think most people would be totally satisfied with your "solve" of this fascinating crime.

  12. I finally got around to watching "West of Memphis" about the West Memphis 3 case and it is a must watch! 3 guys were convicted based on false testimony and no evidence and as the movie points out, the most likely suspect was the step Dad of one of the boys who was never even questioned. That being said, through media and blogs like this, there was a lot of attention brought to the case and finally freed the 3 guys. Hopefully a new Attorney General or Prosecutor will bring a renewed interest to this case and have John Ramsey looked at as a true suspect.


  13. I watched an interesting episode of Dateline recently wherein a husband was finally charged and convicted of murdering his wife over 10 years ago. He was never a true suspect and even his in-laws supported him during all this time. Then, in a recent interview he gave discussing the unsolved murder of his wife, he slipped up on something he said which finally gave the authorities the link to suspect him and later charge and convict him.

    I know John Ramsey has already made many mistakes, most notably in the lies he has told and in odd behavior. But I'm just waiting for that time when he says something that may blow this case out of the water and finally cause the DA to rule him back IN. As I see it, he's getting older, and perhaps more forgetful, and he might say something that would incriminate him . . . finally.

  14. I can't get my head around certain thoughts. If Patsy killed jbr alone, then why would she write in the rn certain things such as "that good southern common sense of yours",which apparently Linda hoffman pugh,said Patsy joked about often to John, as he wasn't from the south. Why would she write this and incriminate herself. Write it with her own pad and pen, then call 911. The same can be said if they were in it together, Patsy would not have called 911. when she did. If John was responsible alone, why would he mention in the rn the same.Why would John write a note on a pad and pen from their own home, and at such length, after he had killed his child. Surely he would have thought this would point the blame at him or Patsy, even in a panic. Does anyone believe as i do that the rn was written before the murder. I wish i had more information to Lhp and her associates. She seems to have equally as much motive as anyone. I read contradictory comments she made in a statement, with regards to jbr being not naughty, but then called her "bratish" i think it was said. Lhp had many reasons to have revenge on the ramsay's for their wealth and her lack of it. She reportedly took the art tray to the basement that morning, would have known of pad, pen, house layout, entry and much more.That said i know John has a lot to answer for, and has been very deceptive with somewhat strange behavior since, who on earth would think to continue on a trip, right after your daughter has just been found murdered. But i would love to know more about Lhp's associates, even if just to eliminate her from my thoughts. Please don't tell me she and family were cleared of DNA, because so has everyone else.

    1. Even though I am 99.9% convinced John Ramsey is guilty, I have to admit that of all the other possible suspects, Linda Hoffman Pugh does strike a suspicion. What the reader says above is quite interesting. She would not have had to break in (surely she had a key), she could have secretly hated the Ramseys for a variety of reasons, she could very well have known information about the family, the house, etc., and she might have actually despised Jon Benet. And I feel some women are quite capable of sexually molesting children. She would have had the same opportunities (and maybe more) to do this as John. Maybe Jon Benet was going to blow the whistle on her and maybe she was the one who was the "secret Santa" planning on making a visit to Jon Benet.

      Doc, what are your feelings about this? What caused her to be ruled out? If you've covered this topic already in your blog, please let me know.

    2. Yeah, this has come up before, but I'll respond anyhow what the heck. One problem with this whole case is that there are at least a dozen "extremely likely" suspects. And if you go into all the details of what it is that makes them suspicious, then you can easily convince yourself this HAS to be the one. It's just that kind of case.

      The problem with all of them is the ransom note, which is the major stumbling block for any intruder theory. No kidnapper is going to enter the house of his victim without a ransom note prepared in advance (assuming he actually needs one, since a phone call after the fact would do just as well). Of course it is possible that the notepad could have been stolen from the Ramsey home and the note prepared in advance using sheets from that pad, with the idea of framing John or Patsy by returning the pad to its original location, making it seem as though one of them wrote it. That's the ONLY scenario that might make it possible to see Linda as a serious suspect.

