(To purchase a copy, click on the cover image.)
I decided to publish it as an ebook, via Kindle, at least at first. If you don't have a Kindle hardware device, that shouldn't be a problem. Kindle Reader software is freely available for all sorts of systems, including iPads, Androids, Laptops, etc. By selling it through Kindle I was also able to keep the price down: 6 bucks, USA!
For those of you reading regularly here, the book will look familiar, as most of the content has been lifted directly from this blog, with a few minor corrections and adjustments, and some additional material. However, the book is much better organized than the blog, which is all over the place, and the book is easier to follow. At least I hope so. Kindle has a search mechanism that works much better than an index, and that too is a big plus. (The search tool I added here stopped working a while ago, not sure why.)
I'm hoping some of you will be ambitious enough to review the book. Just scroll down on the Amazon page to where it says "Write a customer review." And please by all means, if you do write a review, be honest. If you think it sucks, say so. Though it would be more helpful if you were to explain why you think it sucks. You can also respond with comments to this post -- but reviews posted on Amazon can be helpful in generating interest and sales, so by all means, if you are so inclined, reviews will be much appreciated. And they need not be full blown essays. A few lines will do nicely.
I've had very mixed feelings about publishing in book form, just as I had mixed feelings about starting this blog. After all, people with a theory about the JonBenet Ramsey case are a dime a dozen. I do feel confident I'm on the right track, but so, of course, does everyone else whose ever written a book on this case. And there are lots of them, let me tell you.
I must say, however, that I've been really surprised and delighted by the response to this blog, especially all the many meaningful comments and questions, forcing me at times to dig more deeply into certain details than ever before. I do think that my ideas have changed some minds, and I do very much appreciate the support I've received from so many of you. And as a result I don't feel so much like a fool, publishing yet one more book on this fascinating mystery.
[Added 1 - 4 -14: Those of you with no Kindle player can go here to download free Reader apps for whatever device you might have. I've had one for my Windows PC for some time and it works fine.]
Got it, this should eliminate all the repeat questions. Thanks, DocG, glad you took the plunge.
ReplyDeleteDarlene Underdahl
www.VermillionRoadPress.com
Well if this news ain't a great way to begin this new year, I dunno what IS. Thank you, Doc. Congrats!
ReplyDeleteAnd now my technologically-unadvanced-and-Kindle-less-self better go try to figure out how to read the darn thing :-)
I don't have a Kindle, but will try to figure out how to download it onto my laptop. Perhaps if someone could explain how to do that here in simple language, that will help others as well.
ReplyDeleteFree Reader apps are available for download here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1000493771
ReplyDeleteI will definitely figure out a way to get this book and read it. I'm still with Windows 7 but I know there is a way. (My son is a programer, he'll get me on the right track)
ReplyDeleteI've spent a lot more than $6 on books about the Jonbenet case. Thanks for keeping the price down.
Looking forward to reading the book.
Click on my name and go to the website. If you click on one of the books for sale, my husband explains how to load a Kindle book onto your PC. Good luck.
DeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing this, DocG. A quick question: for those of us who have read all the blog posts, is there any new material in the book?
ReplyDeleteThe Preface is new. Parts of the Introduction involve new or rewritten materials. And the last couple paragraphs are new. Other relatively minor changes are scattered throughout but for the most part the book is based on what you'll find on this blog.
DeleteSo if you're already familiar with the blog you'll already know just about everything that's in the book. And the Preface and Introduction can be read for free on the "Look Inside" preview at the Amazon website. However, the book is better organized and makes for easier reading. And Kindle has a better search mechanism.
Hello Doc. I'm thoroughly enjoying your book so far. Thanks so much for your time and organization. This has been a real treat. I hope this will catch the eyes of some very influential people in Colorado.
ReplyDeleteGreat news!! Thank you Doc. I am one of your readers that has "pestered" you about doing this, so I am particularly thrilled!
ReplyDeleteMy son has a Kindle so I'm anxious to start reading. I will absolutely post my comments about it when I'm finished, but I can tell you that if it's anything like your blog, you'll be getting 5 stars from me. :-)
Doc I read and reviewed the book. Great job, I just wanted to make a couple of comments I have observed in the past month about handwriting in general.
ReplyDeleteIn my work we have lots and lots of written notes that we call running records on our clients. An observation I have made is that over the years if the notes are written in cursive then all co-workers recognize the handwriting immediately. But if the records are printed instead, all of us have difficulty and may not be able to tell who wrote the note. Also I saw a note I wrote not too long ago and I had apparently grabbed a felt tip pen from my holder and my letters were not the same as when I use a ball point pen. I actually didn't recognize the felt tip pen as my writing but I had put my initials on it so it was mine. In all of our records when we print the letters differ depending on pen use, if you wrote the note in a hurry etc. Too many variables to be able to say printed notes are going to be the same. But cursive notes always have our personal touch and everyone recognizes it immediately.
I think you did an excellent job discounting all of the Patsy wrote the note theories and made so many valid points. Another thing I will mention is that I make loans to young people starting as young as 10. Schools in our area have basically quit teaching cursive handwriting. So many kids are not learning how to write in cursive. They print everything. Well as I am about to close a loan and someone can't sign their name, they have to print it, that has caused a huge problems with our lawyers nationwide. The thought of that is print is too easy to change and too easy to forge but cursive is much more distinctive. So now I discuss with parents and young applicant about practicing cursive before we sign the documents.
