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

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

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

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Facts, Facts, Who's Got the Facts?

While for me, as I've so often stressed, it is "the facts" of any case that are of primary importance, I have sometimes been accused of selecting those facts that support my theory while ignoring all those facts that don't. In other words, it's been suggested that I too, like so many of those I've criticized, have indulged in "cherry picking." So maybe it's time for me to frankly address this accusation, to see whether it has any merit.

Before continuing, however, I must stress that my standard for identifying a fact is unusually strict. What one person may consider to be "a fact" may not at all be accepted as such by someone else. And particularly with respect to the Ramsey case, it's not difficult to find all sorts of things that have been accepted as "facts" by one faction, only to be strenuously denied by another. Simply insisting on the "factuality" of some bit of "evidence" and arguing over it endlessly is what so many followers of this case have been doing for years, with no meaningful result.

To get past this very real difficulty, I decided at some point to accept as a fact only that which is known for certain to be beyond any doubt and on which all parties agree. The facts on which I've based my theory of this case are therefore what I've called, with good reason, "incontrovertible." Patsy Ramsey is the one who made the 911 call. No one denies that. It's an incontrovertible fact. The "ransom note" was written on paper from a notepad found in the Ramsey home. Again, that's something no one has ever denied.

Based on such facts, plus straightforward logical inferences easily drawn from these facts, I claim to have solved this case. But have I really considered all the relevant facts? Are there one or more facts I haven't considered that might point in a different direction?

For example, what about the decision, made by 6 very experienced and highly regarded document examiners, that John Ramsey could not have written the ransom note? For many years, only a very few people questioned that decision, though I wasn't the only one -- Italian document examiner Fausto Brugnatelli also questioned it, as did a few others, as I recall. Just about everyone else seems to have accepted it. Does that make it a fact? In my humble opinion, no. Because there is a huge difference between an opinion, no matter how authoritative, and a fact. It did not take a panel of experts to determine that Patsy made the 911 call. We have a recording of the call and indeed Patsy's voice is what we hear. The upper edges of the ransom note were found to match perfectly with corresponding edges on the Ramsey notepad. While this was indeed determined by a forensics expert, his conclusion was not a matter of opinion. Using a magnifying glass (or perhaps a microscope) he discovered, very simply, that the edges matched. The decision to rule John out was not that sort of decision. There is nothing in the ransom note that could possibly tell us with any degree of certainty that John could not have written it. That's simply an opinion, very different from a fact.

Well, what about Patsy wearing the same outfit as the night before? Isn't that a fact? Well, yes, of course, that's what's been reported and there's no good reason to doubt it. However, it's not a relevant fact, because it tells us nothing at all regarding any significant aspect of the case. While many see it as evidence that she was up all night staging a sexual assault and writing a phony note, it can equally well be seen as evidence of her innocence -- because if she'd been up all night it's hard to understand why she would not have showered and changed before calling in the police. Lots of other "facts" have been similarly interpreted as having more significance than they actually have. Yes, it's a fact that fibers from Patsy's sweater were found entwined in the knotting of the device that strangled her daughter. But the presence of those fibers can easily be explained as indirect transfer, since Patsy was in close contact with her daughter prior to the assault. So yes, it's a fact, but its meaning is inconclusive.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Nevertheless, it's possible there is something I've missed, some incontrovertible fact I've failed to consider that is relevant, and is conclusive, that points away from John Ramsey and toward someone else. If that's the case, then I may have to rethink my position or even change my mind completely. So, please, if anyone out there can think of anything important that I've missed, any potentially meaningful fact I've "conveniently" ignored, please by all means post it below.

156 comments:

  1. Having been over and over and over the case for years I can think of no actual fact that you've missed.

    You mention a few problems that I think are key to preventing people from really being able to figure out the solution to this mystery. One is that cognitive bias tends to make people treat facts that are inconclusive as though they were conclusive. The fibers are a good example. Put the red fibers aside, JR's black Israeli shirt fibers are not conclusive because though they are in fact found "INSIDE" the panties, the truth is we have no idea at all how they got there or why they got there. Likewise the red fibers are inconclusive because they could be there from primary transfer, but then again they could also be there from secondary transfer. Those who've made up their minds that PR is in on the crime to some extent, tend to take several examples of inconclusive evidence as corroborating their preconceptions. Unfortunately it's not possible to pile up inconclusive evidence until it becomes conclusive.

    The relevant facts are few. I think most people are unwilling to solve the crime based on a small number of facts. They want as much data as possible, which is understandable, but the desire for data trumps the evaluation of the data . More is better and never mind the quality. Many things simply are not facts at all, and even some of the facts (such as what PR was wearing) are not relevant because one can interpret them, reasonably, in more than one way. So, if one spends time on the various JBR boards (I no longer do) then one has to put up with people talking about "the scream" which isn't a fact, and even if it were, we don't know what elicited the scream or what, if any, response the killer made. Or we have to read people's theories on how the 911 call during the party a few days before the murder played into things when in fact we really don't know why the 911 call was made, who made it, and whether or not it had anything at all to do with the murder. Worse yet we have to read silly theories such as JAR flew to Atlanta that night, then got several people to agree to supply him a phoney alibi in a murder case. (actually a few separate alibis for different times of day/evening) On and on the silliness goes because people are not content to limit their analysis to the handful of relevant facts. Much of what passes for discussion on the forums is an exercise in cognitive bias.

    I was lost in the morass until I came across your theory. I'm not nearly clever enough to have figured it out, but at least I can see the solution when it's presented.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  2. DocG wrote:

    "Yes, it's a fact that fibers from Patsy's sweater were found entwined in the knotting of the device that strangled her daughter. But the presence of those fibers can easily be explained as indirect transfer, since Patsy was in close contact with her daughter prior to the assault."

    and

    CH wrote:

    "JR's black Israeli shirt fibers are not conclusive because though they are in fact found "INSIDE" the panties, the truth is we have no idea at all how they got there or why they got there. Likewise the red fibers are inconclusive because they could be there from primary transfer, but then again they could also be there from secondary transfer."

    And herein lies the problem for some Armchair Detectives. There are just so many "but"s... and "but then again"s... regarding the facts of this case. It can be a dizzying thought process.

    However, whats even more important is THIS fact -

    Its very good to see ya back here, Doc. As ya already know, I was beginning to worry...!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with MeanDonnaJean . . . good to see you back Doc!

    I love being the Devil's Advocate and you've challenged me now to find some "fact" that might poke a little hole in your theory, or at least rustle up a discussion. So far, this is all I've come up with.

    Fact: JR discovered Jon Benet's body. Why would he do this if he had killed her? Some say it's because he knew if he picked her up it would explain any incriminating evidence he might have left on her, e.g. fibers from his clothing. But those could just as easily be explained by his carrying her to bed earlier that night when they returned from their evening out, just as fibers from Patsy's clothing can be explained from her earlier contact with Jon Benet. If he actually did this crime and was trying to make it look like a kidnapping, why would he suddenly decide to "discover" her body only to blow the "kidnapping" out of the water? Of course we all know that SOMEONE would eventually find the body, even if he didn't, and the same conclusion would be made -- that there was no kidnapping. But if JR was guilty, you'd think he would hold on to the kidnapping story as long as possible, in the slim hope that everyone might eventually leave the house and he could then remove the body (maybe sneak out that night). I know it's a stretch to think that he might still hope to do that after Patsy called 911, but wouldn't it be worth it for him to take that chance rather than finding her body and completely destroying the kidnapping theory? Also, I think it would be difficult for him to return to the place where he put her body, only to be reminded of what he did. He would have to know that by doing that the police would then suspect an inside job. Why would he risk that if there was ANY chance at all of continuing with the kidnapping theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, good. It IS an agreed upon fact that John is the one who discovered the body in the windowless room, so your point is well taken. So why would he have decided to do that if he's the one who put her there? Unfortunately we have no choice but to speculate regarding the meaning of this particular fact, because, as I see it at least, there is no clear logical inference to be drawn. He may have chosen to discover the body simply because he knew that if he didn't look in that room someone would, sooner or later, and the body was sure to be found at that point. So maybe he thought that if he found it that would make him look less suspicious.

      However, it IS possible to speculate regarding certain other possibilities that are more interesting. You say he wouldn't have needed to worry about his fibers being on her body since he was the one who carried her into the house the previous evening. However, he was not wearing the same clothing the following morning, was he? And it was already around 1 PM when the body was discovered. And don't forget that John went missing for over an hour prior to that point in time. It's certainly possible that he could have revisited that basement room during that time, to check some things and maybe rearrange some things, or even to place the duct tape over her mouth or tie her hands. And if so, then fibers from the shirt he put on that morning might be found on the body -- and how would that look? By finding the body himself he made sure he was the one who carried it upstairs, which would provide an innocent explanation for THOSE fibers to be found on her.

      Another possibility, which occurred to me some time ago, is that John may well have hidden the body carefully under some blankets in the darkest corner of the room. After all, Fleet White claimed to have opened that door earlier, and noticed nothing unusual. If the body had been discovered hidden so carefully away, that would definitely have looked suspicious, since there would have been no reason for an intruder to have taken the trouble to do that. So John might have felt it important for him to discover the body so he could quickly move it from the dark corner to the front of the room, near the door. He claimed the body was right in front of him when he found it.

      Delete
    2. Doc said:

      "So maybe he thought that if he found it that would make him look less suspicious."

      I would say the same thing about Patsy making the 911 call. I've never been convinced that she wouldn't make that call if she knew the body was still in the house. Wouldn't making that call also make her look less suspicious? Frankly, if either Patsy OR John murdered Jon Benet, I don't think either one of them would want to remove the body, for various reasons, the most obvious being the risk of being seen, but also because killing your daughter (either in a fit of rage or to silence her) is one thing; dumping her body in some remote area, is another. You would have to assume that whoever killed her would have no remorse whatsoever and would not care in the least if she was laying out in the woods somewhere or in a dumpster. I don't believe that either of the parents would be capable of that, even if they had killed her. So, if either of them HAD killed her, I think they would rather someone else find her. That's why she was wrapped in the blanket, imo. If one of them had actually intended on removing her body, why not hide it better, like in a box or garbage bag?

      Since JR DID find her, we all assume he put her there, hidden and wrapped in that blanket. If he had killed her, certainly he's smart enough to know that he would run the risk of being a suspect if he was the one who found her, which is exactly what Detective Arndt felt. She said the moment she saw him carrying Jon Benet up those stairs, she knew who had killed her.

      No, I still think if John HAD committed this crime, he would stay in the background as much as possible and not draw any more attention to himself than necessary. And if he HAD written the RN knowing the body was still in the house, he was probably hoping the police would think it was a kidnapping gone wrong once the body was discovered. No forced entry?? How easy would it be for someone to overlook an unlocked door, especially with all those people wandering around the house? And if JR was guilty and wanted police to think it was a kidnapping gone wrong by an intruder, why wouldn't he have just said there WAS a door left unlocked?? He was adamant that all doors were locked.

      So, finding the body himself doesn't make sense to me if he had killed her.

      Delete
    3. OK, one thing at a time. First, what's important to remember is the combination of ransom note AND body in the house. If Patsy was planning to call the police first thing in the morning, because it would make her look less suspicious, then there would have been no reason for her to write a note at all. Once the police arrive, the note no longer has any function as staging, because as soon as the body is found it's clear there was no kidnapping. Which then makes that note look very suspicious indeed.

      And sorry, but I find it very difficult to see how the note would function as evidence of a kidnapping gone wrong, because if the kidnapping had gone wrong, the kidnapper would have taken his note with him, not left it where the police were sure to eventually get hold of it. And his hand written note could be used to identify him, so why even bother to write one when all he'd have needed to do was make a phone call?

      Also we have to consider the incredible risk of Patsy leaving a note written in her own hand, a note that could be used as evidence against her. Patsy was not a professional forger. How could she have been sure the authorities would not have matched the note to her handwriting?

      Finally, we have to consider the contents of the note. It's long, in part, because it includes very detailed instructions for raising the ransom and also several very scary threats about what would happen if the police were called. The contents would have provided the Ramseys with the perfect excuse NOT to call the police until they'd been able to get the body out of the house. Why bother to write such a note unless buying time to get rid of the body was part of the plan?

      It's easy to make assumptions based on how things eventually turned out, which is that John ultimately got off. However, it's important to remember that he was in fact the number one suspect at the start and it's ONLY the decision to rule him out as writer of the note that saved him. If it hadn't been for that decision there would have been a strong circumstantial case against him, especially since there was evidence of prior sexual molestation. That note combined with the fact that there was no kidnapping, was what made the "kidnapping" look staged, so if John had not been ruled out, it certainly would have looked as though he were the one who staged it.