      HOWEVER: first of all we have to assume the "intruder" had enough faith in the police to assume they are going to be smart enough to figure out where the note paper came from. In fact they did, but that was certainly not a given, since it may never have occurred to them to try to match the note to anything already in the house. I'm very impressed that they were in fact capable of figuring that out. Good for them -- but it's hard to imagine an intruder trying to frame John or Patsy actually counting on them making such a discovery.

      Secondly, there is no reason to assume there was any attempt to forge John or Patsy's hand in that note. John was ruled out and Patsy was deemed "unlikely." And in fact the overall look of Patsy's hand is completely different from that of the note, as I believe I've demonstrated. No one who's examined the note has ever even suggested the possibility of a forgery. So how do you write a note designed to implicate the Ramseys if you write it in your own hand, or some disguised hand, but with no attempt to forge their handwriting?

      And if your intention is not to forge then what is the point of stealing the notepad and using it for your note? Why not just write a note on any paper you can find and bring it with you when you enter the house?

      Finally, Linda dropped out of high school in her sophomore year and her husband was, as I understand it, not particularly educated either. Yet the note is written in just about flawless English with a pretty advanced vocabulary as well.

      Finally, there was no evidence whatsoever to link Linda with this crime. Her DNA certainly wasn't found at the crime scene. And we also have to ask how she could have expected to get away with it since she would have known very well she'd be a leading suspect, that her handwriting would be examined, her DNA tested, etc.

      Sure she knew a lot about the house. Why wouldn't she? But so did John, Patsy and Burke.

      Finally, there is just too much evidence pointing to John, including evidence that he lied and dissembled about many aspects of this case, and especially his window breakin story. I see no point in going after anyone else, especially after 17 years of such futility.

    3. Yes, the ransom note is one thing that doesn't quite fit into the theory that Linda Hoffman Pugh did it. Thanks for pointing that out. That ransom note is such a major clue in this case. I almost think John could have skipped the ransom note (and the whole kidnapping story) and worked more on staging the window break-in to more fully convince authorities of an intruder. Ironically, however, it is the note that ultimately gets him "ruled out."

      And you're right about finding things out about a possible suspect and then convincing yourself you've discovered the real murderer. So easy to do in this case where there are so many "colorful" people around this family.

    4. Not in so much that i have convinced myself, just that i myself see linda as a more likely suspect. Each answer to my posts, are usually the same. The RN, the DNA, and the fact that she and hubby were not exactly capable of good use of grammar. I beg to differ. For me the RN was written and planned before Jonbenet's death, as i have said before, Linda had knowledge and opportunity to use the pad and pen to point the finger at John/Patsy, she knew what to put in that note, even if she didn't write it herself. There is plenty in that RN that linda would have known about, forgery?, whoever wrote it did a good job of pointing the blame towards patsy. For the DNA, i am reminded that Linda and some family members were cleared, as so has everyone else thus far. Does not mean Linda did not have an accomplice outside her family.I have read a great deal on statements/comments Linda has made, to the point where i could see envy. If she were guilty, some of her behavior would be normal such as standing by patsy at first, then telling all when being pointed to as a suspect by Patsy. Although there have been many crazy theory's, my opinion is that this one, crazy or not , fits better than John's. Statistically, fathers who abuse, do not kill like this. I simply can't see john or any father for that matter, abusing his young child, then, killing her in such a horrific manner, then thinking i'll tell you what, i'm going to pop upstairs and write a three page ransom note pointing the blame largely at me or Patsy. I could well be wrong, and i am nowhere certain of any of this, as i have said before, there is much John has to answer for, and with his strange behavior. particularly for me, him wanting to arrange their trip so soon after finding Jonbenet's body.
      I think most people have decided that it was no stranger that came in alone, given the evidence, but i still feel just cause to answer and air my thoughts.

    5. incidentally, wonder if Linda paid the loan back to Patsy after Jonbenet's death?