These observations make me believe that it is incredibly hard for a document examiner to make a decision based on a note that is printed.
My last observation is I have read several times John describing his actions and he talks about being on his hands and knees reading the note. I get a red flag from this. Which makes me wonder if he could have worn gloves when he wrote the note and therefore knew his fingerprints weren't on the note so he didn't handle it much. If he had wrote it without gloves I would think he would make sure everyone saw him holding it. So what kind of samples were obtained. Were any obtained with gloves on? And if so what kind of gloves because that matters. I bet if any of us attempted to write a note with gloves on, it would not look like our regular writings.
My last thought for now is regarding the whole taxi brought me home and I didn't have a garage door opener. Do we know if there was ever an investigation regarding that? Surely he turned in the taxi bill on his expense report. I know he had a personal plane also but surely he left his car at the airport when he flew his plane. After reading the housekeepers statement, I wonder if he ever called a taxi or if he always left his car at the airports in long term parking. He should have records either way, because you know he would want to be reimbursed.
Thanks again for the book and your wonderful blog.
GSW
Your comments on handwriting are very interesting. I hadn't thought of that, but yes, cursive does seem to be much harder to imitate or disguise than manuscript, which is really a type of printing. I never learned manuscript as a kid. It was either cursive or block printing. So manuscript to this day is a bit mysterious to me.
DeleteAs far as the fingerprints on the note are concerned, I don't think John used gloves to write it because there would be no need. His prints could easily have gotten on to it when he read it the following morning so that wouldn't be suspicious. As I recall, it's not completely clear whether any prints were actually found on the note, because the presence of Patsy's or John's prints would have been discounted in any case. Absence of prints is also possible because prints are transferred only under certain conditions. So I don't think we can draw any meaningful conclusions whether prints were present OR absent. Of course the Ramseys ideally should have avoided touching the note, just in case the "intruder's" prints were on it, but that would not have been in the forefront of their minds at the time.
As far as John's window breakin story is concerned: sure the investigators should have checked the paperwork associated with John's "business trip," pertaining not only to his taxi bill but also his air fare and whether or not he actually attended a business meeting in June. But there is no evidence they ever checked any of that. I think they simply wanted to believe him, because his story made an intruder breakin via that window even more unlikely and that's what they wanted to hear. Also, I think they managed to convince themselves that John would not have made up such a story if he was staging a breakin at that window, so their guard was down. They failed to see the story as an alibi and wanted to accept it at face value, despite all the absurdities. It's clear from the nature of their questions that they were not interested in pressing John on anything, which tells me they'd made up their mind that Patsy must be the guilty party and they were hoping for John's cooperation in nailing her.
I must add that it's also possible they did check John's story and discovered that he did attend a meeting, and did take a cab. After all, he could have been clever enough to base his story to at least some extent on actual events. But of course nothing can explain his failure to call the Barnhills from the airport to arrange for a key to be left "under the mat" for him when he arrived. He made it sound as though he had no way to make such a phone call but obviously he did.
Deletegreat!!! can't wait to read it.
Delete- Rae
Any proof what so ever that John Ramsey was involved with incest of his daughter Jon Bonet?
ReplyDeleteThe Coroner reported a seriously damaged hymen and signs of "chronic inflammation" on the inner wall of her vagina. To most forensic pathologists who've looked into the case, this strongly suggests that she'd been sexually abused prior to the night of the attack.
DeleteSince the only sexually active male with an opportunity to get that close to JonBenet was her father, and since her father was one of only three people in the house with her that night, the possibility that John was indeed involved in an incestuous relation with his daughter, a pattern of abuse that led to murder, is strong.
That possibility, however, is NOT the basis for my conclusion that John is the guilty party, because I don't go by possibilities, I go by facts.
Why have you ruled Burke out completely? There has been nothing that says a nine year old doesn't have the strength to pick up a flash light and inflict the type of wound described in the autopsy report of Jon Bonet's skull?
ReplyDeleteI admitted in my post on Burke that technically he cannot be completely ruled out, because we have no way of knowing for sure that he is not the one who assaulted JonBenet. But if that's true, then it would have led to a sequence of events that is so bizarre and fantastic as to be beyond belief. If you do a search on "Burke" on this blog you'll see what I mean.