      (continued in following comment)

      Delete
    4. "killing your daughter (either in a fit of rage or to silence her) is one thing; dumping her body in some remote area, is another. You would have to assume that whoever killed her would have no remorse whatsoever and would not care in the least if she was laying out in the woods somewhere or in a dumpster."

      The worst thing you can do to somebody is kill them. After that I really don't think the killer would care too much what happened to the body. Don't be fooled by that "proper burial" line, that's just one more misdirection. Think, for example, of the lady who drove her car, with her two sweet little boys, into a lake, drowning them, and leaving them there to rot. What sort of parent would do that, you ask? I don't know, but parents who murder their children don't seem to care much about what happens to their bodies afterward.

      "If one of them had actually intended on removing her body, why not hide it better, like in a box or garbage bag?"

      It was hidden pretty carefully away, in the most remote spot in the house. And imo most likely hidden in a dark corner of that room, which is probably why White never saw it. The blanket was handy, so he used it. A garbage bag would probably have been too small and maybe no box of the right size was handy.

      "If he had killed her, certainly he's smart enough to know that he would run the risk of being a suspect if he was the one who found her, which is exactly what Detective Arndt felt. She said the moment she saw him carrying Jon Benet up those stairs, she knew who had killed her."

      According to Arndt, it wasn't John's finding the body, but the look he gave her afterward, after asking her if JonBenet were dead, which caused her to check her weapon and wonder how many bullets she might need to defend herself. Finding the body can cut both ways. Sure, the person who finds it is often regarded as a suspect, but there has to be a reason for that, no? The guilty party is going to be under a lot of pressure, so he might want to find the body to remove some of the pressure. And don't forget, John didn't find it on his own. He was told by Arndt to look through the entire house systematically, so it really wasn't up to him. If he looked systematically he'd have found the body sooner or later, and if he never found it after such a search then THAT would have been suspicious.

      "No, I still think if John HAD committed this crime, he would stay in the background as much as possible and not draw any more attention to himself than necessary."

      That's exactly what he did. But Arndt specifically told him to search the house, so he had no choice at that point.

      (more in a bit)

      Delete
    5. "No forced entry?? How easy would it be for someone to overlook an unlocked door, especially with all those people wandering around the house? And if JR was guilty and wanted police to think it was a kidnapping gone wrong by an intruder, why wouldn't he have just said there WAS a door left unlocked??"

      Excellent question!

      Because he'd already prepared the basement window as an entry/exit point, and wanted to direct the attention of the police to that window because in his mind his staging at the window would have been proof positive that an intruder had broken in. While an unlocked door might or might not mean something.

      It seems clear to me that the window staging was incomplete, but John might have assumed he'd done enough by breaking the glass and strewing packing peanuts from the well onto the floor. Looks to me like something the police found or said a bit later on must have made him realize they weren't going to buy that window as the entry point, which is why he was then forced to unstage by claiming he'd broken in months earlier.

      Some time afterward, Lou Smit focused on that window and tried to convince a television audience that this could in fact have been the entry point, and John of course then went along with it. And just to be sure, he then went back on his earlier report and claimed he couldn't be sure if all the doors had been locked or not -- conveniently forgetting that the police also checked and found every one locked.

      Delete
  4. "OK, good. It IS an agreed upon fact that John is the one who discovered the body in the windowless room, so your point is well taken. So why would he have decided to do that if he's the one who put her there? Unfortunately we have no choice but to speculate regarding the meaning of this particular fact, because, as I see it at least, there is no clear logical inference to be drawn. "

    No, there is no clear logical inference to be drawn from the act of JR "finding" the body. There are, I think, some logical inferences to be made regarding what JR's overall plan was or wasn't likely to include.

    JR could not have known that the searching of the house would be done with minimal competence. The police didn't bother to open the door the the wine cellar (windowless room) which is somewhat understandable as they were seeking evidence of an intruder-kidnapper. But if the police, who generally carry flashlights, had opened that door then the body would have been discovered, by the police, at say about 6:10am.

    Then of course if the K9 unit (which was on standby) had been called, the dog(s) would have made a bee line to the body and again it would have been found early on, by the police.

    If FW had a flashlight with him he may well have discovered the body, even if it was further back and under a blanket.

    So, I would infer that keeping the body hidden for several hours after the 911 call was probably not part of JR's plan. It worked out that way, but it really shouldn't have worked out that way, nor is it at all reasonable to imagine JR planned it that way. If JR was able to think about the likely actions of the police and friends, he'd have had to conclude that the body would be found shortly after the 911 call was made.

    IMO we can dismiss all scenarios in which JR planned to dispose of the body after the police arrived. Once the 911 call was made, the body was going to be found, and the kidnapping scenario would be destroyed, except to portray it as a "kidnapping gone wrong" - which no one who is RDI believes. So we sometimes get RDI's suggesting a plan which only an IDI adherent could believe is plausible.

    Given that a plan to dispose of the body after the 911 call was made is implausible, we can infer that PR wasn't in on the plan, otherwise she'd never have placed the call.

    And because there is always some confusion on this point, let me state that there was no need for anyone to make a 911 call at any particular time. They did have to call off the flight to MI, but they didn't have to make a 911 call in conjunction with that.

    So, I would infer that whatever the reason was for JR "finding" the body shortly after 1pm, it clearly wasn't part of a plan that had been hatched prior to the 911 call. It was an ad hoc action, the reason for which we can only speculate on.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To go a bit further, with essentially speculative inference (I'll let the logicians argue about the details of speculative inference) -

      I infer that if the early morning 911 call had been part of the plan, then it had to be assumed the body would be found in short order. That means the body would have had to be in it's final "presentation" stage (e.g. staged as he wished it to be found) when the 911 call was made, knowing that someone, likely the police, would find it in short order.

      In turn, this means there would have been no need for subsequent tampering or moving. (Of course it is pure speculation that JR may have moved or tampered with the body during his missing hour. All we know is Det. LA lost track of his whereabouts. We don't know that JR had gone to the basement to mess with t he body. However we can infer that there would be no need for this, if his original plan included calling 911 shortly before 6 am, because we've made the reasonable inference that such a plan had to assume quick discovery of the body and so the body must have been staged as he wished it to be found prior to the 911 call).
      All in all, I think a better inference is that the 911 call was not part of the plan, and that means PR was not in on the plan.

      CH




      Delete
    2. On the assumption that John acted alone, we might be able to construct his intention with the note and the timing of the 911 call. John probably felt he could convince Patsy not to make the call until after 10am, the end of the window for the "kidnapper" to call. While waiting for this call that would never occur, John could, under the pretense of collecting the ransom money, dispose of JonBenet's body.

      Delete
    3. It would have been extremely risky for John to dispose of the body in the light of day. And the note clearly says that the call was to come "tomorrow." While many people have assumed the call was to come that morning, there was no way John could have collected the money from the bank before it opened. Nor would there have been time for him to be "rested."

      By having his kidnapper call the following day, John gave himself plenty of time to collect all the evidence for disposal along with the body, which would have been dumped the following night, under cover of darkness. If anyone had spotted his car he could easily have claimed he was delivering the ransom.

      Delete
  5. Doc, is it even considered an opinion or fact that there was a break in? I mean its a fact the Holocaust happened and yet some peoples "opinions" are that it didnt take place. So, all the evidence in the case points to the fact that no break in occurred, but does it mean its a fact? I 100% believe the crime was committed by one of the 3 living Ramsey members who were in the house that night and that is why in order for me to draw that conclusion, it HAS to be a fact that no break in occurred. Once that is determined as a FACT, then we can take the list of hundreds of potential suspects and dwindle it down to just 3. There isnt anything FACTUAL to eliminate PR as a suspect, but between her believable 911 call, along with her being the one who was on the 911 call, we can all but eliminate her.
    In the end isnt the challenge for somebody to not provide just reasonable doubt, but actually try and prove that JR ISNT the one who committed the crime.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it is not a prima facie fact that there was no intruder. And certainly that's not something everyone agrees on, so it doesn't meet my standard for what I regard as a "fact." It is, instead, a logical inference, based on facts. That's true of the Holocaust as well. It's important to distinguish between a prima facie fact and a logical inference, but if the logic is truly sound than that inference can be regarded as equivalent to a fact.

      While we can easily infer that John must be the one who wrote the note and therefore is almost certain to be the murderer, his lawyers, if he's ever put on trial, will certainly be in a position to argue for reasonable doubt. Legally there would be no need for them to prove his innocence. Burden of proof is on the prosecution only. While I do happen to believe I've proven that John is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, there may be factors of which I am unaware that could be invoked in his favor. As I've always said, my goal is not to pin John to the wall, but to let him have his day in court.

      Delete
  6. Im confused on this comment: "That's true of the Holocaust as well"

    Im going to preface this by saying I am in 100% agreement with you that JR committed the crime. What is confusing about the Fact vs. Fiction argument, is that just because you have a few people disagree with something it doesnt make it not a Fact. My point about the Holocaust is that there is no disputing that it happened, but there are still people who "disagree" or say that it didnt happen. Does it make it any less a fact? The JFK assasination has a million theories out there, but the most logical is that the shots were only fired from a rifle being held by Lee Harvery Oswald from the School Book Depository.
    In the Ramsey case, because of the evidence we have surrounding the basement window, cant one say that nobody entered via that window from the outside in? Whether or not its technically a "fact" would be impossible to say because only a few people could say whether or not it was or wasnt.
    Im talking in circles, but during any case, defense attorneys will make up different theories as to what took place, but that doesnt make those theories true. So just because people on this blog or elsewhere come up with PR did it, BR did it, or some mystery assailant did it, it doest make it true. Everything is speculation, but when the evidence and circumstances are all gathered, the logical answer is simply that JR did it.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between a fact as generally understood and a fact as I've defined it for my purposes in assessing the Ramsey case. I agree that the Holocaust is a fact, i.e., it's been established that the mass murder of Jews at the hands of the Nazis actually happened and that it involved millions of victims. But it would not be a fact according the special definition I've given that term for my purposes in this particular context, because by that definition it is a fact only if generally agreed upon, i.e., non-controversial. And since many people (wrongly) deny the Holocaust, then it is not non-controversial. Unfortunate, but true.

      I was getting very tired of all the heated debates concerning what constituted a fact and what didn't in the Ramsey case. And at some point I realized I could bypass such controversies by concentrating, at least initially, on facts that everyone agreed on. And I realized that simply by concentrating on those non-controversial facts I could get a clear handle on the essentials of the case and deduce the identity of the guilty party. And since everyone has agreed on the validity of those facts it was (and is) far more difficult for anyone to challenge my conclusions.

      But the very narrowly restricted definition that I hit on for this purpose is not the only definition of a fact. For example, I consider it a fact that no one passed through the basement window on the night of the crime. But others, such as Lou Smit, have contested that fact, so I decided not to regard it as a non-controversial fact in my analysis of the case. What IS a non-controversial fact is the fact that the police reported no sign of forced entry and also that the considerable buildup of dirt and grime on the window sill was clearly undisturbed. And also the presence of the undisturbed spider web just opposite the window. These facts have been documented by police reports and photographic evidence and could not possibly be denied. And on the basis of these facts it is possible to CONCLUDE that no one could have passed through the window that night. Since the facts are well established and the logic is crystal clear, that too can be regarded as a fact. But it is NOT self evident, as are the other facts I just cited.

      I realize this is a bit complicated if not confusing, but do I think the distinction I've drawn is meaningful.

      Delete
  7. After years of confusion, researching any possible intruder/employee/family friend responsible for this crime, reading Kolar's book and working the Burke angle, and still feeling like I had gotten nowhere meaningful or logical, I had a powerful moment of realization. I came to terms with why I did not believe "the parents" did it. I realized that I had so strongly refuted "the parents" as logical suspects, because I did not think, feel, believe or find evidence to place the blame on Patsy Ramsey. I realized that I had not been able to see Patsy or the evidence against Patsy as incriminating. I realized that I had not even thought of John. I realized that his personal reputation and image had been so protected and regarded as decent, honest, and truthful that I had not been given the opportunity to suspect him. Once I literally removed Patsy from the equation, the unknown, the unbelievably confusing, the outrageousness, the mysterious puzzle and the great illusion of mystique started to simply fall in place, piece by piece. It is a very pathetic, simple explanation. A dysfunctional, narcissistic family dynamic, shrouded in deception and secrecy, sweeping stuff under the rug to devote to the upkeep of the perfect family illusion of being successful and beautiful. Emotional abuse, mental abuse, gaslighting and an easily manipulated Patsy Ramsey, who was deeply rooted to the "submissive wife" mentality. She knew her place. She knew her role. She was the trophy wife to a much older man. A man who did not accompany his wife with stage IV cancer on flights for treatment. A man who was not warm and empathetic to his family's well being. A man nicknamed The Ice Man. A father who was indifferent to his children's bathroom habits and toilet training. A father who was unaware of age-appropriate behaviors. A father who allowed his young daughter to be left alone with a male babysitter. A father who allowed his male, adult friends to change his daughter's clothing. A father who allowed anyone to go in the bathroom when his young daughter yelled for help wiping. There are very clear boundary violations and an obvious failure to protect his daughter's privacy, and a failure to teach her how to use her words to demand her own privacy.

