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.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Open Forum

NB: this page is now also filled up with comments. To see the most recent comments, you need to go to the very bottom of the page and select "Load More." I'll be opening a new forum soon, on the next blog post, so please post any new comments there. Thanks.

The previous page is filling up with comments pretty quickly, so I decided to start a new page exclusively as an open forum where anyone with any questions or ideas can post them as comments. As for myself, I believe I've finally run out of new things to say about this case, but I'm always interested in what others are thinking. So if you have a comment or question, please post it below.

And remember: it's always best to post your comment on the latest blog page where everyone can easily find it. Also, please identify yourself with some sort of moniker -- makes it easier to follow up on comments if we know who is who.

Thanks.

215 comments:

  1. Was going to post in the previous section, but thought I would be the first to write in this forum.
    Why did JR break the window in the basement at all? It was clearly done to fake a break in to go along with the RN. Which begs the question, why not just leave a downstairs window open or have the front door unlocked? The downstairs window being broken was not seen by PR or BR prior to the call with police, so I just dont understand the purpose of doing it. The RN was done to create fear specifically in Patsy.....just doesnt add up.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think John broke the window rather than leave it open or leave a door open because Patsy would have known very well that all doors and windows in the house were always locked. Don't forget: according to both Patsy and John, the door keys were rarely used because they almost always entered from a car, using the garage door opener. That's how they would have entered the house when returning from the party that night.

      Also, I think John saw the broken window as clear, concrete evidence of an intruder, whereas an open or unlocked door would not look all that impressive. Also an unlocked door would have to be explained, but a broken window speaks for itself.

      Either he was naive enough to assume the broken glass would be enough to convince the cops, or else he just didn't have time the night before to complete his staging and was planning on doing that the next day.

      Delete
  2. Good point, thanks!

    The other issue, is the timeline for me. Lets start with after JBR is killed, and as a side note, I have never felt that it was pre-meditated.

    So, JBR is dead, and JR has to do something as he has to explain JBR being dead. Being that it was at night, his options were limited, so does he start writing the RN first in an attempt to buy himself time, then breaks the window to go along with the RN he just wrote?

    This is the part where I would love to hear everybody's thoughts on, as the window of time from when PR and BR went to bed, until PR wakes up to to find the note is the entire case. Did they ever determine when JBR was most likely killed? JR clearly only had a few hours tops to cover his tracks and the most important being the body being in the house. Priority #1 in his mind HAD to have been getting rid of the body as at that point, he had to know the body being found IN the house meant he was toast. Assuming JR wrote the RN, he went to great lengths to fool Patsy. The purpose of the RN as Doc has said was to fool PR and buy himself time to dispose of the body. Which begs the question, why not at least get the body into the trunk of his car before anything else? Im not saying, dispose of the body that night, but at some point he is going to have to transport the body via his car, so why on Earth does he take the gamble on hiding it in his basement where it could have been found? It just doesnt make sense to take that much time writing a RN, but not worrying about the dead body sitting in the basement.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the basement room was probably the safest place to hide it, since it was the most remote spot in the entire house. Placing it in the trunk of his car was risky because if anything went wrong and the car was searched then it would have been obvious who put it there. He didn't have many options in any case.

      Delete
    2. The parents did not do it the came out with the one touch dna that test the unknown dna on fabric that was on her clothes and both pr and Jr was found not guilty I think it was Jr best friend

      Delete
    3. See: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-touch-dna.html

      Delete
  3. Hello --

    Thanks for the easier path for making comments here....it is difficult to follow old threads. I posted several months ago and regret I don't recall my nickname - I will try to stick with "SW" going forward.

    Here is one of my questions regarding the "Doc Theory" of the case (a theory which I accept as credible and probably the best one out there, but which has some holes):

    Why were Ramsey fingerprints not found on the RN? Why did they both appear to avoid touching the note? Apparently a clueless Patsy hops over the note on the stairs, reads a line or two without touching it, screams, runs to look for JB and tell her husband JB's been kidnapped, and he looks over the note that one of them now spreads on the floor. They do not grasp it or carry it around or spend much time with it at all. She calls 911 and somehow recalls enough of the note to recall the initials SBTC at the end of it, but does not try to read it over the phone. A few minutes later their friend Fernie shows up and sees the note through the window, STILL spread on the floor.

    Since the note is the only connection to JB that Patsy has, it makes no sense that she would treat it so coldly. This is all she has left of her precious baby -- it contains everything she needs to get JB back safely! She is not worried about preserving the crime scene since she immediately invites five people to come to her aid. Why does she then appear to ignore it and to not even really know what it says?

    If JR wrote it for her benefit, then surely an early strategy of his would be to push the note at her as proof that she needed to do as it said. But their joint, early reaction to the note is to treat it like it is radioactive. Why? Why, unless they both know it is worthless nonsense?

    Here is an excerpt from an interview with Steve Thomas and Elizabeth Vargas on the subject:

    Vargas: Were John and Patsy Ramsey's fingerprint on the ransom note?
    Thomas: No.
    Vargas: No?
    Thomas: No.
    Vargas: (VO) But if they found the note and picked it up, Thomas asks why their fingerprints were not on it. Did they say whether or not they had picked it up to read it?
    Thomas: I tried to pin Patsy Ramsey down at the time of our first interview with them. Did you grab the note? Did you pick up the note? Did you clutch it in your hand and read it and run upstairs with it? Who moved it to the hardwood floor? And I couldn't get an answer to that. She didn't recall.
    Vargas: Is it possible that the parents could have handled the note and not left their fingerprints? Or that the paper for some reason didn't retain that kind of print?
    Thomas: Certainly. But then I think the argument can be made, then when the sergeant touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. When the CBI examiner touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. Patsy had left previous fingerprints on that pad, five that we identified. So that remains one of the mysteries in this case. How come there's no identifiable fingerprints on this thing if one or both parents handled and grasped it that morning?
    Vargas: Do you find that suspicious?
    Thomas: Well, suspicious. It's just a big question mark that we'll — we'll never have an answer to, absent somebody confessing in this case.