DeleteDocG, I've read your book; I could not put it down until I was finished. Now I want to go back and thoroughly digest the details on the handwriting analysis. Thank you so much for debunking all of the half-baked ideas that people float regarding this case. It just blows my mind that folks think that just because someone can come up with a "possibility" that it means certain facts no longer matter. One simply cannot ignore the facts in this case, and the logical inferences that result. If one cannot follow inferences, they should not play armchair detective and for all our sakes, should save their fantasy ideas for writing a piece of fiction rather than commenting online about a serious matter - the murder of a precious little girl who had so much going for her. Your analysis totally brings to closure for me as to why I could never, ever accept that Patsy did this. As you said, it just did not compute at all. Now I just hope and pray that if someone in the public like yourself can apply due diligence to this case, then at a least the DA and Boulder police could do the same. They owe it to their citizens to show that they are really in place to protect them. I would not want to live in a community that had such stupid, corrupt, gullible people in law enforcement that the murder of a sweet, innocent little girl could be handled in this way. Its sad to know that had JonBenet lived she would have had to deal with the emotional pain and trauma of being an abused person. People who think John couldn't have done this need to think again. Fathers, uncles, pastors, brothers, friends -- of all backgrounds, regardless of outward personas, have abused young girls. It happens a lot as you've noted. And, as you've noted, it provides a motive behind what the facts tell us and explains why JR was so devious. IMO John Ramsey had a lust problem and when it became difficult to carry on with other women, he turned to his pretty little daughter because he could not control his impulses and he thought it was for one time but he kept on and she was not as easily manipulated as he assumed she would be. That is my opinion, of course. But the facts point to JR. The motive is the most likely motive given what the coroner found, and being in denial about JR's ability to do this is just plain naive of those who think just because you're a business exec you are above being flawed, lustful, sociopathic, or narcissistic -- whatever is the problem with JR's character.
ReplyDeleteWell said. And thank you for your thorough reading and complete understanding of my book.
Deletewas anyone connected to the family with martial arts experience or connections to the french foreign legion ? i think you know where i am going with this.
ReplyDeleteI assume you're thinking about the "garotte"? And no, no martial arts or foreign legion background as far as I know. However, John Ramsey was in the navy and was stationed in the Philippines where garotting was a well known practice. However, the ligature device that strangled JonBenet was not really a garotte in the strictest sense, apparently.
DeleteDoc I know you are busy, so if you have time to answer this question then that would be great, or anybody else that knows the answer. Regarding the "touch" DNA that ruled our the Ramseys, was JR's the only DNA found on JBR's panties? I know the argument can be made that any of the Ramseys DNA could be found on the victim due to them being around their daughter, but considering she was murdered and the underwear was changed, wouldnt the fact that the fibers from his clothes or DNA found on her underwear be enough alone to charge him? There was a sexual nature to this crime, so according to JR, they brought a sleeping JBR straight to bed and no clothes changes were made, so how does JR explain his DNA found on her?
ReplyDeleteI know Im not asking something that hasnt already been stated, but just curious if Im missing something, thanks!
-J
You are confused. To my knowledge John's DNA was not found in JBR's panties. It was fibers from his shirt that were found there. And there were traces of fragmented unsourced DNA found mixed with JBR's DNA on a bloodstain on her panties.
DeleteThe presence of John's fibers in panties straight out of the plastic container is what looks suspicious. As for the reason his DNA was not also found on these panties, my guess is that he was probably wearing gloves at that point.
That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
Deleteso if John found jbr and he showered and changed that morning, why would his fibres be on her pants?, surely through contact, they would only have been found on her long pants she wore on top of them.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. And his fibers were found INSIDE the panties, not on the outside. Makes it pretty hard to explain how those fibers could have got there innocently, no?
DeleteIn a study by the FBI they put fibers on the outside of stocking caps then processed them in compliance with FBI procedures. The caps were sent to the FBI lab and when the packages were opened many of the fibers had migrated to the inside of the caps.
ReplyDeleteThe FBIs purpose was to determine whether or not it was possible to determine whether or not the lab should process the inside and outside of garments separately. It was determined that the lab could not say whether a fiber originated on the outside or inside of the stocking caps, and therefore it didn't matter whether the inside and outside were processed together or separately.
In short, fibers transmigrate from the outside of garments to the inside.
Now I'll grant that stocking caps are generally loosely woven wool and JBR panties were probably tightly woven cotton. I do think the FBIs testing of it's own procedures should give us doubt as to how the fibers got into the panties.
That still leaves the question how the fibers got on the outside of the panties, but that might well be explained by secondary transfer by the killers hands, to the panties. His fibers were almost certainly on JB from innocent contact earlier in the evening.
Since most of us here believe JR is the culprit, it doesn't help JR's case, but technically the fibers inside the panties could have gotten there w/o JR being involved.
The best thing to do with the fiber evidence is ignore it. It can lead us to false conclusions. There is enough evidence to determine JR is the likely culprit w/o resorting to false conclusions based on questionable fiber evidence.
CH
Stocking caps are obviously porous so it's not surprising to learn that fibers could "migrate" from the outside to the inside. Panties, however, are a different matter entirely and I'd venture to say that the great majority are not nearly as porous and that it would be extremely unlikely for fibers to migrate from the outer to the inner surface.
ReplyDeleteHere's what Mr. Levin had to say when questioning John regarding fibers from his shirt:
"the source [of the fibers] is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter's
underpants"
Note that he said "in" and not "on."
"technically the fibers inside the panties could have gotten there w/o JR being involved.
The best thing to do with the fiber evidence is ignore it."
That's what I've more or less said in the past, but lately I've been giving more thought to this very interesting evidence. While John's fibers could have gotten onto JBR earlier in the day, especially when he was carrying her inside after the White's party, she was apparently NOT wearing that pair of panties at the time. The panties in which the fibers were found were panties that she had apparently been redressed in by her attacker. Most likely because his semen had gotten onto the original pair and the attacker felt a need to replace them (why he would have wanted to do that is another story, which I've discussed elsewhere and won't get into now).