    A couple of things I want to know: The gift basket that was not delivered that night to the Fernies, what was in that basket? Fruit? A Pineapple?

    Why, when John was being questioned, did the detectives not press the issue when he told them, he clearly remembered getting JonBenet out of the car, because she was asleep and dead weight, so heavy that he struggled to get her out of the car and "almost dropped her."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we just follow the instructions to the ransom letter, we have John Ramsey (not Mrs Ramsey) listening very carefully. We have John Ramsey following the instructions to the letter. We have John Ramsey being introduced to a group of intruders. We have John Ramsey being introduced to the idea that his daughter is gone. We have John Ramsey walking out of the house in the early morning with an adequate size case. We have John Ramsey withdrawing his own, pale in comparison, $118,000 from his own bank account, without acting out of the ordinary, to not alert bank authorities. We have John Ramsey handling all calls, transactions, and communications. We have Patsy Ramsey simply waking up to perform her usual routine, coming down her staircase, coming in perfect contact with a letter to explain to her why her daughter is not where she left her. We have the submissive, do as instructed, wife who was expected to do as the letter instructed.

      The one thing John Ramsey forgot to consider is Patsy lived for her children, most JonBenet. She did not have a life of her own. Her life revolved around her children. She no more got through the first few sentences and lost her mind, the mind he had abused for so many years. She did not do as she was instructed. A narcissist would forget to calculate an emotional response.

      I now wonder and can only speculate that the odd demand of bringing an adequate size attaché from your house to the bank was John's Hail Mary at getting that body out of the house. I cannot rationalize any other reason for John walking out of that house "as instructed" with an adequate size case. It would have been his only option for inconspicuously carrying a body out of the house, without Patsy thinking a thing.

      SBTC ? If we apply John Ramsey's words to John Andrew, when John Andrew asked his father "What happened?" She's with Beth This Christmas.

      Delete
    2. "I realized that I had so strongly refuted "the parents" as logical suspects, because I did not think, feel, believe or find evidence to place the blame on Patsy Ramsey."

      You've characterized the situation quite well. Because of the way the case developed, primarily because John had been "ruled out," all eyes were on Patsy and John was seen, at best, as her defender and enabler. Since there was never any case to be made against Patsy, it was assumed by many that either "the Ramseys" must be innocent or that the prosecutors and police were incompetent, or even corrupt.

      I have no answers to the questions you pose at the end regarding the gift basket or John's report about carrying JonBenet out of the car. I've never thought much about those details, so can't help you.

      Delete
    3. "I now wonder and can only speculate that the odd demand of bringing an adequate size attaché from your house to the bank was John's Hail Mary at getting that body out of the house."

      Interesting thought. But an "attache" case would not be large enough, I don't think, to fit a body inside. Nor was the Samsonite suitcase found in the basement. But he could have used another, larger suitcase, for that purpose. However, my best guess is that his plan must have involved getting both Patsy and Burke out of the house, "for their own safety," before moving the body from the basement to the trunk of his car.

      Delete
    4. Just want to add that it's possible the body was already in the trunk, and he moved it into the windowless room only after the police were called.

      Delete
    5. Thank you. It was a clever maneuver by an aggressive law firm. Let's keep John looking like a gentle father. During that time, before post-partum depression was publically diagnosed and understood, women were literally driving their kids into water on the news stations. Lets ride this train and kick up enough dirt and chaos in every other direction, except John's. Slick! John's family lawyered up, too. Lets keep West Virginia Maw and Paw Paugh talking about their "sexy" beauty queen daughters and make everybody hate pretty Patsy even more. It worked.

      Delete
    6. It is possible. I would think that there would be a trace amount of fibers from the trunk on her body? I am not sure. They did do an enormous amount of fiber research and placed all of that evidence into their theory, though. I think it is also possible that he would have tried to convince Patsy to act normal for Burke, to both keep Patsy busy and acting somewhat normal and also, to keep zero information flowing out of that house. The note has very strict orders about speaking to no one, under any circumstances. If we just follow the instructions to the letter...it tells you exactly what somebody needed to do, step by step. Thanks for the response!

      -H

      Delete
    7. "It is possible. I would think that there would be a trace amount of fibers from the trunk on her body?"

      More likely the other way 'round. Fibers from her clothing in the trunk. However John could have wrapped her in plastic before placing her in the trunk, and then got rid of the plastic wrapper when he went AWOL later that morning.

      Delete
  8. Who opened the door to the windowless room where JBR was found? Was it JR as is commonly believed or FW? I feel FW opened the door, forcing JR to discover the body. I think his original intention was to have the body hidden continuously in the windowless room until they could secretly dispose of it suitably. But this failed when FW opened the door.
    I don't believe JR or PR committed the murder or were accessories to the murder. I do believe however that they were accessories to the cover up by assisting the perpetrator(s) who is known to them.
    I also believe JR stumbled upon the incident first along with BR, and probably knows more about it than PR who he subsequently informed and lured into the cover up.
    JRs actions appear to be business like - like disaster mitigation. He had switched into 'work/boss mode' to get through the ordeal and as such did not display emotion. I also think he instructed the ransom note to be written, and that it was written by PR. PR had at first started to write it when JR came along and ordered it rewritten while he dictated.
    I feel BR knows who the perp is. I don't believe BR is the perp but believe he could have observed incidents that resulted in JBRs death. It is also possible that he alerted his parents to what was happening to JBR as things got awry.
    I believe JAR was in the house that night as they were due to fly out the next day on Xmas holidays. I believe he left the house that night ahead of the staging.
    I feel that JAR was also responsible for past abuse to JBR. I feel he threatened her not to tell the parents about it and she hid it for a while but had ongoing gynac issues, hence the many visits to the Dr's. JBR appeared comfortable with both her parents so I doubt there was any abuse issues with either of them. Because she was threatened not to report to her parents is why she used to seek comfort with BR and in his bed. If she had gone to her parents bed they would have questioned her actions. BR probably knew what was happening with JBR and JAR whenever the opportunity presented.
    Probably on the last time, JBR threatened to tell the parents and JAR threatened her physically or got angry and it resulted in her death.
    BR knows who the perp is, as much as his parents do. Hence his question to her at the end of the 911 call.
    These are my views, based on what Ive read.
    It would be interesting to see how the lives of JAR and BR pan out - in terms of behaviours, addictions, violence, mental health, relationships and dysfunctionality ... ... ...





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JAR had an airtight alibi. He could not have been present in the house on the night of the murder. I see no reason to assume he was the one abusing JonBenet, given the fact that she was also attacked sexually the night of the murder, when JAR was not present and John was. Since there is no reason to assume an intruder was present, then the most likely abuser, John, is also the most likely to have killed her.

      Delete
  9. " I think his original intention was to have the body hidden continuously in the windowless room until they could secretly dispose of it suitably. But this failed when FW opened the door."

    This cannot be the case. Once the police are called in, the body is going to be found. There would be no opportunity to dispose of the body later.

    JR could not have counted on an incompetent police search, nor could he have counted on the police failing to bring in the K9 unit. A competent search, or dogs, would have turned up the body in short order.
    The fact that the police did an incompetent search and failed to bring in the dogs gives rise to the idea that JR planned to keep the body hidden and dispose of it later. But this idea depends on incompetence and failure to use available resources. How could JR have planned that?

    But even if the body had not been found, it's unlikely that the police wouldn't leave at least one detective or officer on the scene, just in case the kidnappers tried to make contact. It's also very likely the house would have been kept under surveillance.

    JR would have been able to anticipate these likely police actions so a plan to keep the body hidden and dispose of it later has an extremely low probability.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  10. The letter makes sense if you read it from the point of JAR being the perp and PR lured into the coverup takes some jibes/swipes at JR

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Anonymous person who posted about the adequate sized attache may have discovered something. Here is the exact line from the RN:

    You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.

    The thing that pops out to me is not only the adequate sized attache BUT also that the letter is more then specific about JR being the one to complete this task. JR had to have a way to get the body out of the house and he clearly wouldnt have been able to do it in the middle of the night to draw attention. So, the note provides him not only the opportunity to leave the house with JBR's body inside of an adequate sized attache but also to be alone like the note states. Why would a foreign faction care at all about the both JR and PR going to get the money? It wouldnt matter at all! If we can conclude that JR committed the crime and acted alone, then this just furthers that theory. Before JR had to worry about the authorities, he would have to fool his own wife. He set it up nicely, except he didnt anticipate PR reacting the way she did and dialing 911.
    "Adequate size Attache" just isnt a relevant thing to say UNLESS its intention was to provide JR the reasoning to bringing a large bag/suitcase/etc to dispose of the body!!!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am the anonymous person, who posted about the attaché case. I responded and lost my entire reply to you. Doh! I'll keep it short this time... Basically, after several years, for whatever reason that line stuck out for me. It blew my mind, and I can't look at this case or that note the same. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. That's the case for me, anyway. That letter was written TO Patsy Ramsey, which could explain why people thought she wrote it. It was engineered with nothing but Patsy on the brain. It was written just for Patsy in just a way to terrify Patsy just enough to get Patsy to comply to the instructions to the letter. Essentially, her instructions were to: sit still, shut up and let John Ramsey handle it. And by handle it, we mean, John is going to walk naturally out of the house this morning with a large enough attaché case. And you better not open your friendly mouth when I leave to go to the bank, either, because our kid could die. It also could explain the measly $118,000. It would be a lot less painful to withdraw $118,000 from your own bank account, knowing you are going to actually part ways with it.

      -H

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but I don't see the need for the attache case to remove the body. Much simpler to move it into the trunk of the car, where it may have been all along, before Patsy called 911, forcing John to move it back into the basement.

      Delete
    3. I understand! If John Ramsey wrote the ransom note, he personally placed the attaché case in the ransom note, for a reason. The adequate size attaché case is an interesting way of telling John Ramsey to bring a big case from his own home, out of his own home. It meant something to someone. Lou Smit found fibers consistent with that Samsonite case on Jonbenet's body. He, himself, wondered if someone tried to fit her in there. An adequate size attaché case is a part of this case. It was placed into the instructions to carry out the ransom delivery, by the ransom note writer. Also, if John Ramsey cleaned Jonbenet's body and is the person who wiped her body, maybe he was aware of bodily fluids? In his trunk?Or the smell of a dead body in his trunk? I do not know.

      -H

      Delete
    4. H, I am 100% in agreement with you on this. For sake of the argument, JBR is dead before the RN is even written. JR must have a way to get the body out of the house and that way was thru a suitcase/bag or "attache' " as the note says. The body may have already been wrapped and place inside the bag at the time that PR read the note. IF PR doesnt react the way that she does, then JR can safely take the body out of the house via that suitcase/bag and not be detected. But, unfortunately for him PR made that 911 call which must hav forced him to remove the body and place it in the most hidden room in the house. If the authorities show up and find her body inside that bag, then he is completely screwed.
      I really do love what you said about that note being written TO PATSY, because PR was JR's first hurdle before anything else could take place. JR from what we know isnt some criminal mastermind, but the one person he does know well is Patsy. He knows how she thinks and operates, so the wording in the RN is very specific to fool PR. He simply never accounted for the love a mother has for her child and the lengths that they will go to.

      -J

      Delete
    5. J- Thank you! I had this thought in October. I wasn't sure if I was having a rational thought or if it was silly, so I've sat on it for a few months and thought about it. I've read that ransom note so many times, for many years. It just affected me. The fact that the note was placed on Patsy's stairs, of all places, in a 7,200 sqft. tudor home, also pretty much gives Patsy a big, red STOP sign at that point in the house. If a mother wakes up, unassumingly, and goes about her morning schedule, eventually, waking the kids is up on the list. If a mother, unassumingly, sees that her daughter isn't in her own bed, an innocent checklist of places and an innocent calling out to dad and brother begins. Burke's room? Nope, not in here. Bathroom? Nope. Downstairs? Kitchen? Huh...John, have you seen Jonbenet this morning? Burke, where's your sister? Maybe, a few minutes, tops, and Patsy would have had everybody out of bed, searching high and low and yelling in that house and yard and neighbor's yards for Jonbenet. There would have been an actual search for a missing Jonbenet, which would eventually result in a frantic phone call to the police for a missing Jonbenet. Somebody did not want a search of the house. Somebody did not want a single soul notified of a missing Jonbenet, not even a stray dog! Somebody simply wanted silence from that house, act naturally, like nothing happened, while ONLY JR handles it. Somebody was even so kind and so helpful to be such a good buddy to remind JR to be sure to bring an adequate size case, now! Don't be silly and forget, now! Be sure it's big enough, old friend! We wouldn't want the bank to have to go through the trouble of actually doing what it's supposed to do, by putting your money in your own money bags, now, would we, if you are a silly nilly and forget that adequate size attaché case! These are really sweet, helpful and thoughtful intruders.