    I appreciate any thoughts or links to prior discussions on this matter. Thanks! SW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what I wrote in an earlier blog post regarding the lack of prints on the ransom note:

      "A closely related bit of folklore is the notion that both Ramseys deliberately avoided touching the note to make sure their prints wouldn't get on it. What makes [that] theory unlikely is the lack of any need for either Patsy or John to avoid getting their prints on a document that they themselves admit to having handled and read. If either of them had written the note, that person would certainly have made a point of handling it in the presence of witnesses, to establish a reason for his or her prints to be on it. If none were found nevertheless, that's most likely due to the fact that finding fingerprints is not an automatic process and in many cases no prints are found, simply because the suspect's hands were relatively clean, or due to the technical difficulty of lifting prints from certain surfaces."

      A lot of what I call the "folklore" of this case stems from Steve Thomas's strenuous efforts to find anything that might look suspicious. If you read that interview carefully you'll see that he is playing a clever game, implying that the lack of prints is suspicious while at the same time not really committing himself. There is nothing suspicious about the lack of prints on a document they admitted handling. And if one of them left his or her prints on the note while writing it, that person would have made sure to handle it in the presence of the police, to provide an innocent reason for the prints to be there. Thus there can be nothing suspicious about the lack of their prints on that note. It's just another example of Thomas bending the evidence to fit his theory.

      As for what went on between Patsy and John just prior to the 911 call, we have no way of knowing for sure. John might have tried to persuade her not to call and may even have tried to prevent her from making the call. What we do know is that the official version of what happened is contradicted by the other version Patsy gave in the A&E documentary.

      My guess is that Patsy may have been in fear for her own life when she called. She might have suspected the "kidnappers" were still in the house, or she might have even suspected John at that point and just wanted people to come over there to be with her and protect her. But ultimately we have no way of knowing and will probably never know.

      Delete
  4. Fingerprints do not always adhere to all surfaces. Paper isn't generally one of the better surfaces to lift prints from, though it certainly is possible. There is individual variation as far as leaving prints, and much depends on the amount of "oils" on the skin, which can vary too, depending on conditions.

    Bottom line for me is that there would be nothing incriminating about the Rs prints on the RN, since they admit to handling it, and would naturally have to handle it to read it. Once we realize that guilt/innocence can't even be guessed at because of the presence or absence of prints, we can dismiss it as another blind alley that sucks up time and attention.

    There wouldn't be any reason for the Rs to be careful handling the note, nor would there be any reason to wipe the RN. As you point out PR's prints are on the note pad from which the pages of the RN were taken, and that isn't suspicious, since it's her notepad.

    One of the most valuable lessons I've learned from reading Doc's blog is to try to figure out when some sort of "evidence" really isn't going to tell you anything, and then not spend too much time on it.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your responses Doc and CH. I should perhaps not have emphasized the lack of fingerprints so much as the lack of contact, interest or interaction with the note. It is unusual behavior and it is mutual. They both appeared to ignore, even to dismiss the note. Given the DocG theory of the case, there is no reason for either of them to ignore it (JR would fake interest, PR would express panicky, true interest and hope. It is her only lifeline). If DocG is right, it is in both their interest to pay consuming interest to the note. But they did not, and there it sat on the floor after one of them moved it from the step to the floor.

    One theory I have kicked around is that JR did the entire crime and then told PR, after she called 911, that Burke accidentally killed JR and, to protect their son, JR created a coverup. That would explain her odd, frozen behavior the rest of the day, the calling in of friends to reinforce her, and their mutual lack of interest in the note. Nothing else really does. If JR exposed himself to her through rage at her that morning, creating fear and suspicion (and reason for her to ignore the note, knowing JR did something terrible), she might have gone along for a day but she probably would not have turned into the complete John Ramsey cheerleader she remained until she died. That is why BR looks like such a good suspect to Kolar et al, despite facts to the contrary. Patsy's behavior the rest of her life looked like she thought BR accidentally did it and JR saved her son. Indeed, JR filed suit against anyone who hinted that BR did it, and thus continued to "protect" him.




    SW


    ReplyDelete
  6. I was reading a interview in which the interviewer talked about how the Ramseys absolutely did not want law enforcement to explore the possibility of a Boulder pedophile ring being involved. What do you think is the significance of that? Could a pedophile have accompanied John to the basement with JonBenet or gone alone, abused and killed her, snuck out the front door and then left John to pick up the pieces?
    kp

    ReplyDelete
  7. To add support to the above:

    The reason that so many have failed to arrive at or accept Doc's theory of the case is because it is not complete. I understand the not wanting to fill in blanks, but it causes problems. As noted many times on this blog, the case endures due to the the mysterious combination of facts, misdirection, lies, and legal maneuvering....the vast number of tiny bits of information that may or may not be relevant.

    Ultimately, the reason Doc's theory does not fully satisfy, despite it's logic, is the lack of explanation for Patsy Ramsey's
    behavior. I can accept the theory that she lied about the broken window at JR's urging to better support proof of an intruder, but that was long after the crime was committed. I think Doc is correct, that her 911 call is proof of her innocence and lack of prior knowledge. But her behavior almost immediately after and forever more implied collusion. Any theory that does not address her apparent collusion is incomplete. There is a reason so many smart people suspected Patsy Ramsey.

    What if: Right after she calls 911, John sends Burke to his room and quickly tells Patsy that Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet in the night (shoved her, hit her on the head) and that he, John, has covered it up to protect their son. He tells her that Burke must never know what happened, that he caused his sister's death. He is just a little boy. Thus all the subsequent interviews with Patsy where she reveals that she has never discussed JonBenet's death with Burke. Yes, she is going to be appalled at the physical condition of her dead daughter, but she will accept that her husband had to create a horrific intruder scene to protect her son. She may explain the evidence ongoing sexual abuse as the siblings "playing doctor" in the past.

    Burke himself says very little going forward because he knows very little.

    I think this theory explains all that follows, and ties up the loose ends with JDI all alone. On December 26, very soon after Patsy calls 911, she does not behave like a mother whose child is kidnapped, she behaves like a mother whose child is dead. In the weeks and months to come, Patsy goes on the defensive, becomes dramatic, lies, and plays her part to the hilt. And why wouldn't she? She believes she is protecting her only living child, her husband, her way of life.

    Since Burke had nothing to do with JB's death, she adds extra layers of confusion and lies that hamper the ability of law enforcement to ever get a handle on this case.

    SW






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I seriously doubt John would ever consider coming up with such a story because it would be far too risky. Burke was certainly capable of defending himself to his mother. And I don't see any reason why John would expect Patsy to buy a scenario in which Burke first killed his sister and then conveniently forgot about what he'd done.