The fresh pair of (grossly oversized) panties came straight out of a plastic bag from the store. Now if JonBenet had been redressed after the attack that disabled her, then there is no way she herself could have transferred John's fibers to those panties. And since they had never been worn, then there's no way any sort of transfer could have taken place in the laundry, or in fact by any means other than direct transfer from John's shirt (which was by the way non washable and required dry cleaning).
So the more I think about it, the more it strikes me that this could in fact be extremely important evidence that should NOT be ignored.
No wonder both John and Lin Wood went ballistic when confronted with that information. And ever since they've both denied such fibers were found, claiming Levin was bluffing. Which imo is ridiculous.
Respectfully I have to disagree. JR's black shirt fibers could have been on JB;s clothing/hair/body, and could have been transferred to her lower body, via the killer's hands, while she was undressed. Pulling the panties on her would naturally cause the fibers to be bunched up on the inside of the panties. If you'll excuse me for belaboring the point, if the fibers were on her thighs and/or crotch before the new panties were placed on her, then naturally they'd end up on the inside of the panties. That fibers could be transferred to her legs/crotch by a killer other than JR, via secondary transfer from the clothing/hair is obvious enough. Also if JB had placed her hands on her outer clothing or hair then stuck them inside her panties, long before her death, the fibers would already be in the "incriminating" spot before the molestation even took place.
ReplyDeleteI think it's best to leave the fiber evidence alone as it really is inconclusive.
I'm not so sure that it's ridiculous for LW and JR to deny any black shirt fibers were found. There is nothing to prevent the police from bluffing. JR may well have changed out of that Israeli shirt prior to the murder (or he might simply have taken the shirt off, rather than changed shirts, given what we think he was up to there's no telling what state of dress/undress he was in at the time) He may well have believed the police were bluffing even if they weren't. That is to say, JR himself might have transferred his own fibers, secondarily, during the molestation/killing/wiping/redressing. He may not have realized it. Since there has been no trial, hence no presentation of evidence, we really don't know at this point whether or not the police were bluffing. Even if they weren't, nothing has been lost by LW's gambit.
It's merely a technicality as we already know JR is our suspect. But it's at least possible for his fibers to be there w/o him being involved, even on the inside of the panties.
Tiny fibers can be just about anywhere, spread by anyone, primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.
The FBI is well aware that stocking caps are made of coarsely woven material. Still, they claim that their lab techs can't say with certainty whether a fiber found on the outside or inside originated there or not. I think that's enough by itself to set aside the black fiber evidence.
If you really carefully consider all the possibilities for transfer I think you'll have to agree that fiber evidence is inconclusive. Of course it's perfectly valid to infer that the fibers got there directly from JR, but then it's also valid to infer the red fibers got where they were via direct transfer from PR. The problem as I see it is that other transfer methods are equally likely, wrt to both the red and black fibers, and there is nothing about the fiber evidence that tips the scales in favor of primary or secondary.
CH
You're absolutely right, CH. Good thinking. The fiber evidence certainly is tricky to understand, but I think you've pretty much nailed the problem. I have to admit, I was wrong. Thanks.
DeleteDoc one thing I've admired about your blog, and your general approach to the crime is that you don't get defensive. I strive to be more like that myself.
DeleteCH
CH, when I read DocG's comments on the fibers (and I have commented myself on this topic), I don't interpret him as trying to make a case around this finding. He has said that the fibers are interesting, maybe suspicious, and definitely something to be curious about. So I think we're all in agreement that the presence of these fibers aren't needed to make the case. However, when prosecuting this case it is certainly additional information that can be brought up even though the defense would rebut it using your point that the fibers could have gotten in that new pair of panties by secondary transfer. The jury would have to consider for themselves if that fact helps the case or not. Bringing it up would certainly not exonerate JR. Given that JBR was so thoroughly wiped down and the perp was probably wearing gloves, I find it odd that fibers could be transferred just to the crotch area, and I think it would be worth mentioning to a jury. I think we all agree that there is a still a case to be made against John and these discussions help us vet out what a prosecutor will need to be prepared for in terms of the defense that would be presented.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. The fibers should definitely be considered, but as CH has pointed out, that evidence is far from conclusive. It would be useful to know where else on JBR's clothing or body any of those fibers were also found. But the fiber evidence is certainly not a smoking gun.
DeleteYes, I agree the prosecutor would bring it up and the jury would have to decide how much weight to give it.
ReplyDeleteMy approach is to try to solve the case as a matter of logic and/or common sense, rather than trying to look at what would be presented to a jury. A lot of things will be presented to the jury which don't actually tell them anything at all (fiber evidence, pineapple, the scream, and on and on) but as amateur sleuths we are (imo) better off leaving it alone. But you are absolutely right, it would be presented at trail, from both perspectives, and the jury would decide how much to let it influence their decision.