    6. Yes, Linda had the perfect motive: envy. And Burke had the perfect motive: sibling rivalry. And Santa had the perfect motive: an obsession with little girls. And Patsy had the perfect motive: rage over bed wetting. Etc. Etc. And so it goes. If you focus hard enough on any one "suspect" you can find the "perfect motive." But sorry, that's not enough, not nearly enough.

      My take on this case is based on the facts and clear inferences drawn from the facts. The fact is that the note was written on a pad from the house. Which implies either a kidnapper who forgot to bring his ransom note with him, which is absurd -- OR someone who took the pad from the house and used it to implicate the Ramseys in the murder of their own child -- which is of course a necessary aspect of your theory. But that too is absurd, because there is nothing about this particular note that fits such a theory.

      For one thing the person who took the pad and either wrote the note or got an accomplice to write it would have had no way of knowing for sure that the police would ever trace the note to the pad from which it came. In fact that discovery was something of a fluke. One of the investigators had a bright idea and it happened to pan out.

      For another ALL the "experts" who examined the note were specialists in forgeries, that's usually the sort of cases they deal with, and none of them has ever even suggested the note was intended as a forgery. While the opinions of the "experts" have varied greatly on the question of whether or not Patsy could have written it, the overall look of the note is radically different from Patsy's hand. Patsy wrote with a very light, neat, clearly legible hand, while the note was written sloppily and with a heavy hand. And as I've demonstrated on this blog, we have good reason to believe the writer imitated a computer font to help disguise his hand. Why would someone go to the trouble of copying a computer font if the goal is to make it look like Patsy or John wrote it?

      So we come back to the fact that ultimately defeats any possible intruder theory: the existence of a "ransom" note written on paper from the house of the victim.

      I'll grant you that the horrific aspect of this murder does not seem like something a father would do, even if he were guilty of molesting his daughter. But I don't see anything about it that fits the housekeeper any better. While there is nothing in John's history to suggest such a crime there is nothing in Linda's history either.

      In any case, I don't think the strangulation was the sadistic act of torture many people see in it. Nor do I think it was a sex game. I think JonBenet was already unconscious from the head blow and the ligature was used simply as a convenient and efficient means of completing the job of murder without actually having to lay hands on the victim's throat.

      The bottom line is that, unlike Linda or any intruder, John is known to have been present in the house that night, the chronic injuries to the vagina strongly suggest chronic abuse and the most likely person to have abused the child was the only sexually mature male in the house: John Ramsey -- who also, as I have very clearly demonstrated, dissembled and lied outright about key aspects of the case, including his absurd window breakin story. If he was being set up by Linda he certainly cooperated in that effort.

    7. If I may make two points in reference to the above;

      1. Just to be very very technical, JR wasn't really the only sexually mature male in the house. JAR lived off and on in the house and off and on in his dorm room not very far from the house so JAR had plenty of opportunity. I hasten to add that I don' t think JAR did it, he has no less than 7 people who place him in the Atlanta area the night/morning of the crime. But he did have ready access to JBR.

      2. The fact that the paper was traced to the Ramsey's own writing tablet suggests that there were no alternatives available - i.e. it had to be an RDI case - and that the intended reader really was Patsy, not primarily the police.

    8. Your "technical" point is well taken. I never thought of JAR as the "chronic" molester, but that is certainly possible. On the other hand, if John is the one who drew blood from her vagina that night, then it seems to me he's the most likely to have been molesting her in the past. And JAR was certainly not in Boulder at the time, so . . .

  15. If LHP committed this crime then why the need for the broken basement window if she had a key? Why wasn't the 3 page RN already prepared prior to the crime? Why the sexual abuse, a RN AND a dead body? Plus we have Wecht's claim that there was prior sexual abuse, so somebody would have had to have had access. Also, if JR is innocent then why lie about the window? Simply my opinion, but everything in this case points to the crime being committed by JR, PR or BR.