      As I see it it's really not that difficult to understand why Patsy would want to support her husband. For one thing, I think that's something most wives would do -- at least those in a stable relationship. For another, if she was unaware of the prior abuse, and I believe she must have unaware, then she wouldn't have a clue as to what motive John might have for killing his own daughter. Finally, after John was "ruled out" as writer of the note (a decision that was made very shortly after the night of the murder), she would have had no reason to suspect him. In her eyes the note must have been written by "the intruder."

      Given John being "ruled out," coupled with Patsy thereby becoming the leading suspect, any attempt on her part to cast suspicion on John would have backfired. So she was not in any sort of position to challenge John on anything. Given this situation I don't think it's difficult to understand how John would have been able to manipulate her.

      Delete
    2. Doc, good rebuttal. Your words fit with your prior arguments. Here is my answer to your points: I was not thinking that John would invent a story out of whole cloth, but use something that happened all the time. I.e., kids got up in the night and were jumping on the bed, but this night JB falls off off and seems fine but later falls unconscious. Kids earlier fighting over a video game or toy, Burke gets angry and hits his sister. All was well but after Burke went to bed, JB died, dad found her). The media have reported that the family removed golf clubs from the basement....Burke once hit his sister with a golf club, so it would not be a stretch for John to say it happened again after a sibling argument. The key is that to both parents, it is a terrible accident that must be hidden.

      I am grasping at straws here because John would have been grasping as well. One phone call erased everything, ruined everything. I think he was desperate. He might later have blamed the entire thing on Burke and told Patsy he only wrote the note, but that Burke cannot remember what he did. That part was true, Burke consistently said he did not remember anything about that night.

      I know an actual case where a child accidentally killed her little brother (hit him on the head) and the family successfully hid the manner of his death from her and the police -- they said he fell. The big sister might have suspected the real story as she grew older, but never questioned the family story that after he recovered from being hit on the head he sadly fell down, hit his head again and died. They lied to protect the psychological well-being of the remaining child. If I have one critique of your blog, DocG, it is a reluctance to recognize the intensity of that parent-child bond. For many people, it is stronger than the marital bond.

      Both Patsy and Burke reported separately to interviewers that they never talked about JonBenet's death with each other. Even if Patsy confronted Burke about hurting JonBenet and he denied it, that would be typical kid behavior, not necessarily true. And as far as we know, they did not talk about it.

      The very strange aversion of Patsy to the note and to details of the case are hard to accept, and part of why she stood accused. It is as if she got instantly fired up after three lines of a ransom note, called 911 and then shut down forever. She admitted that she never read the entire ransom note, ever, and she stated in the same police interview that she never read the police reports sent to them. She displayed a remarkable lack of curiosity and sincere emotion from December 26 on, except for her emotional meltdown when she brought Burke in for a forensic interview with a psychologist. Then in later interviews, If you wanted to fire up Patsy Ramsey, suggest Burke had anything to do with his sister's death.

      SW

      Delete
  8. And I suggest that this is different from an intruder theory in that John knew this pedophile; personally set up the encounter; knew the perp would be hiding in the basement and waiting for them both to come down sometime around midnight, and then when JonBenet was unintentionally murdered, John needed to cover up the situation due to his active involvement--hence his writing of the ransom note, finding the body, contaminating the scene, etc. I know it adds a layer of complexity, but could it be a possibility? kp

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kp, could you cite interview where Ramseys said they did not want pedophile ring investigated? That is an odd fact if true!

    SW

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read it online--interview with Stephen Singular titled the Pornography Connection. It was stated that some woman from California talked about a Boulder pedophile ring and Ramseys wanted nothing to do with following up on this possibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steven Singular became convinced that JBR's murder was connected with some sort of pedophile ring. So it doesn't surprise me that in his eyes Patsy and John were trying to hide the involvement of any such person or people. Like so many following the case he saw what he wanted to see. I've read a lot about the case and never had the impression from anything the Ramseys said that they were trying to protect anyone other than themselves and their son.

      The bottom line for me regarding this theory is actually very simple. If a third party was invited into the Ramsey home that night and participated in JBR's murder, then that person would have removed her body from the premises before the police were called.

      Delete
  11. But couldn't the pedophile (perhaps only a unnamed acquaintance) have panicked and run from the house in fear without the body? The pedophile would know that if John reported him that the pedophile would 'out' John as complicit in the abuse and murder--something John would go to extreme lengths to avoid. This would explain some of the more sadistic aspects better for me, like the garroting done by a relative stranger-and that John voyeuristically watched; also allowing him to 'truthfully' say he didn't kill her or even know who did. And yet John would be required to laboriously cover everything up to preserve his name and reputation, Maybe sounding too complicated, I know. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. kp, there are all sorts of variations possible on any theory, just as there are all sorts of theories possible to explain any event. The problem is that in order to deal rationally with any such possibility it's necessary to have some sort of evidence. And there is no evidence of any such third party in the house that night. And also good reason to doubt the presence of any such person or persons, for the reason I gave above. However, anything is possible, so it's possible such a person was there and then panicked and left. But without evidence we have nothing to go on, so all we're left with is a possibility. And there are many other possibilities as well. If you use your imagination you can come up with all sorts of things. And that could be applied to any case, not just this one.

      I agree that the manner in which JonBenet was attacked is troubling and it's hard to accept that her father could have done this to her. However, even if John Ramsey isn't the one who killed her, he was certainly involved in her murder and knows exactly what happened. Thus imo he should be indicted on the basis of probable cause and put on trial. If someone else was involved, then hopefully that would come out during the trial, as John tried to defend himself.

      I agree that all sorts of things are possible and that there is a possibility you could be right. But I find that extremely unlikely, given what we know about the case and the logic that binds all the threads together.

      Delete
    2. Kip, I read the Singular piece. Thanks for the info. I do think it is not surprising that the Ramsey Team would avoid it....it would be difficult to explore that information without involving them in a discussion of their daughter being used as kiddie porn. I imagine this was a sensitive subject, would be for anyone but especially if your family hobby (pageants) has been compared to child pornography.