      The small amount of $118,000 makes sense, now, too. What kind of a person would write a large dollar amount, when they are having to withdraw it from their own account? It would sting a little too much to take 1 million of your own dollars out, only to have to "get rid" of it. A small amount is a great way to have a record of withdrawing the money, just like the kidnappers told you to, and a small amount of your own money is not going to sting as bad, when you burn it in a brown, paper sack...or any other way you can think of to make it disappear. Parting ways with your own money is always tough. The thought of keeping it as low as possible, is a good money management behavior, when it's your own money.

      -H

      Delete
    6. I don't think John would've just put JonBenet's body in the trunk without it being inside a suitcase. He was too careful and intelligent for that. This is a man who covers his bases. What are the chances of him getting pulled over by a cop and having his trunk searched? Very slim. But why not be prepared for anything if you can prevent it? John was meticulous. My guess is, she was put in the suitcase and then into the trunk. PR made the 911 call and then JR moved her into the wine cellar.

      Delete
  12. JR in no way could get caught with a body in his trunk. He would need a bag. The moment JB would be conceiled in truck of car would be the moment JR looks the most guilty. In the windowless room JB IS FAR FROM HIM,REMOVED. Perpetrators distance themselves. Since alot was up for chance the trunk would be too risky. alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, folks, here are pictures of lots and lots of attache cases, courtesy of Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=attache+case&client=firefox-beta&hs=6p&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=58c9U_2_EqfOsATJ7oDQAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1440&bih=781

      I can't imagine JonBenet's body being stuffed into any of them, they're just too small and too narrow. I think the "attache" in the note was put there simply because John thought it was the kind of thing a kidnapper would say. Which doesn't mean necessarily that John wasn't planning on placing the body in something larger. I agree that, if he needed to fool Patsy, something like that might have worked. But, as I've said, I think the plan required his getting Patsy and Burke out of the house altogether. That way he'd have been in complete control of the situation.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Doc on the attache case. You have to remember that if it was, indeed, John's plan to remove the body when everyone was out of the house, he could very easily have done it without anyone seeing him because, if I understand the house layout correctly, there is a totally indoor route from the basement to the garage where his car was. No need to put the body in anything, other than wrapping it in a blanket so he didn't have to see her face, which they say killers who are related to their victims have a hard time doing. And as far as taking the body out of the trunk to dispose of it, he would have made sure he did that in the most remote places where he would not have been spotted, or even at night.

      There are many puzzling statements in the ransom note that we will probably never have an explanation for, short of a complete confession by the killer. Even then, I doubt he would reveal his reasons. Frankly, I think he thought the note would actually be more convincing to police if there were very detailed instructions given. Similar to lying, some people think the bigger, more elaborate lie, with lots of details, the more likely it will be believed. But that is actually not true, and many investigators agree that the length of that note points to staging, if for no other reason than a kidnapper would never take the time to write such a verbose note.

      Having said that, I do think there are a few things in the note that do seem to have real purpose and Doc has pointed many of those out. The one thing that jumped out at me (and I brought this up once before in a previous post) was this line:

      "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested." Perhaps this was the John's cover to allow a prolonged time to get rid of the body. That way, if he was ever questioned about how long he was gone when "delivering the money", or why he was spotted driving around in some remote place, or why there was some type of debris on his tires, or why Patsy wouldn't have been able to get hold of him for hours, he could explain that he was taken on a wild goose chase by the kidnappers, just as they suggested in the note. He knew he would need ample time to get rid of the body, all the evidence and clean up the car.

      Delete
    3. The word attaché is James Bond"ish" in a cheesy, over the top way; much like the rest of the ransom note. Ever seen the old James Bond game, which came with an "attaché case?" The fact is, there is forensic evidence linking contents from inside the Samsonite case, fibers from the sham and duvet, to JonBenet's clothing. There is no forensic evidence, which I am aware of, linking JonBenet to JR's trunk or vehicle. I cannot find a logical reason to completely disregard or dismiss the Samsonite case. I also cannot find a documented reason to introduce JR's trunk. If anyone can point me to some reading material, which links his vehicle or trunk or any vehicle or trunk to the body, I would love to read through it. Thanks!

      Also, unfortunately, if you google bodies being stuffed in suitcases, you can see for yourself how it's done.
      -H

      Delete
    4. If they found evidence linking the trunk of John's car to the body, his goose would have been cooked then and there. And it's possible he hadn't yet placed the body in the trunk, though that certainly would have been his plan when it came time to dump the body.

      It's just that it's occurred to me that he might have placed it in the trunk initially and then moved it back into the basement after the police were called. If that's what he had done he would certainly have made sure to cover the body with something that would insulate it from the trunk, perhaps a couple of garbage bags. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it IS possible, I would think.

      As far as it's being placed in that suitcase -- well, first of all I seriously doubt he'd have been able to stuff the body into that hard case, but I could be wrong. More important I don't see any reason for him to even try doing that. The ransom note called for an "attache" case, NOT a much larger Samsonite suitcase. If Patsy saw him carrying that suitcase with him into the car, she would certainly have wondered why he needed something of that size to carry a little over $100,000 in cash. And it would certainly have weighed a lot with JonBenet's body in it, so John would have been lugging it, which would certainly also have looked suspicious.

      As for the evidence linking the body to the inside of the suitcase it's possible that the duvet and/or blanket played some role in the crime and that John decided to stuff it into the suitcase afterward in the hope it wouldn't be noticed.

      Delete
    5. Respectfully, I doubt that JBR's body was ever placed in the trunk of a car.

      IIRC, John had a Jeep, a Cherokee model, I think. That would have a large open cargo space in the back, which is too open to view to place a body in, and a much smaller cargo area under the floor, which would be too small for the purpose.

      JR would have had to put the body in the Jaguar, but then he'd have had to prevent PR from using the Jag. He'd also have to make up a reason why he needed the Jag to carry out the RN instructions.

      More importantly, once PR is awake and making a 911 call, it's far too risky to move the body from the car back to the basement. What if Patsy saw him? No way to explain it. We'd probably be looking at a double murder.

      IMO JR put the body in the WC to conceal it from view long enough to get BR/PR out of the house. Then, he'd carry the body to one of the cars, follow the instructions in the RN, and in doing so drive around until he could find a place to dump the body.

      It's possible that the Samsonite was initially considered, and maybe even tested, as the container for the body. That would explain some of the links between the body and suitcase. It's just as likely that it's nothing but coincidence and means nothing at all to the solution to the murder mystery. No real way to tell, so no reason to spend much time on it. One thing we no for sure, the body wasn't "found" in the Samsonite.

      It should be clear to all that a Samsonite isn't an attache, nor even a reasonable substitute for an attache. He'd have looked damn silly walking into the bank with the Samsonite.

      a properly sized attache is a meaningless term, indicating that whoever wrote the RN had no idea how much space was required for $100K in cash. The stacks of money would have fit in the kind of bag people use for lunch, or for carrying liquor bottles. Anything sold as an attache or brief case would have been plenty big enough for the money. It's difficult to see why anyone would make a connection between the word attache and the Samsonite.

      Delete
    6. Interesting. I hadn't thought about the Jeep. But he could certainly have used the Jaguar. Looks to me like his plan was to have a friend come over, show that person the note (so he/she could witness its contents before he destroyed it), and then have that person drive off with Patsy and Burke, "for their own safety," leaving John alone to deal with the "kidnappers" as they had requested.

      Whether John would have stored the body in the trunk of the Jaguar and later moved it, or simply hid it in the basement room from the start, I can't say. But I do see it as a possibility. Especially because Fleet White looked in that room early on and noticed nothing unusual.

      Delete
    7. John could have moved the body later that morning, when Det. Arndt was with all the others in an upstairs room, and lost track of him for over an hour.

      Delete
    8. He could have moved the body during his "missing" hour, but it would be extremely risky to move a body with a cop in the house. Not only might he be seen, but an armed officer would then take him into custody. Plus there were others in the house at the time who might see him moving the body from the garage to the basement. I suspect he put the body in the WC to begin with. Even carrying it upstairs before the 911 call would have been quite risky.

      Delete
    9. Every single thing John did the previous night and much of the following morning would have been risky. But if the body HAD in fact already been placed in the trunk, leaving it there after the police had been called would have been far riskier than moving it.

      Delete
    10. The whole ransom note is damn silly. The words "attache case" would have been completely suitable and to the point. An attache case is normally thin. The definition of an attache case is "a small thin suitcase used especially for carrying business papers." The fact that the ransom note writer even cared to introduce the demand of bringing the attache case with John, out of John's home is odd. The more important fact is that they deliberately cared even more to stress the size is telling and informative to the reader. An adequate size attache case? This meant, to the ransom note writer, that there was more than one size attache case. If the emphasis is on being sure to bring one an ADEQUATE sized attache case, size is a specific requirement, to the ransom note writer.

      Samsonite's products range from large suitcases to briefcases. Samsonite case and attache case are synonymous.

      -H



      Delete
    11. "Every single thing John did the previous night and much of the following morning would have been risky. But if the body HAD in fact already been placed in the trunk, leaving it there after the police had been called would have been far riskier than moving it. "

      That's true, and neither of us can prove JR did or did not move the body from the car to the basement after the police arrived. He would indeed have been in the soup if the cops (or dogs) had searched the trunk of the car. The risk might have been worth it.

      It just seems to me that carrying the body up and putting it in the Jag would have been an unnecessary risk, at a time when he still was not expecting a 911 call. He couldn't very well let PR, or BR if he was up, see him coming up the basement stairs with the body (prior to the 911 call) nor could he let PR take the Jag anywhere.

      The WC seems to me the most logical place to hide the body until the rest of the plan could be completed. It would have the lowest risk, and even if PR or BR found the body in the WC (again, prior to a 911 call) it might still be possible to cast the situation as a kidnapping gone wrong.

      It's impossible to say what JR was/was not thinking or how well he had considered every possibility. But the WC does seem to be the place to put the body to minimize the risks that he necessarily had to take.

      JMO.

      Delete
  13. Doc, arent all banks closed on Christmas Day, so how exactly would JR have been able to leave the house? OR was his intention to have the RN stall PR from calling the authorites so that the day after the holiday he could do what he had to?

    Found another extremely interesting line in the RN:

    If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a [sic] earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter.

    This would allow JR to leave the house earlier because PR would be so desperate to get her back. At that time he could dispose of the body

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, first of all we're talking about the day after Christmas. However, the banks are not open at 8AM, so John would not have been able to collect the ransom before the "kidnapper's" call unless the call was to come between 8 and 10 the following day. And as a matter of fact, that's what the note says, that the call will come "tomorrow." Which would have given John over 24 hours to do everything he needed to do.

      And yes, the early "monitoring" would have given him lots of flexibility as far as the timing were concerned. However, I don't think he'd have tried to dump the body during the daylight hours, more likely after dark the following night.

      Delete
  14. JB had seen JAR walk down the pathway to the Rs residence on 24 Dec. He later changed his story. JAR and his mother were provided lawyers by JR. JAR had a room at the Rs house. The duvet in the suitcase had JARs sperm on.
    All BR didn't know was how the body was disposed of. It reflects in his question 'where did they find her'.
    It is however possible that JR or PR stumbled upon JAR in a sexual related activity with JBR (autoerotic asphyxiation) that had gone horribly wrong and she couldn't be revived, prompting JR to head bash her, to save JAR and make the death look like an intruder was responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who is "JAR?" I've never heard this before, especially the part of JAR's sperm on a duvet in the suitcase. I actually heard there was nothing found in the suitcase. Also, I believe it is only a theory that BR is heard in the background of the 911 call saying "where did they find her." I don't believe it was ever determined as a FACT that BR was heard saying anything.

    Doc, could you enlighten us here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, I find it absolutely absurd that if JR or PR stumbled upon anyone who had just had a sexual encounter with their daughter and it had ended in her being unconscious and they couldn't revive her, that JR would then bash his daughter's head in to protect the person(s) who just violated his daughter.

      Sorry . . . this sounds like a script for a bad horror film.