  16. the thing is, i am trying to be open minded about whoever is guilty, not particularly as focused on John as some of the bloggers here. linda could easily have taken the pad and written the rn before the murder, as i said earlier, i personally believe it was written ahead of jbr being murdered. It has been said by linda, that she had many notes left to her by patsy and she even quoted how well she knew Patsy's handwriting. She could even had someone do everything, and just handled the stealing of pen and pad and preparing of the rn note. She had stated that when the ramsay's were away, she and family searched for the xmas trees, who knows if she showed someone else around the home in advance. I also mentioned there has been no DNA linked to any suspects so far, if someone she let in or gave key to, then there would be no evidence linking her. the basement window may have nothing to do with the crime at all. I recall Patsy and linda disagreeing over broken window and cleaning. As for sexual abuse, maybe linda knew someone who was prepared to do this kind of thing and didn't care as long as she had revenge. Also wechts opinion of prior sexual abuse, was only his opinion, not everyone's. Please look at all aspects of this crime instead of focusing on just how you see it. I'll look at your points of view and read them until you can convince me otherwise. :)

    1. "Please look at all aspects of this crime instead of focusing on just how you see it."

      If you continue reading in this blog you'll see I've done exactly that. And also I've invited comments, questions and theories from others like yourself and in all cases responded. It's possible to spin all sorts of theories based on speculations of various kinds, but no intruder theory makes sense, as I've been at pains to point out here and elsewhere for years. No kidnapper enters a home and writes his "ransom" note afterward. And someone out to implicate the Ramseys would have produced a forgery. It's really that simple. Sorry.

    2. hi doc, i have replied here, don't know where it's gone. please check email thanks evej

    3. Hi Doc, don't know where my post went, so i'll try again. From what i have read on these bloggs, it is clear to me that you decided in your mind, that Jonbenet's father was responsible for her death. I have only in recent years found my interest in true crime. I remember hearing about this case here in the UK when it happened. It was perhaps not so widely reported as in the US, nevertheless people i speak to regarding the case, still remember it now. At this time, i am reading up on everything i can, so far your bloggs, evidence and now books. I notice in PMPT, that Jeff Shapiro, told of his visit to library to read up on garotte's, and saw some link to Joze Rizal, whom he said was executed on Dec 26th 1896. He was in fact executed on Dec 30th, perhaps somewhere later in the book i may read this to be corrected. Anyway i am at this time still undecided who killed poor Jonbenet. Of course you have many years of knowledge behind you on this case, where i don't. I see a lot of unexplained behaviour from John Ramsey, yet i don't see a father killing his own child so horrifically.I don't get why he would implicate himself by using a pen and paper from his own home. i do however believe the ransom note to be written before jbr;s death, and that whoever committed the crime was very closely connected to that home.
      I see you have written a book on the case now. Good luck with the book, i look forward to reading it.You are indeed a very good writer.

    4. I'm glad you have an open mind on this case. My problem is that people read a few things here and there about the case and then decide they know all about it and very quickly develop a theory based on incomplete and often inaccurate knowledge of the case. Once someone forms such a theory it's almost impossible to convince him he's wrong.

      You could say I've done the same thing, but you'd be wrong, because I took the trouble to learn as much as possible about this case before coming to my conclusion. I could still be wrong, of course, but at least I've developed a theory that fits the facts and makes sense.

      As far as John using a pad from the house, it looks as though he wouldn't have had any choice. Assuming the murder was not premeditated, he would have written it after the murder and would not have been in a position to go out in the middle of the night to buy some writing paper.

    5. evej

      JR wouldn't implicate himself by using a pen and paper from his own home if there were any options. But there were no options. JBR was dead, and Patsy would be up shortly, so some "explanation" had to be thought of. He hid the body and concocted a fake kidnapping by writing a RN. He couldn't very well go to the all night stationary store w/o possibly waking Patsy and/or being seen leaving by neighbors. Nothing left to do but write the RN on paper from his own home. His chief goal at that point was not fooling police detectives but rather getting Patsy to believe JBR had been kidnapped.