      SW

      Delete
  12. Years ago I heard Clinton R. Van Zandt, an FBI profiler on the case, speak about this case. He said he was certain that the Ramseys knew who killed JonBenet and were covering something up. He wouldn't say who did it though (although I felt he knew), which always left me to think that the father did it and his wife covered for him when she found out. What I didn't get was why she would stay with him. My only guess is that she'd known about the sexual abuse and looked the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. First off, Patsy being believable in all tv interviews and the fact that she was the one who called the police has always been a reason that in no way was she involved in the murder of her daughter. I have always gone back and forth on whether it was BR or JR who committed the crime and though JR does make more sense, there has always been a few reasons that I still believe BR might have been responsible.
    1. Motive - Docs theory about JR trying to shut JBR up because she was going to squeel about molestation just doesnt make sense. She goes to a party with the family until 9 that night and nobody at the party mentions talking to her about any type of molestation. So, she falls asleep in the car and wakes up to come to the conclusion that she is going to rat out her Dad? It just doesnt add up at all. Nor does JR choosing the night before they are to leave early in the morning to go see family as a time to try and play some perverted game with her.
    When it comes to motive, it seems like BR has the only motive of any of the Ramseys to have killed his sister. Its Christmas, so it could have been out of jealousy of some kind, or there have always have been rumors of him being jealous that PR gave JBR so much attention. The fact that he was 9 shouldn't exclude him from being considered as a suspect.
    The aftermath of the murder is where the BR did it theory takes an odd turn, as it doesnt seem likely at all that BR wrote the RN. However, if JR helped BR cover up a crime to protect his only son, then it would explain JR's behavior in the cover up and days to follow.
    Doc your reply to the parent cover up theory in the past has always been that Colorado Law wouldnt have been able to do much to BR and JR would have known that. If JR is awoken to a sound downstairs and sees BR crying telling his Dad that an accident happened and JBR is dead, then its not that hard to believe that a parent would participate in a cover up to protect his only remaining child from being charged with a crime. Especially since JR already lost a child to a car accident. IMO it just seems plausible that JR who being awoken to losing his 2nd child would react in a way that would best protect his family. If he calls the cops right away, then he not only lost a daughter, but also a son forever, because it would follow BR around for the rest of his life.
    The JR did theory is well thought out and very hard to dispute, but after all these years, if it happened as Doc says it happened, than an arrest would have been made as its so obvious.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was the leading suspect until he was "ruled out." I think it was the upcoming trip that panicked him.

      Delete
  14. Doc,
    I've been studying this case for several years and recently came across your blog. I've read through a lot the posts and comments and I agree with your main assessment of the facts. I too have always suspected JR of being the sole perpetrator of this unspeakable crime, and only think PR's "involvement" in the cover-up began after the murder when she was finally interviewed by police. However, I don't think PR believed she was covering for a GUILTY husband, but an innocent one. The main things that stuck out to me were JR's ridiculous window-breaking fairy tale, and the pineapple in JB's stomach. It seems to me that JR was pretty good at manipulating his somewhat naive wife and getting her to lie for him while convincing her of his innocence at the same time. I think you covered this idea in another post but I can also imagine JR telling PR, "the cops think you wrote the note and we killed JB, but we both know an intruder did it. Just go along with whatever I say to them no matter what because if we are not united in this they can pin it on either one of us". I think PR was way too trusting of JR but maybe before her death she began to suspect him just a little, or even confronted him about it. Looks like we'll never know.
    Mona

    ReplyDelete
  15. I completely agree with you J, in fact you concisely put together my own thoughts. DocG's theory is certainly compelling, except for exactly your points made. Tying together some of the factual evidence to BR does take a leap toward accepting a 9yr old is capable of pernicious precociousity, however unintended the consequences turn out. The authoring of the RN sounds like JR's speaking and wording, penning could've been either PR and/or JR, the "q" looks uniquely like Patsy's. Count me in as one of the many contributors here in regards to both parents damning non-reaction to BR. I think DocG has nailed everything else right, I'd like to say thank-you to DocG for articulating so intelligently with regard to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must insist on Burke as possible but unlikely.

      Delete
  16. I've been traveling and away from my laptop. Typing on my tablet isn't easy, so forgive me for being brief or not always responding.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No worries on the short responses!

    Again, I think both the intruder theory and PR being involved are just ludicrous. As Doc has stated, PR calling the police eliminates her completely, as if she was aware of the RN and/or the body in the house, then she never makes that phone call. So, there are only 2 suspects that make any sense and they are JR and BR.

    Without repeating my above post, I have just never felt that JR had any real motive to kill her the night before going away on a huge trip with the family or killing her at all. In order for BR to have been the killer, JR would most certainly had to have been involved however, so thats where the theory does take a leap of faith, but definitely plausible.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  18. J- I think the ground has been covered very well with respect to Burke. There is no hard evidence that points to Burke. The behaviors of John and Patsy on Dec 26, plus Burke's behavior both then and throughout his growing up years simply validates that he was likely not involved. You can't point to Burke simply because you "feel" JR had no motive. He had plenty of motive. He traveled a lot with his job. He probably molested JBR, periodically, when he was home - the evidence of prior sexual abuse is there. He knew the gig was up, and he could possibly be found out while on a cruise ship with his family where he could not escape. There are plenty of dirty old men in the world abusing their daughters who will do anything to not be found out. The child is an object to them. Dispose of the object before ruining your own life - that is their thought pattern. If Burke were capable of doing all that to JBR, you would find him to be one really messed up adult and he is not. Now this is pure conjecture, but if Patsy, toward the end of her life started to suspect John (think about all the many conversations they may have had where she started to see the light with his manipulation), she may have talked to Burke, too -- even on her deathbed. She may have gone to her grave knowing that Burke heard something that night and will never tell. Before she died, she may have known. Hence the police wanting to talk to Burke. Some nurse probably tipped them that she and Burke had private conversations. -K

    ReplyDelete
  19. K - I appreciate the reply as that's whats make this site great, due to all the differing opinions of us web sleuths.

    Just like you said I can't say BR did it because I feel, you are using the same logic to say JR had a motive to do it. There was signs of prior sexual abuse, but those signs don't necessarily point to JR as being the culprit. Sure, it makes sense that he was the culrpit, just as a lot of the evidence points to JR as being the killer, yet we have no arrest to what on the surface seems like a very easy to solve crime.

    My point is that BR could have easily committed the actual act of the murder out of a sudden rage and then with the help of JR, covered the crime. BR sleeping through the morning or at least not leaving his room, followed by supposedly never seeing anything, just doesn't add up on any level. The window, RN, etc could all still be done by JR, but the actual murder could still have been committed by BR.