      Delete
  16. His options are - a dead daughter and a free son (JAR) or a dead daughter and JAR convicted and a whole lot of dirty laundry washed in public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This theory is interesting, but if JR or PR stumbled upon this "sexual related activity" (which I personally think they would be horrified to discover) and they were unable to revive her, what would the purpose be of smashing her head in, with enough force to crack her skull, if she was clearly already dead? Why not just leave things as they were and have the police believe she was killed by the garotte?. Isn't the blow to the head overkill?? And even if the goal was to save their son (similar to the theory of BDI), how could they bring themselves to bash their little princess's head in? I find it much more likely that they would want to bash their son's head in for taking their daughter's life.

      Also, I've since read that JAR was in Atlanta, I believe, during this time. Even if he HAD magically flown to Boulder and back over this period of time, the police would have discovered his flight records, both to and from Boulder and he most definitely would have been a suspect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of the adult Ramsey children were ever true suspects.

      I would like to know more about the contents of that suitcase, including the perverted Dr. Seuss book. I've not heard of this before.

      Delete
  17. The suitcase also contained a perverted Dr. Seuss book with JARs name on the front page. Its a kids book full of naked illustrations that was published in early 80s...I'd like to point out that the reference to the gift basket in previous post was clever cause the pinapple JB ate was fresh and not from a can. alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, first of all, JAR is John's older son, from his previous marriage. He had an airtight alibi, as he was out of town at the time, in Atlanta I believe, and, as one poster mentioned, there were no records of his flying to or from Boulder during that time period. There is NO evidence linking him to the crime and no reason to suspect him.

      A book and blanket belonging to him were found inside the suitcase. I never heard of any images of anyone naked in any Dr. Seuss book, by the way. And there has never been any mention of which I'm aware that there was anything perverse in any way about that book. The blanket did contain traces of his semen, yes, which would not be unusual for just about any normal young male I can assure you.

      And as I've already stated, the attack on JonBenet included a sexual assault, and since JAR could not have been present, he could not have been responsible for this assault. Which tells us how unlikely it is that JAR could have been the one who'd been molesting JBR. If this was an inside job, as I'm convinced it is, then the same person who attacked and killed her is by far the most likely to have also been molesting her previously. Unless you want to argue that BOTH John and his son had been molesting her.

      Delete
    2. Alexandra- Thank you! Recently, I read a gift basket wasn't delivered to the Fernie's, I instantly thought of fruit. I do not know why a detective did not. My father's Christmas bonus used to come with an envelope taped to a gift basket full of fruit, every year. The big, ole pineapple in the back of the basket was always there and usually went to waste, because it required an adult to cut it for us!

      -H

      Delete
    3. Thanks Doc. As usual, you have clarified and affirmed what I already believed. No wonder there are so many theories in this case --- it is so easy to get pulled down a side street, so to speak, and forget the true path that takes us to logic.

      Delete
  18. JBR was noted as seeking comfort with BR and used to on occasion sleep in his bed, with him. She wouldn't have done this if he was molesting her, also BRs room was at the other end of the floor. JARs room was adjacent to JBRs. The absence of Xmas photos over this Xmas, by a family who used to take many on the previous Xmasses, is telling. Who were they hiding? Or what?

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is also possible that the Rs dropped the kids home first before they went off to deliver the Xmas gifts that night. Because, who would keep as many gifts and a fruit basket in your car for delivery after a party? Assuming that one or all the gifts were fruit baskets/hampers unless you wanted your car to smell o fruit for days?
    It is possible that whatever happened to JBR did so when the parents were out of the house delivering Christmas presents. This is probably when JBR ate pineapple from the fridge - PR wouldn't know cos she wasn't at home at the time.
    Part of the staging could be the Rs saying they made the deliveries together while JBR and BR were sleeping in car, while in fact the two kids were at home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again, for the umpteenth time I must repeat: if John and Patsy had been working together to stage a breakin and kidnapping, for whatever reason, including covering for someone in the family, they would NOT have called 911 while the body remained in the house.

      Delete
  20. I don't believe they would have left their 6-year old and 9-year old home alone for any length of time. That's just too young. And I thought they DID have a xmas picture taken, but I may be wrong. I may be thinking of the last picture taken of Jon Benet that Christmas morning.

    From day one, I have always said the pineapple in JB's stomach is very telling simply because it means she ate it at home that night and most likely was given it by someone in the family or someone else she knew. An intruder would not have done that (nor would she have accepted it from an intruder), and I also do not think she would have gone downstairs by herself and eaten it. But it COULD have been given to her by someone else she knew, like a family friend. And a family friend could have had a key to the house. I am convinced this crime was not perpetrated by an unknown intruder, but it may have been done by someone ELSE that JB knew and trusted. Someone who had the means to get in the house and who knew the layout of the house.

    I am still pretty convinced that JR is the murderer, especially after reading all of Doc's blog here, but if I HAD to point somewhere else, it would be to a family friend or someone who worked closely with the Ramsey family. I would love to hear more about those possible suspects and how they factor in with all the other evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's easy to speculate regarding all sorts of "likely" suspects who might have broken into the home to assault JonBenet, for all sorts of possible reasons -- but this is NOT that kind of case. If all there was to it was an assault -- or a kidnapping -- then there would be all sorts of possibilities, but the situation was far more complicated than that.

      What makes this case special is 1. the presence of the "ransom note"; 2. the fact that this note was written on paper taken from a notepad in the house; 3. the presence of the body in the house, meaning there was no kidnapping; 4. the hiding of the body; 5. the redressing of the body in panties that were much too large; 5. and yes, the pineapple, which she would never have eaten if offered by someone who had broken into the house, regardless of who that might have been -- she would have awakened her parents first.

      The pineapple is easily explained. Forget about the fingerprints on the bowl. Patsy's prints were on it because she was a housewife and probably placed that bowl in a cupboard from the dishwasher. Burke's could have gotten onto it for any number of reasons. Maybe he used it for breakfast on Xmas morning, rinsed it and placed it back in the cupboard. The bottom line on this item is the fact that if Patsy and John were in this together there would have been no reason for them to lie about feeding their daughter some pineapple. And if someone was in the house who didn't belong there, JonBenet would have awakened her parents before accepting pineapple from that person. On the other hand, it's easy to see how John could have awakened her in the middle of the night, led her to the kitchen and served her some pineapple, as a treat, before attacking her. If Patsy knew nothing about this incident then obviously she would not have remembered it. And John would certainly deny knowing anything about it, since that would make him the last person to see her alive. That's the simplest explanation, and it works for me.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for this explanation Doc. I am always eager to read your replies to the questions that often resurface in my mind. Your explanations make total sense, especially about the fingerprints on the pineapple dish. I started thinking about how many people in my family touch all the dishes in our kitchen. Any one dish probably has at least two different fingerprints on it at any given time.

      Also, I keep forgetting about the re-dressing of JB. That sure points away from any intruder or family friend who may have entered the house. An intruder/friend would never have risked getting the new panties (which I assume were upstairs in JB's room) for fear of waking someone. And why would an intruder/friend even BOTHER re-dressing her in the first place? Yes, they might have taken her original panties for fear of evidence on them, but why redress her? I liken this act to bundling her up in a blanket. Both acts seem to show a personal connection to JB, one that would be done by a family member. And if the original panties did contain semen, then that leaves just one family member, right? Patsy obviously left no semen, nor did Burke, who was too young.

      Delete
    3. Linda Hoffman Pugh had opportunity and motive, if you read her book she sounds bitter towards Patsy
      http://someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/jonbenet-writing-books-do-not-bring.html

      She says she was always cleaning out Patsy vast purses- maybe she found reference to JR bonus; she says Patsy use to communicate with her through handwritten notes- she could of easily picked up on the writing;LHP says shes quite familiar with PR handwriting

      She is gettin away scott free, she probably know that JBR likes pineapple. If she was trying to frame the Ramsey, then it worked! And they way she is telling her story sounds like how the RN note was written. Im convinced she is involved!!

      Delete
    4. There is no evidence linking Linda to the crime. And no reason for any intruder to do all that was done. A real kidnapper would have brought his or her own note with them, not waited to write it after breaking into the house. And someone out to frame John or Patsy would have produced a forged note. But none of the "experts" on either side of the fence has ever even suggested the note could be a forgery.

      Delete
  21. JAR fed her the pineapple, perhaps ate some himself? Pineapple eaten after eating crabs has been known to cause deaths (JBR had returned home after a potion of cracked crab). She was asthmatic too. Perhaps JAR shared some pineapple with her and she subsequently died from a reaction while he was molesting her probably AEA. He panicked, the Rs returned, found the scene, then set up the staging. I believe JAR was there that night despite his alibi. The neighbour who saw him on 24 dec had no reason to lie. He was a trusted neighbour who looked after JBRs dog, whose house she would visit to play with the dog. JAR was also sent out of the country soon afterwards. The only R to do so, for no apparent reason.

    ReplyDelete
  22. and, the Rs didn't leave JBR and BR home alone, JAR was at home.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John Andrew Ramsey was not in Colorado the night of the murder. Period.

    If you want to explore JAR did it theories you must explain how he manages to get 7 people to provide him a false alibi in a murder case. It's a multiple person conspiracy, that is being cooked up.

    To make it easy, I'll spot you two conspirators; I'll say JAR's sister and mother would both provide him with a false alibi (though there is no reason to suspect they actually would do so). You still have 5 more people in the Atlanta area who claim JAR was with them at various times in the evening and night of the 25th and early morning hours of the 26th. Explain the motivation and lack or morals for each of the five and offer some sliver of proof.

    JAR was in the Atalanta area. We know for a fact he flew there on the 22nd. He'd have had to fly back, secretly, then fly back to Atalanta the night of the murder, secretly, then get 7 people to provide him a phoney alibi so he could get away with murder.

    Didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Seven Lady Godivas is the name of the book by Suess. Its was never ment to be perverted but it is..I just thought about the large attache could of been the samsonite suitcase with the book in it.. I'm pretty sure a small child could be stuffed inside.alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen that book mentioned on one of the forums but I think that was just a guess. I've never seen it referenced as the book in JAR's suitcase on any reliable source.

      Delete
  25. Doc, I reached out to a respected investigative reporter via social media and told them to come to this site. They said they did and didnt buy into your theory, adding that they know ALOT about this case.
    You have convinced me fully of JR's guilt, but now this persons opinion has me second guessing............

    ReplyDelete
  26. Can you ask this individual why he/she doesn't buy into the theory?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I did and no response yet as to who they think it was. There was a reference at one point to multiple DNA found at the scene, but I dont know if they believe it was an intruder or not.
    My personal belief is that the RN along with the dead body being in the house automatically eliminates an intruder. So, hopefully they say what their theory is...

    ReplyDelete
  28. I will just say that being a reporter in no way qualifies one as being, logical, systematic, intelligent, able to apply the scientific method, and finally able to separate real facts from reported information. I don't care how respected the person is...unless they are with law enforcement and have access to real facts and data that others do not, their thoughts are just another opinion until such time as he/she can put together a cohesive case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pleased to learn that any reporter has been reading here. And I'm curious as to this person's take on the case. Can you divulge his/her name?

      Delete
  29. Honestly I just reached out this person saying to check out the site and they responded saying they didnt agree, followed by them saying they know ALOT about the case. I then asked who they think did it and I never got a response.

    The bottom line is that we can all come on here and talk about our theories, but the only way to get this case going is to go through social media to people who have an actual voice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are basically two theories of this case aside from mine: either an intruder did it or one of the Ramseys did it, with John and Patsy collaborating on the staging of a kidnapping and Patsy writing the note. As should be abundantly clear to anyone reading this blog (or my book), neither of these theories can survive careful scrutiny.

      So when someone claims to know a lot about the case, I have to wonder exactly what it is they think they know, and what sort of knowledge they could deploy to defend either of these alternative theories. Of course one could always claim that none of the theories is correct and no one did it.

      This is docG, by the way, but I'm writing this from another computer that won't let me log in, so I'm forced to post as "Anonymous."