    6. Well if your theory is correct then your reasoning is right. Only thing is before i looked at any suspects who could possibly have committed the crime, i was, and still am, sure the ransom note was written before the crime.

    7. evej

      May I ask why you think the RN was written prior? Maybe you said in another post and I missed it.

      For me the fact that the RN was written on Ramsey stationary leads to the inference that it wasn't written prior because advanced planning would have included using paper and pen that could not be traced to the Ramseys.


    8. Well if the ransom note wasn't written prior to the crime, then it points to John or Patsy. I thought the ransom note was too long and well thought out to not have been written after the crime. (just my assumption) I don't believe the Burke theory. I am finding it hard to see John or Patsy too. Although there is much pointing to John. That is when my Linda HP thoughts came into this. I've explained on other posts as to why. Doc has pointed out to the contrary of my theory, as he thinks the facts don't match. I will say, that i am still open minded to who did this, but don't feel convinced yet that i can rule linda out, or John completely in.

    9. The police ruled LHP out; I'll bet she has an alibi just like JAR and others who did not live in this home. Anyway, what is your reason for not being able to rule John in? He was THE suspect at first. The entire point of this blog is that the police allowed him to be ruled out for a bogus reason. Clearly, he can be ruled in as a suspect based on the facts. DocG has devoted this entire blog to the myriad of reasons for ruling him back in. And...that's not to say he will be found guilty, but there is enough there to charge him. If not for bad police work on the handwriting topic/politics/money/inept DA's office, he would be in jail now. If some regular Joe Parent were the perp, he'd be on death row right now, at least in my home state.

  17. If the broken window was old as John alleges wouldn't you expect the cobweb to be intact? It is difficult the believe if the window was broken a year earlier the spider would not have spun a new web?

    1. Not sure what cobwebs you're referring to. There was an intact cobweb connecting the grate to the lawn. There was an intact cobweb in a corner of the window. And there were bits and pieces of a broken cobweb clinging to the broken glass in the window pane. Presuming you're referring to the last named remnants, I understand what you're getting at. But realistically there's no way to know for sure whether another web would have been woven after the break.

      We don't need that evidence, however, because John's story is clearly a fabrication -- and the investigators would not have questioned him so thoroughly on that story if they knew it was an old break.

  18. I read the Ramsey's book The Death of Innocence, and Jon Benet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation which was by Steve Thomas who was a leading Detective on the Case. It was finally clear to me that this family never could have killed this child. There was several good leads which this man completely overlooked. There is only one person who I really think knows more about this case then she let's on. And that is Linda Hoffman Pugh. She knew where everything was in that house. Plus, it's often customary to leave notes to and fro on the bottom of the stairs by housekeepers and their client. She could very easily lie and frame the Ramseys' for murder. I really do think she let the perpetrator in the house with her key. With the Ransom note done before they even came to the house. In Thomas's book she had Patsey's pens and tablets in her house. Also, I read her daughter was involved in child pornography at one time. Only she could know how much JR's bonus was along with the Ramsey family. All through the books it was clear that involved a person who really knew that home, and acted like a family member. She also wrote a sick type of article in a tabloid aboutvhow she thought Patsy did it. It was gross. LHP in my opinion was an accessory to murder.

    1. If you read some of my comments above you'll learn why I can't suspect LHP of any involvement in this crime. There is no shortage of suspects and no shortage of "good" reasons for suspecting any of them. It's that kind of case.

      If you read the first two posts on this blog you will learn why I'm convinced there was no intruder. So for me, no matter how many good reasons anyone can come up with for suspecting this or that individual (or group), it doesn't really matter. No one entered the house that night. It had to be an inside job.

  19. Has anyone updated since the investigation ID channel aired? Interesting to see if anyone noticed or came to new conclusions. Both actual videotaped sessions with the police of both John and patsy were Aired.

  20. correct no intruder