    Motive to me is the heart of this case, because as nicely done as Doc's theory is, the motive IMO just doesn't hold water. JBR according to JR was sleeping in the car and carried to her bed when the Ramseys got home from the party. I don't believe PR disputed that, so after 9pm, JBR is sound asleep and carried to her bed. After that, JR goes into her room, wakes her up, to commit some perverted sex game, followed by killing her? Furthermore, JR is a grown man, but yet feels the need to strike her over the head to kill her? Wouldn't just choking her been quicker and easier?
    As far as BR being messed up as he got older, that is pure speculation and there are plenty of people leading normal lives who also have a screw loose.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always wondered about the true course of events that night. Both JR and PR said that JB was asleep and had to be carried into the house. However, BR told a psychologist who interviewed him that JB had been awake and walked up to bed. The psychologist concluded that BR was "confused" and didn't know what day he was remembering. I've always wondered why the psychologist came to that conclusion.

      I'm not sure when the interview was held, but I'm sure a 10-year-old would be quite capable of remembering coming home from the party on Christmas night. After all, it was an event, and not just any other day.

      I know it's not a huge point, and doesn't offer evidence of guilt either way, but I've always wondered why BR's recollections were dismissed outright.

      Delete
  20. J - I didn't say BR would have screw loose :) He is functioning well in society and has comp sci/engineering degree from Purdue - hard to achieve even if one just has emotional problems. He doesn't have rage problems or any other indicators of being someone who had deep-seated issues at age 9. He stayed in his room because purportedly, he was told to stay there until he was sent to the White's house. As Doc pointed out, no way would John send Burke away if he was in the throes of covering up something Burke did, especially given that Patsy had already thrown a wrench in the plan. Finally, who committed the sexual abuse if not John? There are many scenarios for why JR would have struck JBR, you don't have to know why, all you have to know is that she was struck, and strangled, and know that the force with which she was hit was said to be a force that a grown man would have to wield. You are proposing that John covered up the head injury that Burke would have inflicted? A normal parent would call 911, she was probably still breathing if John found her knocked out by Burke. As for me, in the final analysis I can't get over all of John's behaviour put together. You say that this was easy to solve, but not easy for a police department that stupidly or willfully chose to accept bogus handwriting opinions that ruled John out. The reason JBR is not getting justice is because of this single reason. - K

    ReplyDelete
  21. K - Do we honestly believe that in the 18 years since the crime, that the police haven't actually looked further into JR as the main suspect? I understand and agree with Doc that early on the police made a huge mistake by ruling John out based off of the handwriting sample, but its not as if the police today are still making that mistake. That is why there just has to be something more in this case, or the alternative is that Colorado is home to the most incompetent police force ever which most likely isnt the case. The RN has been looked at every which way and the wording points more to JR then the handwriting does.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does anyone know if this is still considered an open case, i.e. are there people still currently working on it? When I read all the discussions here on Doc's blog and I consider all the possible explanations, theories and suspicions offered, I can't help but think that if there are, in fact, detectives still working this case, they would end up discussing the same things being discussed here and would ultimately come to the same conclusions that so many of us have, despite our disagreements on the little details of this crime. You would think there would be SOMEONE working this case who could crack it. I've read all the comments here made by very intelligent people who have a great deal of knowledge about this case, and it is unbelievable to me that there isn't someone in either the police department or DA's office that doesn't still want to solve this crime and, more importantly, doesn't have enough circumstantial evidence to take a closer look at JR. What would have to be done to indict JR at this point? He was ruled out as the writer of the RN, but he certainly hasn't been completely cleared as a suspect, has he?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, I'm saying exactly what Doc has said. He gave enough examples for an analysis of John's handwriting that indeed, anyone would agree points to John as being the writer of the RN. If the police had done that analysis, over the last 18 years, then yes, they would have done exactly what Doc has suggested, and call back in those handwriting experts and present some hard questions. Given that this has not happened, It is apparent that the police have not looked harder into the handwriting. Doc's analysis of the handwriting makes this a no-brainer case to solve. -K

    ReplyDelete
  24. K - On the surface I agree that JR to you, me and most on this site seems like the likely author of the RN, but do you honestly believe that police have not exhausted that lead? The reason I bring up BR at all is simply because nobody has been charged with this crime and there must be something that we are all missing.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The decision to rule John out was NEVER questioned by ANYONE in the investigation or the media. That's what was missed.

      Delete
    2. A Wealthy and intelligent narcissist can carry a tremendous amount of influence.

      Delete
  25. My 2 cents on motive.

    First, I'll start with the problem I have with JR and motive. Then, I'll explain why I think JR is the best suspect even though I can't precisely figure his motive.

    The problem for me is simply that killing is an extreme thing to do, even for a molester. Most molesters do not kill their victims. Additionally, many victims don't talk, for years, if ever. Third, I think JR could talk/bribe his way out of it, even if JBR said she'd squeal..

    I feel it's more likely that JBR, rather than threatening to tell all, was revealing bits and pieces. JR figured eventually PR would put the pieces together. Even then, I still have trouble because, to repeat, killing is pretty extreme.

    However, we know PR didn't do it because she made the 911 call. IMO BDI is a crazy theory that has no basis in evidence, and makes little sense even as speculation. (I won't go into all the arguments against BDI right now).

    So, that leaves JR. He is most likely the culprit. That he killed JBR to shut her up is speculative, but speculation that makes sense.

    But, we really don't need motive (as something certain) to solve the puzzle. JDI is all that makes sense, so either it was a complete accident, followed by a cover up, or JR had a motive we can only speculate about. Either way, it's JDI.

    I'm not really too keen on the accident/coverup theory. The blow to the head was delivered with great force and I have a problem believing that it was accidental. But again, even if it was an accident, it was still JDI.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  26. First, in response to Anonymous post of August 7, this is from a post on another forum: "Even all these years later, the Boulder city website is still asking for tips in the case.
    The website says, " Anyone with information about JonBenet Ramsey’s homicide is asked to contact Detective Sgt. Tom Trujillo at 303-441-3338. Anonymous tips may be emailed to BouldersMostWanted@bouldercolorado.gov. Tips leading to the arrest and conviction of the suspect in this crime may be eligible for a cash reward."