It is unfortunate that much of the evidence is inconclusive. I believe some of it could have been more conclusive if the police had handled things differently. This is why I am convinced that even if JR was indicted, he would later be found not guilty. His attorneys (and I don't doubt he would hire a "camp", much like OJ), would tear apart everything from the ransom note to the fibers. JR's guilt, imo, is based on logically inference, as Doc has helped me to understand. I believe under normal circumstances where a defendant hires an "average" defense attorney, a jury could very well be convinced of his guilt by this logic, but with high powered attorneys at his side, the jury would surely get hung up on complicated legal issues and find tons of reasonable doubt. In other words, if the guy down the street committed this crime and had $2-buck attorney or was appointed an attorney, he would most definitely be found guilty. That is why I believe the DA won't indict because they know what they would be up against. Their department has already been embarrassed enough --- why have another "OJ" trial only to see JR walk and be further embarrassed? JR's money and ability to confuse and manipulate have saved him from the chair, imo.
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, I doubt very much that John is any longer a millionaire. He lost his business, hasn't had many jobs for some time it would seem, and it looks as though most of his income derives from the books he's published, which are far from being best sellers, I'm sure.
DeleteThe biggest problem for the prosecution would probably be the need to prove a negative: that there was no intruder. And even though as I see it, no intruder theory makes sense, the possibility could still produce grounds for reasonable doubt.
Where John is most vulnerable, imo, is regarding the basement window. The prosecution should zero in on that. The key would be the findings of the investigators that the edges of the broken pieces of glass were clean. Of course that report has never been released, but if it shows, as I feel sure it will, that the window break was fresh, then John's story is beside the point. Since it would be easy to prove that no one entered or left via that window, the only explanation would be that it was broken the night of the crime to stage an intruder. That, plus hammering away at John's obvious lies about breaking in earlier, could make the difference. If John staged at that window and his alibi turned out to be a pack of lies, then he can say goodbye to the intruder theory.
I suspect John has more money than we all think. I believe he could very well have stashed some of his money away in foreign accounts. He's just that selfish and conniving, imo. He may no longer be a millionaire, but if he were indicted, I bet you'd anything he'd come up with enough money to hire a team of polished attorneys. Some might even defend him for free, because of their loyalty to him and their strong belief of his innocence, or simply because of the publicity they would get in a trial that would, without a doubt, be the trial of the century, watched by millions.
DeleteI totally agree with you that this whole case hinges on the basement window (no pun intended!). I don't really think the intruder theory would stand up to the evidence found regarding the window, especially if the prosecution were able to show John lied about breaking the window earlier to get in the house. Once they are able to somehow prove, or at least suggest, he is lying about that, there is too much reasonable doubt for a jury to believe there was an intruder. I know for me, once I read this blog and learned more about what the police found around that window and John's subsequent interviews about it, I became totally convinced there was NO intruder. The defense would have a much better shot if they pointed the finger at Patsy, and John would probably go along with it, especially since she is deceased. And if you look at how quickly people pounced on that theory, I think you could safely say a jury would too.
Well, first of all as I've said many times my goal is not to nail John to the wall, but give him his day in court. I do think there is more than enough evidence to establish probable cause and bring him to trial. If at that point he decides to place the blame for the murder on Patsy or Burke, let him. But realize -- his lawyers would have to do a lot more than simply use such a possibility as the basis for reasonable doubt. Because if in fact Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet, then John would certainly know about that. And if he refused to tell what he knows then why would any jury want to give him the benefit of the doubt, reasonable or not?
DeleteHe'd have to take the oath and testify and his testimony regarding Patsy or Burke would have to be credible. And remember, once he decides to finger Patsy or Burke, then his credibility is shot. Who would want to believe ANYTHING he has to say?
if he does decide to finger Patsy or Burke, he would have to explain why he has professed their innocence for nearly 20 years.
DeleteI think the single most damning piece of evidence against the intruder theory is not the window, but the fact that the note was written in the house. IMO that almost guarantees that someone in the house was the murderer. I can't imagine any kidnapper,, no matter how inexperienced or inept, sitting down to write a 3 page note in the house of the victim, with the family in the house, instead of bringing one with him. I can't remember which book it was in, but I remember an estimate that the note writer spent about 40 minutes on it. No one could be that stupid.
How was John going to be able to prove to the police that he got a ransom call?
ReplyDeleteHe could have called home from a phone booth after collecting the ransom from the bank. His answering machine would pick up the call, so it would be in the phone company records. That would not be proof, of course, but don't forget, the burden of proof is not on the defendant but the prosecution.
DeleteWouldn't he have to be able to prove he took the call? That is where his plan would break down is to have to plausibly prove there were kidnappers beyond a reasonable doubt. I understand the burden of proof is with the state but he would have to offer some plausible defense. He isn't a mastermind but luck appears to be on his side I guess.
DeleteHow could anyone prove he actually spoke with real, bona fide kidnappers? No one could expect him to furnish such a proof, because in this case proof would have been impossible, even if he had spoken with them. His lawyers would have provided evidence that a call was made from such and such a phone booth, and John would have claimed he took that call and talked with the "kidnappers." The phone company doesn't record actual phone conversations (unless the line is bugged), only the time, source and destination of each call. Of course, the authorities might well have been suspicious. But with a record of that call in the phone company computers, they would have had no evidence that he was lying.
DeleteI guess I'm trying to visualize how he'd do it. He goes out and withdraws the money. He then makes a phone call at a pay phone hopefully without anyone seeing him and leaves a message on his answering machine. He then gets rid of the body and money and returns home and erases the message. I guess that's plausible.