      Delete
  30. Doc, I do agree with you that JR did it, but the problem I keep coming back to is, why hasnt he been charged? Either every detective and law enforcement official is just blind OR there just has to be something more to the case right? In the Casey Anthony trial, all evidence pointed to her as committing the crime, yet she was found not guilty. The difference is that the most logical theory was that she did the crime, so she was charged and went to trial.
    This case has been ongoing for 18 years and yet NOBODY has been even charged with a crime, so what are you and everybody like me who believes in your theory missing? It cant be as simple as the touch DNA or original handwriting experts ruling him out, because this case has been looked at from every angle and there simply has to be something we are all overlooking.
    I think the body being in the house along with the ransom note eliminates an intruder before even having to look at the basement window. So, once the intruder is eliminated, we are left with 3 people. I know that you have explained why it couldnt be PR or BR, but imo I feel like maybe it was BR with JR helping cover it up. It just cant be as simple as JR wanting to cover up the molestation of hi daughter and killing her in a rage, followed by his shotty cover up job. I just think if thats truly what it was the he would be charged by now as it is so obvious. Thoughts?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J,
      I know you are waiting for Doc's reply, but I thought I'd jump in for a minute. I, too, agree that JR is responsible for this murder but I, too, often find myself doubting that theory and shifting my suspicion to BR. (I have never really believed PR could be responsible, for various reasons, the biggest being that I have listened to that 911 call many times and I just don't believe she is faking.) As to BR, even if he HAD been molesting JB and had killed her for whatever reason, I simply cannot see either parent covering for him when they could simply say it was an accident. Moreover, I simply cannot see either parent constructing that garotte and tightening that twine around her neck as part of a coverup. Even if they were worried about losing their only remaining child, I don't believe they would have gone to such extreme measures to cover for him. After all, despite their desperation to save BR, they would still be grieving their daughter's death. How on earth could they have strangled her???

      Yes, it is very frustrating that no one has ever been charged. I sum that up to "too many cooks in the kitchen." There were just too many stubborn, opinionated people who all had different theories and who, for some reason, just could not work together solving this crime. That, coupled with all the power and money that the Ramseys had, made this an untouchable case. I think things might have changed at some point and charges might have been brought, but then that famous DNA came into play which pretty much cleared everyone in the Ramsey family. JR claims that this country needs to change the whole way we handle criminals and their DNA. He has successfully convinced most people that there really is a murderer out that with a DNA match. Now if that were me, I would be working that platform non-stop -- writing letters to my state representatives, police agencies, etc. JR makes this statement and then crawls off into the background, doing nothing further on it. It kind of reminds me of good 'ol OJ. Remember how much he talked about spending his life looking for the "real" killer?? Well we all know he spent most of his time golfing. When JR talks about there being "someone out there" who will someday be discovered from their DNA, he is just blowing smoke.

      JR does not have me convinced that this case will be solved by the DNA. But DNA is a powerful thing and as soon as people heard the family had been ruled out because of it, this case came to a dead end.

      Brooke

      Delete
    2. As I understand it, JR was THE principal suspect at the outset, and there certainly was probable cause to indict him. Until he was "ruled out" as writer of the note. That eliminated probable cause and left the investigation dangling in the wind from that point on. Imo that was the turning point that made the case intractable from that day to this. The DNA evidence was not a factor until much later.

      As far as Burke is concerned, there was never and will never be probable cause to indict him, even if he'd been old enough. There is simply nothing to link him to the crime other than speculations about sibling rivalry and wild assumptions based on the extremely unlikely possibility that a child that young might be sexually active.

      Delete
    3. Brooke, I just wanted to respond to your post real quick. A lot of people rule BR out because they dont buy a parent helping cover up a crime to protect their other child........I think this is just ludicrous. Anybody who is a parent would do anything to protect their child, including in giving their own life. So, IF BR did commit the crime (not sayin he did) then I believe it to be plausible that JR would help cover up the crime. Lets say for sake of discussion that BR hi his sister over the had out of jealousy and down walks JR to see this horrific scene. Because of the violence and sexual nature of the crime, I dont think JR could have just called the police claiming a horrible accident took place.
      I am not trying to argue that BR was the killer, but I dont find it that impossible that JR would help concoct a phony RN and stage the window scene to help him cover it up. This whole idea that a 9 year old wouldnt be capable is purely speculation and I see no reason why it wouldnt be possible.
      I rambled, but my main point was that a parent would do ANYTHING to protect their child, even if that meant against better judgement helping cover up a crime.

      -J

      Delete
    4. Responding to both Brook and J.

      It's hard to see a parent applying the garrotte, yet if Doc's theory is correct (and I think it is) then JR must have applied the garrotte. My thinking, which I'm willing to question, is that the garrotting was applied to ensure death. The blow to the head could have been intentional or accidental, but I'm thinking it didn't appear to cause death (e.g. there were still signs of life after the blow to the head) I can't think of any other reason to apply the garrotte. It's not really needed for the kidnapping scenario - that is, it isn't essential to "selling" the kidnapping that if her body were ever found there should be a garrotte around her neck. The murder would be blamed on the "kidnappers" and the blow to the head would have sufficed for that, had it been effective. JMO.

      I don't see JR (or PR) taking the blame for Burke when they would know sometime on the 26th or certainly by the 27th that BR couldn't be charged. A parent would do anything to save a child, but BR didn't need saving. He was in no danger. JR and PR were in danger of being indicted on murder charges. I see no reason at all they'd run that risk knowing BR couldn't be charged - besides, they'd effectively "loose" BR if they went to prison. What sense does that make? None.

      I see no reason BR couldn't have delivered the blow to the head, but then again, there is absolutely no evidence that he was involved in any way. The idea that he was sexually active at 9 is a remote possibility with emphasis on the word remote. A very unlikely scenario. JMO.

      CH

      Delete
    5. Hey CH, good post. I guess the lack of evidence against BR, the lack of talking by BR is the only thing that makes me think he could have been involved. The ironic part is that the original post by Doc was about Facts and I am not basing any of my posts on any type of factual evidence. I dont believe PR was involved at ALL and yet for the last 18 years her name and reputation have been drug through the mud. Imo BR did see something in the days that followed the crime and had to have heard something, so he surely had to form an opinion as to what happened. SO, knowing PR wasnt involved, why not come out and say that?
      The Ramseys didnt get home till after 9 the night of the crime, so in the next 9 hours, a lot had to have happened, including the horrific crime to JBR, the attempted cover up and RN. Those 9-10 hours have and will continue to be speculated about what took place in the Ramsey house, which is why I leave the possibility open to BR potentially being involved. OR maybe it is just as Doc said with JR being the one solely responsible and law enforcement just screwed up badly.

      -J

      Delete
    6. The interesting thing about BR, regardless of whether or not he actually committed any crime, is that there is no way he could have been indicted, even if he'd been several years older. In order to indict, one must be able to establish probable cause and there is simply no basis for probable cause in his case. So when we think about him as a possible suspect it's important to remember that not only is there no case to be made against him, but there isn't even a basis for arguing probable cause. I do think he might well have seen or heard something that he's never divulged, but I find it impossible to believe he harmed JonBenet in any way on that particular night.

      Delete
  31. I am wondering if any body language experts have weighed in about John's non verbals in his interviews and to see if there was evidence of lying from them. I found one article that talked about how frequently he looked down and how unusally slow his blink rates were. (Patsy's blink rates were unusually slow too.) The analyzer suggested they were coached on answers and/or on medications to reduce their stress levels. He also commented that it was noteworthy that they could finish each others' sentences but they pronounced their daughter's name differently: John said 'Jon" and Patsy said 'Zhan' Benet. I, for one, find that very unusual that they'd pronounce her name differently. There is research to suggest eye movements while thinking can indicate if the memory is being visualized historically or simply imagined, for example. Wondering if he looked down a lot because he was informed of that, and was afraid he give away the truth of what actually happened with his eye movements.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is my first comment here since I just found this page. First of all, I haven't read every post here and I've just heard about this case a long time ago and I have some kind of knowledge what did happen and I know that no-one hasn't been charged with such a crime.

    I just wondered, if John is the one who killed JonBenet, did John, at the time of the crime, have some kind of meaningful job? I mean did he have a job where he had a lot of power so he could have influenced to the police etc. so that no-one has EVER been charged with the murder? Clearly someone from the family did it so it's just incredible that they are getting away with murder!

    Is there any kind of possible proof that John may have (and still be) a freemason or something like that? Because if so, that would explain the situation that the murderer is walking free.

    Anyway, thanks for having this web site. It's great there's people who haven't given up and are still after all these years, searching the truth. I also want to apologize for my grammar since I'm english isn't my mother language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was the CEO of an extremely successful computer company called Access Graphics. I've never seen any reference to his being a Mason or being connected with any other such group. Imo he is walking free solely because a group of handwriting "experts" decided to rule him out, for reasons that have never been made public.

      Delete
  33. Has anyone read this? Thoughts?

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jonbentramseysatanicritual.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found nothing new or credible in that article. If you read this entire blog by Doc, you will understand why. That article is fanatical!

      Delete
    2. Actually I believe there's true to the story. These spiritual sacrifices do happen and I believe this young beautiful child was sexual slave to many who have a lot of power. World is a sick place and it's because it's run by sick people.

      Delete
    3. There is no evidence whatsoever about sexual slavery. This blog is about following the facts and evidence. There are lots of other websites dedicated to the wild fantasy ideas. While anything is possible, why bring it up unless one has a direct fact or evidence to support the theory.

      Delete
  34. I want to comment on what the last poster said about pronouncing jonbenets name two ways. First of all the name does not exist,completely fabricated. JRs name is John Bennett Ramsey...Get it? She is his to use, her name is his name(boundary issues). Where Patsy pronounces her name with a glamourous french accent.. Johnny B was Patsys " best friend" . She made her the age that she wanted her friend to be, around 30. Jonbenet was styled in many career outfits and more mature in stature gowns...I know Doc thats not a fact but in a way it is... Anyways alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thomas McCarthy did it. He liked a garotte or two. ..

    ReplyDelete
  36. Doc, I know your not talking about knox anymore but it took me a while to conjure up what fact "says it all". My methods are different than yours so I didn't know how to translate it for you. I deal exclusively with images and then I look for the surreal. Example- Can you really imagine taking a shower in your own bathroom in the middle of the day fully sober and sane as spots of blood are EVERYWHERE? SERIOUSLY? Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spots of blood were not everywhere. You seem to be referring to a well known and misleading photo that does in fact make it look like there's blood everywhere, but as I understand it this is a photo of the bathroom as it looked after certain chemicals had been applied to all the surfaces, and it's the presence of the (red tinted) chemicals that gives the impression of blood.

      It's very important when considering a case of this sort not to take anything for granted, and this especially includes photographic evidence, which can be misleading when taken out of context.

      Delete
  37. OK,I guess I was unclear about "images". I wasn't literally referring to forensic photos at all but I just looked at the photo you refer to and when I said EVERYWHERE I didn't mean to refer to that photo. That image is beyond and above surrealism that image is SILENT HILL hope you catch that reference.
    Anyways my methods are morel like I spend a long time collecting and poring over as many facts as possible especially the most mundane ones. I keep going over interviews, commentaries, photos documentaries and records until my brain cant stand the boring "facts" anymore. That part takes a very long time and then from that point in my mind I play a movie in my mind and walk through it silently looking for surrealism. Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a meaningful approach for a novelist or poet, Alexandra. Are you a writer?

      Delete
  38. no Doc but I do read alot mainly I've been painting for three years now... I'm a better talker but I talk too much and everyone tells me to shut up. Thanks for listening Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  39. One of the reporters I spoke to insists that Patsy did it. I'm wondering if it's the same reporter the other poster sent to this site.

    ReplyDelete
  40. i wonder if anyone such as a reporter had any hard evidence of proof to support their claim, why they wouldn't be on the front page of some newspaper for the world to see ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Patsy is everyone's favorite perp. It's really amazing how so many people very literally see what they want to see. To them it's "obvious" that Patsy's 911 call was "just an act," that her behavior was "obviously" deceitful, that the language in the ransom note "just screams Patsy," as does the handwriting. And if you try to explain what's wrong with that line of thinking, why then you're just "promoting your own theory."

      Well, sorry, folks, but there is a big difference between a theory based on facts and a theory based on "why it's just as plain as day."

      Of course there IS a method to their madness. John was ruled out. She wasn't. And the intruder theory makes no sense. So "logically" she MUST be the one. And once you've convinced yourself of that, then it colors everything else you see or hear about the case.

      Delete
  41. I was the one who posted about the reporter I spoke with via Twitter. Where does the reporter you spoke with work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as we're discussing reporters, I'd love to learn the names of these reporters -- and also where it is they report their reportings. If a reporter lives in Boulder and has access to inside information, then I'd be inclined to take his/her opinion more seriously. But I'd also want to learn what that inside information is, so I can evaluate it myself.

      Delete
    2. Doc, the reporter that responded to me was from 48 Hours. My suggestion to you is to reach out to any of the reporters on 48 Hours or Dateline and see if you cant get your theory/website out there to people who actually have a voice.
      These reporters are provided more evidence and have spoke with the major players in this case, so its hard to not value their opinion. If this reporter doesnt think JR did it, they probably have a good reason why, and not just based on a handwriting sample

      Delete
    3. I've already reached out to reporters with an interest in this case, including 48 hours, Dateline and 60 Minures. I have a feeling they're all afraid of lawsuits, and since I can't provide a smoking gun in the form of some dramatic new piece of hard evidence they would be taking a very real risk by endorsing my theory.