    And, DA Stan Garnett did take interest in the case, making clear statements according to this at YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ba8lqz3iE

    When BPD appointed it's new police chief, Greg Testa just recently, there was this:
    Testa said he has no plans to reignite the investigation into Boulder’s most famous cold case, the killing of Jon Benet Ramsey.
    “There is no goal or move to take that in front of a grand jury any time soon,” he said.

    Yes, the Boulder authorities are aware of the public interest in the JBR case. But what continues to be so very, very frustrating is the feeling that someone, somehow continues to keep them all at bay along with any new evidence from coming forth to lead to a deeper investigation of John Ramsey.

    I also agree the RN sounds more JR than PR. IMO, it is constructed to allow for the removal of JB's body from the house, while moving suspicion of a perpetrator to someone outside the house, provided PR would have followed through as was expected. In the most predominant exemplar available to the public, John displayed difficulty with misspelling of the word "occasion", spelling it "occassion", indicating, IMO, that words with double "s's" in them present difficulty, which are the same type of misspellings in the ransom note. Letter formation and style, to me, as Doc displayed, are also indicative of JR's hand, particularly in page 3, when the writer's attempt to camouflage his own writing would have been waning. The following link is worth the time to read, IMO, with regard to helping to discern which of the adult R's might have written the note...
    http://www.trialrun.com/profiles/jon-benet_ramsey2.html

    IMO, the motive for JB's murder was fear of detection for the molestation. Interesting comment from JR that she was their "spark plug". And, sad to say, I believe that JB was victim of molestation by others in her family as well as her father, for a time previous to that night. There were secrets that had to remain in that family.
    MWMM

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not that i particularly believe in Patsy's involvement, but many people who say, she must be ruled out because she called 911.This to me does not eliminate her, as she could have simply said to John she wanted it over and done with and just picked up the phone regardless. They were stuck, with the plan of getting JBR out of the house, and perhaps she wanted her found and it to end

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that case they would not have reported a kidnapping.

      Delete
    2. evej - I have often thought the same thing. I am not convinced of Patsy's involvement and, in fact, mostly feel she was completely innocent. But, as you say, I don't necessarily think her making that 911 call is what makes her innocent. Assuming for the sake of argument that she was involved, or at least knew of John's involvement, I agree with you that she might still have wanted the police involved so that the body could be found and they could move forward. I don't believe for a minute that she would have allowed John to remove the body and DUMP it somewhere! But then you have to wonder why they would continue with the kidnapping staging and leave the ransom note there for the police to find --- a piece of evidence that could be linked back to them (and it was).

      One thing that puzzles me is that Patsy says she never read the entire ransom note before making that 911 call. That could explain why she wasn't worried about the "kidnapper" harming JonBenet if she did call police. However, I find it extremely unbelievable that she would NOT have read the entire note right away. As another poster said, that note was the only link to her missing daughter and I find it very odd that she would not have read every word in that note immediately --- whether she made the call or not.

      bb

      Delete
    3. There is NO way a mother would be told her child is missing then not read the note through NUMEROUS times..
      I think she was told JBR was missing and made a beeline for the phone to call the police. It is an instinct to call the police when you truly believe you/ yours are endangered.

      Delete
    4. DocG, all i was only trying to say. that if Patsy had any involvement, which i don't think she did, and the plans changed to look like a kidnapping gone wrong, the 911 call from her could still have been panic for JBR to be found.

      Delete
    5. There was no need to call the police in order for her to be found. In fact hiding her only made Patsy and John look more suspicious. If they'd changed their plan then they'd have taken her body to her bedroom and claimed she'd been attacked by a murderous pedophile.

      I'm sorry but I can't accept that Patsy, after sitting down to pen a two and a half page "ransom note," would suddenly panic and call the police at the last minute, thus destroying their plan -- AND handing them evidence that could be used against her. If there had been a change of plan that note would never have been handed to the police -- it would have been torn into tiny pieces and flushed down the toilet.

      Delete
    6. The moment PR heard her daughter was missing, she called the police. To me this was just another example of JR believing he could control people. He felt the note provided all the reasons for PR to behave the way he needed her to behave for him to have the opportunity to remove the body. I imagine JR had found PR pretty easy to control in the past. BUT he under estimated the fear of losing a child...and her uncontrollable reaction.


      After reading all the info on this site, I feel this is a tragic-yet simple case..The income of the family, the beautiful home, and Christmas Eve created the mystery- not the evidence.

      Delete
  28. Hi- To be honest I am not as thoroughly familiar with this case as the other commenters. Yet this case has always nagged at me. So please look at my opinion as pure speculation.

    I think that John had an emotionally and physically complicated (and sexually abusive) relationship with his daughter. My only basis of this opinion is a friend I knew years ago...she told me how her father molested her. The molestation while sexually deviant was driven out of some strange fixation on my friend as a child. Her father viewed her as the most lovely and perfect creature- WHO HE OWNED...this ownership lead to the molestation. Her father acted like this bond between them was so special, that the daughter should recognize how loving and caring, and how he worshiped her..When my friend finally tells people, as a teen, even in prison her father acted like 'how could you turn on me like that?" So obviously it was a truly twisted obsession of a narcissistic father.
    So my point is- I don't think JR killed JBR because she was going to tell. I think she said or did something that enraged him. He had planned something just for the two of them to celebrate Christmas privately, and she either was unappreciative or rejected him in someway...I think JR excused his sexual abuse of JBR in a way that their relationship was unique, and she said something that made him see that he was nothing more than a perverted man who sexually abuses his young daughter...and he could not control his rage.

    The aforementioned friend told me how her father regularly plan secret celebration- almost like with a mistress- just another opportunity for a secret between the two of them,
    Ultimately JBR's short life was full exploitation and betrayal. Perhaps one day, your website will play a role in Jon Benet Ramsey getting her justice.
    Thank you for all the time and work you put into this blog..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree. I've not actually done research of incest and the percentage of victims who do tell, but I believe most victims DON'T tell. JBR was just 6 years old and JR was a very successful businessman who was used to giving orders and probably demanding confidentially from his employees. I think he was smart enough to control her and prevent her from talking, especially since she probably looked up to him and loved him. Having this kind of emotion toward your abuser is common because you have already been "groomed" by them. And he was her father, after all.