DeleteAlso, the more you think about it he'd have to drive somewhere remote to get rid of the body probably and make the phone call way away from his bank. He'd have to hope he got home in time to erase the message before his wife and friends returned to the house to hear the message.
DeleteI don't think it would have happened exactly that way -- because he would have wanted to dump the body under cover of darkness. Also the "kidnappers" said that if they "monitored" him collecting the money early they would call him early, so it would make sense for him to head home as soon as possible after he left the bank (and made the call), to "await their call." If a neighbor had spotted him arriving home at roughly the time of the call, so much the better. The blank message on the answering machine would have to be erased, yes. Then it would be a matter of John collecting all the various bits of evidence and of course the body itself, placing all of it in the trunk, and waiting for nightfall to drive off to the remote spot of his choosing and dump, or possibly even bury, everything. The next morning, he'd have called the police, telling them that he'd followed the "kidnapper's" directions, delivered the ransom to the same remote spot but then heard nothing more from them. If anyone had seen him or his car in that area he'd have had the perfect excuse: he was delivering the ransom.
DeleteMy problem with that scenario is you don't go driving around Colorado in the snow at night in the mountains trying to find a place to dispose of a body.
DeleteI've never spent a winter in Colorado, so wouldn't know. Anyone here feel qualified to respond?
DeleteI'll reply. I never lived in CO either, and only visited in the summer. My cousins lived in Boulder.
DeleteYou do a lot of things that you wouldn't normally do when you've killed your daughter and need to dispose of the body. JR didn't really have many options.
Here in the UK ( it was Scotland actually) on tuesday of this week. A 3yr old boy went missing from his home. His mother said she put him to bed at 9pm, woke at around 7am and found him missing from the bedroom of their flat. His shoes and coat were gone. An immediate search of the area was done lasting 2 days. The police said they did not suspect foul play. During this time it was speculated that there was a custody dispute between the parents of the boy, his twin and two other siblings. Some people said the boy at 3yrs, may have been able to unlock the door maybe put his shoes on, but would he think to put on his coat. then the speculation was that the father being from Pakistan may have had the boy abducted,not his twin sister as boys are more favoured in Pakistani families. As i write this, the little boy has been found dead some 30 miles from his home. He was found in woods at the rear of a garden bungalow where his aunt lives, and was a previous home he had shared with his mum and siblings. It is not yet known how he died. The area is sealed off, and the police have detained a person in connection with the crime. the person detained is the childs mother. My point here is that no one wants to suspect parents, and will always look for any other reason than what tends to be evident. Unfortunately most crimes like these tend to be committed by a parent or close relative, rather than an outsider that we would prefer to believe.
ReplyDeleteExactly! And it just blows my mind that people can put Patsy in the category of being totally capable of murdering JBR, but excuse John. This includes people who don't care if the RN rules John in or out. They actually think that a business exec cannot also be a sociopath, psychopath, or just plain human and capable of murder. Anyone who has ever worked for a large company knows that there are all kinds of nuts employed at every level. Sociopaths are good are fooling everyone, really good. I do think John Ramsey, while maybe not a sociopath, was a sex-hungry guy who crossed a line with his daughter and found that there was no backing out or way to forever hide what he had done, so he killed her. People kill for self preservation, we know that. He was arrogant enough to think he could pull it off. His money is what kept him from going to jail. Now he's out of money and has lost everything he was trying to preserve by covering up what he did to JBR. What goes around comes around. His stupid book was written because he needs the money and he probably thought he could convince himself that he is at peace after all, even without money. Every day of his life though, he has to wonder if the DA will decide to come after him and will Burke ever open his mouth.
DeleteI do not believe this murder was premeditated. With all due respect to Doc's theory, I don't really think Jon Benet was planning on telling her sister the following day when they visited her. For one thing, I don't think John would have planned to slam an object into Jon Benet's head to silence her. How would he have known she wouldn't bleed? Why not just smother her while she slept? I know you've suggested that he might have chosen to hit her in the head to render her unconscious so she wouldn't suffer. Well, imo, anyone who molests their 6-year old daughter, repeatedly, doesn't have much of a conscience to begin with and wouldn't be too concerned about her suffering. Also, the garotte suggests someone who was very angry. So I believe something happened during the course of his molestation of her that night that caused him to snap - big time. Perhaps she shouted out that she hated him and was fighting him off, or maybe she struggled away from him and was running to tell mommy. THEN I could see him hitting her with extreme force as she tried to run off. I've always felt he probably led her down to the basement (under the pretense of showing her some more presents?) and he had the flashlight in his hand. In any event, if it was, in fact, a spontaneous killing, John had to come up with a plan to cover it up and he didn't have a lot of time. If it were premeditated, I think his plan would have been very fine tuned.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that things such as removing her body and other evidence from the house, faking the phone call from the kidnappers, driving around Boulder at night to dispose of the body, etc. might have some flaws in it when we try to analyze them and figure out how he would have done it. Obviously little details like those discussed above are not picture perfect. They wouldn't be. They are things a man would have thought of in an act of desperation after something went terribly wrong that night and he had only a few hours to cover it up.