      I'd love to find a reporter interested in looking into the story behind the decision to rule John out, but there again there would be the possibility of a lawsuit if a reporter ever suggested these "experts" were mistaken.

      No reporter could possibly have had access to more evidence than James Kolar, who was the lead detective under Lacy. And he's convinced that Patsy did NOT kill her daughter.

      And so it goes. It's no longer a matter of access to evidence, since just about all the relevant evidence is out there by now. It's a matter of understanding how to interpret that evidence in a way that makes sense.

      Delete
    4. James Kolar did have access to a lot of evidence. But his theory is that Burke killed his sister. In your opinion, what do you think caused Kolar to latch on to this theory and what did his miss or misinterpret to believe that John is innocent.

      I read Kolar's book and I have to say I was totally disappointed with the ending. I had a hard time believing that that was actually his theory. I just see too many holes in it and other elements that are just unbelievable. Your theory is much more believable.

      Delete
    5. Kolar refuses to accept that either Patsy or John, as good Christians, could have done such a horrible thing. He understands the absurdity of the intruder theory. So for him the only other possibility is Burke. So he then proceeds to build a huge castle of unlikely and even absurd possibilities on thin air, based on the notion that 9 year old Burke and his 6 year old sister were having some sort of sexual "affair" that turned sour. The possibility that John could have been the one molesting her never seems to have even occurred to him. Indeed: people see what they WANT to see -- and turn a blind eye to all else.

      Delete
  42. At least you dont live in michigan . I use to spend summers in the small creepy town he lives in...no joke...im sure he is poisoning my dog and spying on me....his sucks...but im not scared of him if you catch my drift...alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  43. i hate to say it doc but the whole house was at fault...this is what happens when republican sex addicts get to high on themselves...the house was haunted...read brett elliss lunar park...it explains everything...so does twin peaks...alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  44. AA is free mason. Freemason is the Whig party. The Whig party is the new Republican. They work hand in hand with AA.....NA....etc...they turn monarchs into lizards and sex slaves...kubrik was right..EYES WIDE SHUT IS REAL....i LIVED IT..alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Believe me, Alexandra, I've had experiences that have convinced me anything is possible. But the Ramsey case isn't like that, it's really very simple -- no spooks, vampires, ghouls or satanists need apply.

      Delete
  45. Im a poker player...we are different. we are american..we seethe whole picture..I told you i read alot but ive traveled overseas and speak two languages..it helpsto understandthisfracturedworld...............................alex

    ReplyDelete
  46. sorry my computer froze up..must be the monarchs..anyways are you Mark Kozelak?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Kolar never pointed the finger at Burke. He pointed to excriment, urinary track infections, the window, suitcase, and the behavior of family and friends. All you have to do is put it all together..That weekend was majorly overbooked and understaffed..Big mansions and pagents and billions of dollars and CEO issues and probably a bipolar mother without nurturing "skills"..just watch THE SHINING...Read the book I recommend it over the movie..Alex

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is the reporter I spoke to. He says he spent 3 years in Boulder on the case. He's one of those folks who is under the impression that John cannot do any wrong. And that Patsy killed Jonbenet.

    ReplyDelete
  49. How can u say a ceo atheist republican cold hard worker bee in a sexless marriage with a sick in the head wife, a pagent doll replica of himself, and a son missing in action in a house painted by surrealism which may i add was allready "out" by the 90s cause minamalism and x files was "in"..... do no wrong? The house is very wrong. Have you seen the archetect ? How could they do that? New in the back? Modern on the side of historic colorado..Bolder has intense hand in hand connections with new age christians along with radical hippies on bikes also later on the freemasons started building it up along with mormons and atheist sex addict billionarres..Its the Los Angel licious of cow boy county..Im no historian but America has a mixed up eradic story..I just prefer to hear the horror version cause i was raised on kubrich and steven king..cant help it im American. alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep it coming, Alex. I enjoy this sort of thing. :-)

      Delete
  50. shapiro thought he was some ace reporter, but he wasnt. he said he looked at patsy one day and knew she had killed jon benet, and that john was just supporting her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I know about Shapiro and once upon a time as I recall I read an article on the case by him. He's also discussed in PMPT as someone who aggressively inserted himself into the investigation. He's hardly an objective unbiased observer, which any good reporter should be.

      Delete
  51. Im not making a citizens arrest Im helping to solve a mystery..The Ramsey family together make an over reacting full of moxy creepy bunch...He had a billion dollars. That should say it all but no pediphile rings exist in America under our noses in the best hoods... I know I have had rich friends. Also Republicans make up 99 percent of the s and m "lifestyle"...Submissives are the one percent and they are usually kid napped ect..alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Say WHAT??? I'm not tracking you Alex, even though I find your ramblings somewhat interesting!

      By the way, at the store this morning there is a headline on the Globe trash rag that they have found Jon Benet's killer --- even had a picture of the guy.

      http://www.globemagazine.com/

      Now I know the Globe distorts facts to embellish their crazy stories, but they usually DO relate back to something new in the news. Does anyone know anything about this new "discovery" ??

      Delete
  52. No i really do live in michigan so this mystery plays a big part in my life..John is guilty. I know that as truth. I never met him nor do i want to but i want to see him in the courts. I want justice to be served for jonny bs soul that cannot rest until her predator sees the florescent lights of a court house. It will make better tv then the arias trial even though that one was riveting..I'm hoping they send amanda knox back to italy cause shes not welcomed in my book..A bipolar knows a bipolar at first glance. Shes an american nympho without proper parental guidance..I cant spell so forgive me i too am dyslexic and left handed and i know a guilty face when i see one. Alex

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hey Doc,

    I agree with you that the intruder scenario does not make sense. I'm not really sure how to even present this question, but unless it was a complete accident, I can't wrap my mind around why John would choose that particular night to kill his daughter. I imagine he would have been just as weary as Patsy after their long, full day, but he just needed to get a quick "visit" to JB's room before retiring himself?

    He'd have to have waited until Patsy was asleep, right? There was forensic evidence that JB was carried down the stairs, as there was garland from the back staircase found in her hair. Do you think she was unconscious at that point or merely asleep? There was very little swelling or bleeding from her head wound, so it looks from the autopsy report that she was strangled very shortly after she was struck. Some people even believe the garrotting came first because of this fact.

    Perhaps you've written about this somewhere else in your blog, but can you give me a quick rundown of what you think was the exact timing and order of this event?

    It seems to me that the garrotte was already made by the time she was struck on the head. Had she been hit in her bedroom and then carried down to the basement, and then laid on the floor while her attacker looked around for something to craft a garrotte with, and then crafted the thing, would she not have had significantly more swelling/internal bleeding?

    In addition to that, I believe the autopsy report also mentions that the sexual assault occurred around or at the time of death, so basically, we are to believe that John was strangling and penetrating his daughter at the same time? Or he strangles his beloved little girl and then gets one last feel in? Sorry to sound glib, but as I said, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. People who do things like this usually exhibit behavioural tendencies, either before or after the event, and no one ever came forward against John in this regard. I know the lack of witnesses does not mean it didn't happen, but this man was very public and very social, wasn't he? I'm no psychologist, but you'd think people would have noticed something! And a former employee calling him the "ice man" just isn't enough in my opinion.

    Okay, over to you. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ask some good questions, Canuck. I'll say at the outset that there's a good reason why I decided to focus primarily on the substantiated facts, agreed on by all, rather than the "evidence," almost all of which has been disputed. Some of the issues you raise are based on disputed evidence and once we try to sort out all the different opinions regarding the meaning of that evidence we find ourselves in morass. Which I've always tried to avoid. As I see it, there is no need to get into all those details because the undisputed facts are more than enough to crack the case.

      Your questions are valid, nonetheless, so I'll try to answer them as best I can -- but I'll only be speculating. I think John chose that night because of something JonBenet must have told him earlier that day that led him to believe she was going to "tell" on him either to Patsy or to the family members they were about to visit.

      Most of the pathologists agree she was struck on the head first and then strangled. And at least one has argued that in such cases there is often only a little internal bleeding. As for the timing, it's hard to tell how long John waited before strangling her.

      It's unlikely she was strangled prior to the head blow. For one thing, there are no scratches on her neck consistent with her resisting the tightening noose -- marks were found that have been interpreted as scratches, but in the autopsy they are described as petechial hemorrhages. Also, since her hair was intertwined with the knots, it looks like the device was constructed on top of her, NOT prior to the attack, and that would have been impossible to do while she was awake and struggling.

      As to when he penetrated her vagina with his finger, that's very hard to say. Since the evidence points to chronic abuse, this may have been something they had done together before, so it seems likely the penetration occurred prior to the head blow. We are dealing with an individual who is obviously very stressed out at this point so it's hard to say why he would have done what he did.

      As for John's "behavioral tendencies," John was NOT a very public and very social person, no. And he spent a great deal of time away from home, on various "business trips," often to Amsterdam, where prostitution is legal. Unlike Patsy, whose life was an open book, John's life away from home has hardly been reported on at all and was in all likelihood never investigated.

      Delete
  54. Why does no one believe that sexual fetishes exist in the world? Is this the first time anyone has heard about incest or objects used for erotic means? This is a fact that if Patsy is busy packing to go around the world John has time to not get caught. John will never get caught because he's a superb psychopath. I play poker I should know. Alex

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thanks very much for the reply, Doc. It helped to clarify some things.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Love your blog but it is very hard to read, the fonts need to be made a little larger, the black bacground and small font are impossible!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should be able to adjust the font size in your browser by holding down the Ctrl key and pressing either the minus or plus key, to make the font either smaller or larger. That's on a PC. If you have a Mac it's a bit more complicated but I'm sure there's a way.

      Delete
    2. Icy cold people are known to be calculating and calm during a storm. Was not that xmas super over rated? I could puke just thinking about that tea pary air I would have to breath or fresh pinnaple in a bowl of american pasturized milk..yuk..and I eat meat and have had fruit in a can on occasion. Anyways there is a safe box deep in the floor of the wine cellar that has no wine in it. Cuban cigars, xmas presents, and a knife are present in the windowless cold freezer box. Have I said enough? How bout monica lewinsky? No she wasn't in Boulder but we all know who was. alex

      Delete
  57. The font size can also be increased by holding the control key and moving the scrolling wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I just want to pipe in and say I hate Disney inspired garbage home decor for stupid filthy republican white americans that dont drink but smoke cigars in basements cause thats the windowless room. Her arms where stiff like in a military salute. Rigamortis set in within the freezer.. Thats my uneducated guess as to who done it. John. As for the suitcase yes a very popular way to transport little bodies. Also the basement was a wreck in comparison of the dallas asshole city stupid southern mentality of the haves and have nots. Thats Patsies influence via many home decorating mis adventures. Bipolars are not guilty of suffering from mood affliction. Thats the illness. I say shes a bipolar one DI D sheltered spoiled lithium bunny. But John is guilty of marring children or monarchs? Alex

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Alex Get on your meds (takes one to know one) and lay off all the (over the top) crazy conspiracy stuff. Your brain will thank you for it. Xo
    @DocG nice work. Glad I stumbled across your site as I was searching for crazy conspiracy stuff
    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Huh. Funny. I pictured you as a woman DocG... Wouldnt be my first wrong impression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I'm a man. What gave it away?

      I'm not gay either, by the way. If I had to, I'd characterize my writing style as academic (which makes sense since that's my background), but I don't see anything in it that's particularly male or female. If it was up to me, I'd say that from my writing I was definitely male, since males usually tend to write in a more self assured manner than females. But bottom line, it's really impossible imo to identify gender from anyone's writing style.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of identifying gender from writing style, I have always felt the Ramsey RN (trying to bring this crowd back to the original subject of this blog!), was written by a man. I am going to have to re-read it for the 500th time and try to pin point the things that lead me to that conclusion. I'll write back soon and see if you agree, Doc.

      By the way, I always knew you were a man (not sure why). However, I've often wondered if you are British. Some things you've said have made me suspect that.

      Delete
  61. The truth is right infront of you all, but you guys want to believe its some weird sadistic crime committed either by JR, PR or BR. Lind Pugh Hoffman tried and frame them, either she was there when they got home that evening waiting for them to go to sleep and she brought someone with her. Maybe the idea was to kidnap her but something went wrong and rigormortis kicked inn and they could not get her out of the window. Maybe they tried to frame the Ramseys. Stop trying to find things that are not infront of you and then you will see who murdered that little girl

    ReplyDelete
  62. Assuming the offender's goal was to have the note discovered so that the Ramseys could meet his financial demand, placing it on the back spiral staircase seems illogical unless one knew that the Ramseys routinely used that back staircase. Then the placement makes perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  63. While we know that the note was written in the Ramsey residence, there is an issue of when the offender wrote it.