      I agree that she must have said something or did something that caught him off guard and enraged him. Maybe she told him she hated him. Maybe she told him she wished he wasn't her father. Maybe she just started crying uncontrollably and that snapped him out of his fantasy and angered him. Maybe he became impotent and blamed her for it. Who knows.

      I, too, hope someday Doc's blog will help solve this case. Or at least get a new DA to look at the case again . . . and look at JR again.

      bb

      Delete
  29. PROOF: "PRO-LIFE" SATANIC CULT LEADER IN DENVER "PASTOR" & BOB ENYART MURDERED JONBENET RAMSEY & LEFT HIS DNA ALL OVER THE CRIME SCENE - WATCH NEW DOCUMENTARY: http://youtu.be/AMVWunYRauk

    WHY WON'T SADISTIC PEDOPHILE "PASTOR" BOB ENYART SUE THE KEKOAS FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO OR WEBSITE?

    www.BobEnyartMurderedJonBenetRamsey.com

    BOB ENYART IS GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY OF MURDERING JONBENET RAMSEY! THAT'S WHY HE CAN'T SUE US!

    View PoliceRecordingsKekoas Youtube Playlist here: http://goo.gl/7K4T7j

    LISTEN TO BOB ENYART LIES - THE CLUE THAT BREAKS THE CASE: http://kgov.com/ramsey-murder

    www.ShadowGov.com "small foreign faction" founder = SATANIC 666 SERIAL-KILLER ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART | DOB 1-10-59 | SSN 152-60-4382 | FBI # 678532LA7 | CO License # CO368941

    On Christmas night 1996, serial-killer "pastor" crept into JonBenet Ramsey's house at 755 15th St. in Boulder, CO and strangled and bludgeoned JonBenet in the basement at midnight. Bob Enyart left his DNA all over JonBenet. Call him toll-free and ask serial-killer ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART DOB 1-10-59 why he murdered JonBenet Ramsey and left his pubic hair on her blanket. 1-800-8-ENYART

    ReplyDelete
  30. Responding to a few of the above posts, do you honestly think that in his attempt to quiet/shutup his daughter from exposing him, JR chooses that night to kill his daughter and leave her body in the house? The broken window was sloppy and then the RN along with the body still being in the house was such a HUGE risk to take. JR might be the culprit, but why on that night would he commit such a horrible crime with little time to cover his tracks? The bludgeoning over the head to me says their was rage involved in what took place, and not sure that it was the result of trying to keep somebody quiet. If JR's goal was simply to just shut her up, then choking her would have been much quicker.

    -AL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some possible reasons:

      1. To give her one last Christmas before snuffing out her life.

      2. Because she might have given him the impression she was about to confide in her half sister during the upcoming family reunion.

      3. Because she might have said something that day or that evening that caused John to panic. That night would have been his last chance to deal with the "problem," since they'd be staying with family for several days afterward and getting rid of the body would have been far more difficult.

      Delete
  31. I agree with Doc and some of the others...keep in mind that JR could have been thinking for sometime about this mess he had gotten himself into by sucombing to his sexual deviance. He had to have been thinking about the day that JBR was going to be old enough to realize that this was wrong, uncomfortable, and was going to say something, at which time he would be toast and headed for prison, divorce, loss of his business, and shame. He was probably already thinking that he might have to end JBR's life. That night may have not been when he intended to do this, but something happened and he had to take action. Maybe he only meant to scare her or bribe her, but that didn't work. There was probably some rage involved...maybe she ran from him, heading up the stairs to her mother and he had to stop her, panicked, and hit her with the flashlight. Everything else he did was out of sheer panic, thus not fully thought out and clearly not fully executed. -K

    ReplyDelete
  32. I do believe JR wrote the RN, but I don't know why he wouldn't have woken PR up or had the note in hand to tell PR what happened. If Doc is correct and his ultimate plan was to stall the cops being called so he could dispose of the body while fooling PR, then why just leave the note on the stairs? He could have accomplished his plan much easier by telling PR what the note said and whatever she did to NOT call the police. At that specific point in time when PR is coming down the stairs, JR's fate is hanging in the balance, so it truly baffles me that he would leave it up to a highly medicated person like Patsy not calling the cops right away.
    As we all know, JR is not sitting in jail, but at the very moment the police were called, the body is still sitting in the basement which had a proper search been done, then JR is currently serving life in prison......if he did it.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  33. J respectfully I would analyze it a bit differently.

    I agree that it might have been better had JR had the note in hand, telling PR not to call. But we don't really know the family dynamics - what if it was unusual for JR to wake before PR? What if PR found it very convenient that JR woke before her and found the RN? JR might have been distancing himself from the note, not being the one to find it. Many have expressed the idea that they would have read the note entirely. But if PR didn't conform to JR's expectations, that explains why he left his fate up to her reaction. It may never have occurred to him that anyone would fail to read the note word for word. IMO the first threat in the note is there to insure that the instructions are read.

    I don't know that it makes much difference what time the body was found. It should, by all rights, have been found within a half hour or so of the 911 call. But once it finally is "found" we end up in the same place - a body and a RN in the same place at the same time. Given the patent staging of a fake kidnapping I'm not sure why they weren't arrested at that moment, or at least asked to come downtown for questioning.

    It's the uncritical acceptance of PR as RN author that throws the investigation off track. Nothing that happened up to 1:05pm on the 26th should have prevented the police from figuring out who did it.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  34. J- just curious as to why you referred to Patsy as highly medicated? She was medicated after she found out her daughter was dead, not before. -K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. K - sorry, after I submitted I realized I misspoke on that.

      -J

      Delete
  35. CH- Thanks for clarifying some of that!

    Thats a good point on JR being up before PR might have drawn some suspicions to PR.

    The biggest priority for JR had to have been getting that body out of the house, so the second PR dials 911 the gig should have been up for the Ramsey's, mainly JR. The sole purpose of the RN was to fool PR and only PR in the short term. Im just thinking out loud, so my apologies if Im repeating myself. Would have been great to be a fly on the wall in that house that morning.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still don't believe that JR killed JBR because of fear of exposure. First of all, he could simply deny it. Most abusers do. But I don't think that's what happened. If she threatened to tell, think of all the awful things he could say to her that would either scare or shame her into keeping quiet. Sexual predators are very clever and will do anything so that they can continue the abuse.