You make some excellent points. The scenario I presented was frankly speculative and I agree that some aspects are more convincing than others. The complexity of the note and the plan behind it suggest the possibility of pre-meditation. But as you say, the attack itself seems consistent with spontaneity. I've never argued for pre-meditation by the way, although I did consider it and I do still consider it a possibility. However, if the murder took place, say, around 10:30 to 11 PM, John would still have had several hours to concoct a plan and compose the note.
DeleteMy strategy from the start has been to focus on what we know to be the case and speculate only when necessary to provisionally fill in the gaps. If we focus on the facts and the facts only, then as I see it a clear picture emerges as to who did what. But the facts will never be enough to allow us to fill in all the details of this very intriguing and also disturbing puzzle. I do believe John was motivated by fear of exposure, but exactly why he would have chosen that particular night and that particular method will probably never be known. There are all sorts of details that could have made a difference and we may never learn what those details were.
What we do know, from examining the facts, and applying our critical thinking skills to John's various testimonies and public statements, is that John is by far the most likely suspect and that there is certainly more than enough probable cause for indicting him. Once he's put on trial, then hopefully some of the more obscure details will emerge.
" So I believe something happened during the course of his molestation of her that night that caused him to snap - big time. Perhaps she shouted out that she hated him and was fighting him off, or maybe she struggled away from him and was running to tell mommy. THEN I could see him hitting her with extreme force as she tried to run off."
Deleteend quote--this is EXACTLY what I believe happened. I used to mightily struggle with WHY Christmas night was chosen. well they were going to Michigan then the Big Red Boat. That was the last night he would have access to her in a private setting---home. I believe he was molesting her, she started to scream or got away and he swung at her with the flash light to stop . We know most of the rest of what happened after that.
I do think Docg has done an excellent job at proving John copied the letters from the font and spacing on the computer tho, i guess he had time to do all kinds of things that night,
I'm not a lawyer, but I've looked up premeditation as it's used in a legal context. It simply means that the murder was planned, or thought out, or deliberated before being done. There's no exact time limit. A premeditated murder can be planned weeks in advance, or in just minutes.
ReplyDeleteIMO the garrotte doesn't suggest sudden rage or anger. It suggests a deliberate decision to end a life. The blow to the head might (or might not) have been a result of sudden rage (spontaneous) but one does not fashion a garrotte and choke someone to death spontaneously. Shooting, maybe. Stabbing, maybe. Garrotting, no. You have to find a piece of rope. You have to tie a slip knot. You have to give the murder some thought, in advance.
There is, imo, no real doubt that the murder was premeditated within the meaning of the law. That's why the GJ mentioned 1st degree murder. But this does not mean it was planned days, or even hours in advance. The plan could have come together in just a few minutes.
I should add that the plan to murder cold have occurred first, then the rest of the plan (how to cover it up) could have been formulated later. It's not necessary that the whole plan of how to cover it up was formulated prior to applying the garrotte.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've written makes sense. However, in this case, the "garotte" does not imply pre-meditation. JonBenet's hair was entwined in the knotting of this device, which means it must have been constructed right on top of her dead or unconscious body, rather than in advance, as one might assume. Many aspects of this case are indeed confusing and possibly contradictory.
DeleteYes, it was constructed on top of her, but not spontaneously. It had to be pre-meditated within the meaning of the law - e.g. something thought of before being carried out. There doesn't need to be a lot of time involved.
ReplyDeleteTo go into it a bit more, to be premeditated, the intent to kill must be formed prior to that act of killing. It's hard to see how someone could garrotte someone else w/o having formed the intent to kill prior to the garrotting. Just a few moments is enough.
ReplyDeleteIt's for a jury to decide, but I think ti would be hard to argue that it wasn't premeditated. Even with a piece of rope in hand (for what purpose?) he'd have to decide to put it around her neck, then decide to tie a slip knot, then decide to pull. If he had to go find the rope I don't see any way at all it wasn't premeditated.
I agree with "Anonymous" above. While the blow to the head may have been spontaneous, the garrote was certainly constructed and applied with the intent to kill, and this is premeditation even if it only took a few minutes.
ReplyDeleteDoc, I've been contemplating the issue of prior sexual assault on JB. You posit that the sexual abuse is the key to the entire case and I believe you're correct. Did John, and especially Patsy, ever accept the coroner's findings, or did they deny that she was ever assaulted and refuse to believe what the medical team found? I know Patsy said that John would never have abused JB, but do you know if she ever accepted the possibility that ANYone could have done it?
Yes, technically this would probably be considered premeditation. But I don't think it was premeditated in the sense that this is what he planned to do in advance. If that were the case, he'd have constructed the device earlier.
DeleteAnd no, I don't think either Patsy or John accepted the diagnosis of prior sexual abuse, though of course they would have had no problem accepting the clear evidence of acute sexual abuse during the attack that killed her. As with so much of the evidence in this case, the "chronic erosion" of the inner wall of the vagina could be interpreted in different ways, at least by a good defense attorney. One source has it that this could have been produced by too many bubble baths!
I can see it now . . . "the bubble bath defense" lol
DeleteI still don't think this murder was premeditated, even after reading the comments above regarding the legal definition of premeditated. What I should say is I don't think it was premeditated for any real length of time. I don't believe John was thinking about carrying out this act while driving home from their evening out, nor do I think he was thinking about it while molesting Jon Benet that night. Having said that, I understand now that, by definition of the law, if he "snapped" and then decided to do away with her, that is, in fact, premeditation.