    If the offender wrote the note before the murder, then a financially motivated abduction has to be considered as a distinct possibility. If it were written after the murder, then the note clearly would be an element of staging, i.e. a false motive to misdirect the investigation. Arguably, the most incongruous and potentially revealing decision that the offender made was to leave both the note and JonBen�t's body inside the Ramseys' house. Any chance for obtaining the ransom money hinged on the offender being able to credibly guarantee JonBen�t's safety. Once her body was discovered, which it inevitably would be, no ransom would be paid and the note would be nothing other than potential physical evidence linking the author to the murder, as well as a behavioral clue that suggested an attempt to stage JonBen�t's murder as a kidnapping.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It is important to note not only where the offender left the body but also how he left it. The offender wrapped JonBen�t's body in a white blanket "papoose style" or, as John Ramsey stated, "...as if somebody were tucking her in..." and her favorite pink nightgown was laid next to the body. Further, Linda Haufman-Pugh, the Ramseys' housekeeper, believed the white blanket and possibly the pink nightgown had been in a washer or dryer that was built into a cabinet. It is difficult to imagine that a stranger would know which nightgown was JonBen�t's favorite and then spend time rummaging through the house in the dead of night looking for it so they could leave it next to the body. The careful wrapping of the body also suggests caring and concern for the victim. Collectively, these behaviors exhibited by the offender suggest a pre-existing relationship with the victim.- They mention Linda all over without blame, like she is some sort of celebrity, meanwhile she is laughing her ass off at everyone..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Ramsey knew Patsy came down that staircase every morning. John Ramsey would have known where to find the blanket and nightgown. Imo the purpose of the blanket was not compassion but to insulate the body from the car trunk in which she was going to be placed. The nightgown was probably caught inside the blanket by accident. "Compassion" is some sort of absurd amateur "profiler" fantasy. You don't show compassion for someone you've just murdered in cold blood. If compassion were a factor then she would not have been attacked in the first place.

      If Linda Hoffmann had planned to kidnap JonBenet, she and her accomplices would have arrived with a note printed or typed ahead of time. No need for a hand printed note that could be traced back to her (or an accomplice). And if the purpose of the note was to frame Patsy, then it would have been forged with her handwriting. Yet a team of forensic experts ruled it "unlikely" that she wrote it. And no one has ever suggested that the note was such a forgery.
      A note written by some third party who never even attempted to forge Patsy's (or John's) hand would NOT have implicated either John or Patsy but helped to exonerate them. The reason everyone suspected them at first was the unlikelihood of an intruder, NOT the handwriting on the note.

      The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever linking LHP to the crime and no reason to suspect her.

      Delete
    2. You are assuming LHP and co. has the intelligence to pull off the kidnapping, which obviously they didn't as so many things went wrong. They probably didnt have a computer to type the note, and watched too many movies which influenced their writing style..

      Delete
  65. The night JonBenét's body was found, Detectives Fred Patterson and Greg Idler knocked on the door of the Ramseys' housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. Patsy had told police her housekeeper had a key to the house and major money problems. When told the girl had been murdered, Hoffmann-Pugh screamed and couldn't stop shaking.
    After she settled down, she was asked to print some words on a sheet of paper - Mr. Ramsey, attache, beheaded and the number $118,000 (unknown to her, all phrases in the ransom note) - but Linda was too upset to write, assuming JonBenét had been beheaded.
    - Police talked to the Pughs for three hours, according to the book. "Had Linda ever witnessed any signs of sexual abuse in the Ramsey household? Had JonBenét ever wet the bed? Had Linda seen semen, blood or anything unusual on the child's bed? On anyone else's bed? Hoffmann-Pugh would know for sure she was a suspect when the police returned the next day to search her house and fingerprint her. At a local doctor's office, she cried as the police yanked strands of hair from her head and she gave blood samples."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one has talked about the one act, or lack thereof, that screams of guilt of BOTH parents. It was noted by the detective in the case that NEITHER parent bothered to sit by the phone at the time the kidnappers were supposed to call. John made a passing remark, when the police made a comment to him, and then JR continued what he was doing. If that is not guilt than I don't know what is! Why would they ignore the call that they should be waiting for? They knew she was dead in the basement. Also, most parents would not jump to the fact their child is dead...unless they already knew it. Most, if not all, parents would immediately begin CPR on their child. Not just remove the tape and carry their lifeless body upstairs. And that brings me to clarify one other fact. Items were missing from the home, they never found the duct tape or remaining cord from what I've read on the case.

      Delete
    2. I am completely against judging people by their behavior, especially when under stress. Different people react in different ways, as is well known. Someone who's guilty might well go out of his/her way to act as an innocent person would be expected to act. And an innocent person might be too anxiety-ridden to behave "normally."

      No one ignored any calls. According to John he jumped at every call and was disappointed when they all turned out to be harmless. Does that make him guilty? Or innocent? No way to tell because a guilty person would want to do the same thing that an innocent person would do, no?

      As far as CPR is concerned, the body was reported as ice-cold. She was certainly dead when found.

      The "missing" items were probably not really missing, but non-existent. Looks to me like they were just pieces of tape and cord lying around the house, probably left over from gift wrapping or left behind by workmen.

      Delete
  66. I too have had thoughts of LHP being behind all this, and then swinging back to JR.I'll tell you why. JR's actions seem improper. He looks and acts guilty, making arrangements to carry on with his planned trip. The story of the broken window later too and more. Even Det Ardnt felt this about him. But seems like no real evidence that i can see. Doc puts across good case when you read the Blog, it makes a lot of sense, yet the idea of LHP makes arguably as much if not more. I do think she could have written that letter beforehand, making comments in the RN to infer Patsy as the killer, she knew so much about the Ramseys, the bonus, how Patsy referred to John, where the nighty, blanket, JBR's knife was etc.I Don't think John would know. She also pointed the finger At patsy after being accused herself. She may have thought there was enough left at the scene to convict Patsy. The RN itself could have been written or dictated by Linda. I don't buy that she wasn't intelligent enough to find some of the words.The fact it wasn't forged could be down to just trying to hide her own handwriting or lack of thought of doing so, or evidently adding enough to suspect Patsy. It all seems too much, too incredibly violent for a father who brought up other children without any molestation, then to start later at the age he was, and often absent from the home, working a great deal. What do we know of what LHP had to say when she returned home, of the wealthy family without her money worries, the borrowing of clothes at a xmas party for her own daughter from Patsy. The extravagant lifestyle the Ramseys had compared to her own struggle to survive.? Jealous rage springs to mind. Who were the friends of the Pugh family.? Did Linda want to see Patsy suffer, frame Patsy and break her heart at the same time. I have read some disturbing comments from Linda about the Ramsey's. Who knows, but she and whoever seem more likely to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree with you, I also saw it as jealousy. She called JBR a spoilt brat, she stated in her book that she observed PR writing style. This case boggles my mind, I wish the murder/s could be brought to justice before I die

      Delete
    2. I think the note was on the surface, meant for JR but intended for PR. The note is full of sarcastic remarks mocking PR. LHP or her husband probably knew someone desperate enough to participate in the kidnapping.

      Delete
    3. Just because someone MIGHT have had a motive, either money or resentment, that does not constitute evidence. There is NO evidence pointing to LHP and in fact we have very good reason to conclude there was no intruder in the Ramsey home that night. Read the first two posts in this blog and you'll see why. Also read what I've written about the basement window and John's clearly fabricated claim that he himself broke it months earlier. If LHP were responsible for the crime, why would John have wanted to concoct such a story?

      Delete
  67. First of all it's not a matter of intelligence. The note reflects the sort of style and vocabulary we would expect from someone with a higher education. As I understand it Linda never completed high school. Neither did her husband, apparently. As far as making the note sound like Patsy, that's a myth. There is only one passage in the note that sounds like Patsy, the bit about John's "good southern common sense." However, it also sounds like sarcasm, which is undoubtedly what was intended. Literally everything else in the note sounds like what it was intended to sound like: a hard boiled, ruthless kidnapper, and someone with direct knowledge of John's finances, i.e., some disaffected employee or false friend (such as Fleet White). Most of the note is clearly the sort of thing a male with a special interest in action movies and a knowledge of other kidnapping scenarios would write. Hardly the sort of thing we'd expect from a housewife absorbed in kiddie pageants. And the writing is so different from Patsies that a team of 6 forensic experts could do no better than declare it "unlikely" she could have written it.

    So if you want to imply that Linda snuck that pad out of the house to write a note implicating Patsy, I'm sorry but you are obviously wrong, because the note in itself does not implicate her. The ONLY reason she became the focus of attention was when John was ruled out and she was not. At that point the unlikelihood of an intruder led almost everyone to believe she must have written it. Not because of anything in the note, but because logically she seemed to be the only possibility. There is no evidence whatsoever that she, or John, was being framed. No one in LE has ever even suggested that.

    You see the crime as too violent for a father, but not too violent for a woman with no criminal record who has never been accused of any serious crime as far as we know and was a trusted servant in the Ramsey household. All you have is a theory based on the possibility of "jealous rage." Sorry, but that's not nearly enough.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Doc, love the blog! I, like many, am guilty of never even considering that JR might be the killer. Now I 99% believe that to be the case save for 1 point to I can't get past. Forgive me if this has been covered already, but I don't think "good southern common sense" is the only Patsy-ish sounding part of the letter. How do you explain the ending of the note where it is signed S.B.T.C.. I've read that Patsy loved to use elaborate abbreviations and acronyms? - "Thomas indicated that this fact also pointed to Patsy Ramsey, as she often used acronyms. He cited a Christmas note to a friend that was signed "P.P.R.B.S.J.," which she said stood for "Patsy Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism."" Obviously this doesn't prove her guilt, perhaps JR signed the letter as such to appeal to Patsy, to play on a quirk of hers so she took it seriously? I'm just curious as to how you explain this because for me, it pointed to Patsy as the notes athur for many years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, as I said above, "good southern common sense" looks to me like sarcasm. That's consistent with an attempt by John to construct the "kidnapper" as someone close to either his business or his family, who has some sort of grudge. If Patsy wrote that note it's very hard to imagine why she'd have wanted to quote from one of her own favorite little jokes.

      As far as S.B.T.C is concerned, all sorts of people use acronyms. As I've said many times, once John was ruled out and Patsy wasn't, then there was a desperate effort to find anything at all that might tie her to the note -- the perfect setup for cherry picking. Since the note contains an acronym, then hey, let's try and find one somewhere in something Patsy wrote. And when an acronym is found, then, hey, that's evidence she wrote it. That sort of thing is the ONLY basis for any of the "expert" opinions pointing to her. It's a well known fallacy, called "confirmation bias" and cannot withstand truly scientific scrutiny.

      Delete
  69. Hi DoCG

    Love this blog, what are your thoughts on Madeleine McCann?? Is her parents involved? This is what another blogger reckons...
    The children were left alone so that the McCanns could enjoy their evening out. Because of the problem of the children crying for them the previous night and Maddie being so agitated over this, the children were given medication to quiet them. The McCanns put the children to bed, thought they were out for the evening (as in asleep) and went to have a drink on the veranda and then they went out for the next couple of hours. They did not check on the children again until Gerry came back to the flat at 9:15. Either before or after they left the apartment, Maddie came out, climbed on the sofa, and fell behind it. Because there is a question of timing as to how long a body must remain in a place for cadaver smell to develop that is good enough for the dogs, I cannot say when this accident would have exactly occurred. (the timing seems to be narrowing with further scientific experiments in the matter from one and a half hours to far less than that. At around 9:15, Gerry finds Maddie missing from bed, searches for her, and finds her behind the sofa. Then Kate returns and all hell breaks loose. Gerry takes Maddie away, Kate raises the alarm, some amount of staging is done, but very little as everyone is in a panic.

    The Other theorie..
    Some local creep has noted that the McCanns have three little kids and that they are leaving them in the flat alone every night. He notes the McCanns going out again that night and waits until he thinks he has an opportunity to slip in through an open door or pull up an unlocked window. He sees Maddie, puts a hand over her mouth and rushes from the flat. He realizes she isn't reacting at all to being abducted (because she has been medicated) and he carries the quiet child off easily. He would have taken Maddie to his home, raped and murdered her and buried her body on the property or out in the brush somewhere. I want to point out, there is no evidence at all to support this scenario, but if Maddie were actually abducted this would have likely been what happened.

    Looking forward to hearing from you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read about the McCann case and it interests me. But I've never looked into it deeply enough to form an opinion, so don't have anything interesting to say, sorry.

      Delete