Fascinating case.
Premeditation is just thinking about it before carrying it out. If he "snapped" and didn't think about his actions prior to taking action then there would be no premeditation.
ReplyDeleteBut it's hard to make a garrotte and apply it in a "snap". I believe it's the jury's call, but I think they'd likely find it was premeditated, according to the legal definition. I wish one of the lawyers who read here would weigh in.
I don't think it was planned very far in advance either. Some elements of the crime might not have been planned at all. But I think the garrotting fits the legal definition of premeditation.
I do think he "snapped" and killed Jon Benet in a moment of desperation, knowing that he was at real risk of finally being exposed, if only to Patsy. I believe that's when he clubbed her with something, perhaps the flashlight. I'm not convinced the flashlight was the weapon though. If it was, why wouldn't he have gotten rid of it along with all the other evidence? I've never murdered anyone before but I would certainly think the murder weapon would be the first thing a murderer would want to dispose of. Why would he keep it around? I know they determined the flashlight was wiped down, inside and out. Perhaps he wiped it down because he had used it that night, going up and down from the basement so he didn't have to turn on any lights, and he knew his fingerprints were on it and the police would no doubt question him about when and why he had used it (one can only imagine what kind of cockamamie story he would have made up about that!)
ReplyDeleteAs for the garrotte, I believe he made the garrotte and put it on Jon Benet as part of his cover up, to make it look like she was killed by some horrible, sadistic pedophile. The garrotte was very loosely tied around her wrists. I believe she was already dead at that time, or at least unconscious, so there was no reason to bind her hands. And if she was already dead or unconscious, it would be easier for John to "strangle" her with the cord (the photos show that the twine around her neck WAS tight). Of course my theory only makes sense if she was killed by the blow to the head. The medical examiner's report is somewhat vague about which came first, the blow or the strangulation. Because I think this was a spontaneous killing, I believe she most likely was hit in the head first.
In sum, I believe he probably led her down to the basement to see the other presents that were down there (I don't think he would risk molesting her in her own bedroom), something happened, he snapped, he hit her with something (perhaps flashlight, but I think something else), then constructed the garrotte as another "prop" to stage a murder by an intruder.
We will probably never know for sure what happened, but after reading so much about this case, this is my theory of what happened that night.
Going with Doc's theory that the ultimate plan was to get JBR's body out of the house, is it possible that he was going to dump her body somewhere to be found? If her hands are tied, along with the garotte and RN it may have looked more like a kidnapping gone wrong. I just dont see any reason to tie up her hands otherwise. He could have played out the ransom theory for a few days and delivered the money to a location, but eventually JR wouldnt have been able to keep the kidnapping theory going. Imo, JR most likely would have dumped the body somewhere that would give him a day or so, but eventually be found.
ReplyDeleteOf course Im speculating and we will never know since PR made the 911 call.
-J
I have had my own theories over the years. One is that her body was inside of the suitcase as a disguisable way to get the body out of the house. I also wonder if the suitcase wound up being too heavy for the killer, who would've been exhausted at that point, and dropped the suitcase while trying to get it out of the window resulting in her cracked skull. A father or husband with a secret surprise at Christmas time, could easily explain if spotted, what he was doing. I tend to believe that the strangulation device is what actually killed her. If someone fashioned it to tighten around the neck the more that she struggled with her hands, it could easily be what killed her. A pervert would have seen this happening but was too intent on satisfying himself to care. Especially if he was intent on violating her before their big trip. Where he would then have no access to her as mentioned. The ligature marks around her neck look pretty deep. It could have been placed there for different reasons. One - to keep her restrained. And 2 - maybe part of a sexual fettish. The pervert could have told her, let's play this little game. It won't hurt if you behave like a good little girl. The evidence all points to the killer being her father. He sweet talked her with the pineapple to start off with and then most likely lured her with the promise of a special present downstairs. He prob had no intention on killing her. Just a sick desire to fulfill his own needs, which got out of control. I am fascinated by the way you were able to put the facts together and not be blinded by the fog of all of the monstrosity of this case. It is so easy to be blindsided by all of the different "focuses" by outside parties. Especially the law enforcement OR lack thereof !
ReplyDeleteI have just learned of your book and am anxious to read it.
DeleteI have just learned of your book and am anxious to read it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMaybe ...... If her body WAS in the suitcase, JR already had it in the trunk of his car. But after moved it back in via the basement window. That might explain why there were shards of glass on it. He would've already cleaned up the glass on the floor. But by dropping the suitcase back in the window, some shards could've fallen. He would've been outside of the house at this point.
ReplyDeleteI did read in one of the books that trace evidence suggested she was at some point inside of the suitcase.
DeleteI did read in one of the books that trace evidence suggested she was at some point inside of the suitcase.
DeleteMaybe ...... If her body WAS in the suitcase, JR already had it in the trunk of his car. But after moved it back in via the basement window. That might explain why there were shards of glass on it. He would've already cleaned up the glass on the floor. But by dropping the suitcase back in the window, some shards could've fallen. He would've been outside of the house at this point.
ReplyDelete