      I think she said something or did something that sent him into an uncontrollable, violent rage. This would explain the huge crack and hole in her skull -- she was hit with incredible force. However, this would assume the blow came first, and after reading Wecht's book and learning about no blood in the skull, I am once again perplexed. It makes medical sense that she was strangled first, yet I don't see that kind of assault happening from a fit of rage. Making and attaching that garrote took a little time --- acts from sudden rage are usually fast, like a gun shot or a knife stabbing.

      The one thing I have to keep reminding myself of is that we don't always know what goes on in a person's mind, and even though some find it very hard to believe JR committed this horrendous act, he probably had a secret, dark side that no one else ever saw . . . except JBR.

      A perfect example of this is the sudden death of Robin Williams today. Who knew he was so severely depressed?? Obviously he hid it from everyone, except perhaps his agent and wife. RIP Robin. I will miss your wonderful sense of humor, your infectious laughter and great acting.

      bb

      Delete
    2. It's not yet clear what happened to Robin Williams. If he did kill himself, then that's really sad, because someone who'd accomplished so much and was loved and admired by so many should by rights have been happy.

      Regardless I will miss him very much for both his magical sense of humor and his great gifts as an actor, both comedic and serious. He was a very special person indeed and will be greatly missed by so many of us who were so deeply touched by his art.

      Delete
  36. Doc, I was reading something about how some of the fibers found on JBR could have come from an American Girl Doll that she had. Then there was something about JR ordering a replacement doll on the 28th. Can you explain what the American Dolls relevance is?

    -AL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember reading about that doll, but can't recall the details. All sorts of fibers were found and many were finally traced to objects in the home -- not surprisingly.

      Delete
  37. Doc, also....doesnt Rick French's account of the wine cellar door being locked from the wrong side, 100% prove that the intruder theory is ludicrous? It would make it impossible for somebody to pass through that door and also be able to lock the wooden latch on the other side.

    -AL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. French was unable to open that door because he failed to notice the peg at the top that was keeping it closed. It wasn't on the other side. If he'd seen it he could have opened the door. Whoever latched that door after hiding the body inside knew something French didn't know.

      Delete
    2. I believe French did not open the door because he was looking for exit points from the house and as no-one could have gone through this door and locked it from the inside, this was in his report as of why he didn't open it.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Doc and evej. I've often wondered about this little detail.

      And some actually think an intruder(s) would leave the body in that little room, neatly covered in a blanket, and latch the door?? AND also leave a ransom note behind? REALLY?

      bb

      Delete
  38. It's nearly impossible to find knowledgeable people
    for this subject, however, you seem like you know what you're talking about!
    Thanks

    Feel free to surf to my website ... farm heroes saga facebook app

    ReplyDelete
  39. bb -- you are so right! I can't believe the Boulder police are so lame that they cannot follow the trail of evidence, all of which leads to THE question of who wrote that ransom note. It is so clear, after reading Doc's analysis, that John had to have written that note. They are simply refusing to do basic police work. In my opinion, the police are either lazy or politically motivated. Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy discouraged them into thinking they must have the smoking gun of DNA which does not exist. I guess there was no justice back in the day, at least not in Colorado, for cases that relied on something besides DNA before DNA analysis existed. If the police would revisit every single conclusion, including the handwriting "opinions" and do their jobs to put together the case, they could indict JR and the prosecutors could go from there. I really, honestly think that no one wants to put their career on the line any longer for the sake of this little girl. That said, I wonder if JR is a serial molester/pedophile. Will he do this again? Will he abuse the children of the extended family that he just married into? If I were that family, I would keep my kids away from him, he's a creep of the highest order. Just listening to him talk on TV really creeps me out - the lip licking, smiling when its not appropriate to smile, using religion as his "sheeps clothing," his smarmy answers to basic questions. The religion thing alone: I am a Christian, not in just name only but in practice. We Christians know a fake when we see one. He talks about the other side of suffering as if HE is the only one who suffered. He shows no real concern for JBR, her suffering, her loss of life, her rights to have her attacker found. His book was all about himself. He is fake, fake, fake. Christianity is about forgiveness, compassion, love. I see none of that in this guy. I did see it in Patsy, but I think JR had her fooled/hog-tied/afraid. -K

    ReplyDelete
  40. bb - The thing thats puzzling though is John Douglas and other respected reporters, FBI believe there could have been an intruder. The RN, along with the body being in the house with what looks like a staged window scene seems to me that's its pretty obvious it was an inside job. That being said, the fact that so many still believe it could have been an intruder puzzles me.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J, we don't really know how much time/effort was spent by John Douglas, do we? And did he have access to all the information at the time he made his statement? And, as Doc pointed out, did he fall for the handwriting opinions that ruled John out, or did he critically examine the handwriting himself? JD is one man, not a final authority, not a genius, doesn't speak for the entire FBI. As for reporters, they are not experts by any stretch. So far, I have seen only one complete, thorough analysis, and that is from Doc G. I wish he could go on a morning TV show and lay this out for the public, then let's see how much pressure is brought to bear on the Boulder PD. -K

      Delete
  41. Hey K - I will preface this by saying if I had to put money on it, I would agree that JR was for sure involved, whether it be committing the actual murder or helping in a cover up due to Burke's actions. That being said, I recently reached out to a well respected journalist via twitter that looked at this site and said she wasnt buying the theory because she knew ALOT about this case. So, my point is that on the surface, Doc makes an extremely thorough and logical case that JR did it. However, so many people who have studied this case every which way still believe it could have been an intruder, which begs the question, why?
    The other point I wanted to make is that we all read and post on this site because all of us want both the truth, but also justice for the killer. A lot of what is written is opinion based and the back and forth debates is what make this site great. But, for the love of God can we please move past the idea that John Ramsey is still not being considered as the killer due to a handwriting expert ruling him out 18 years ago. I understand that in the beginning, JR was ruled out, which was sloppy by the police, but I in no way believe that is the case today. So, many experts and law enforcement people have dissected this case every which way, but yet people on this site are still commenting about the handwriting sample. The Ramsey case is one of the most notorious and famous cases of all time, and yet people still believe a few handwriting experts are what has prevented John from being arrested. Sorry for the rant, but I just cant read one more post about it, because if that was the case, than literally every law enforcement person who has looked into this case should be fired.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please invite the journalist who knows so much about the case to comment here. I'd love to learn more about what she knows and why she's convinced of John's innocence. I would love it if someone could convince me that an intruder did it. It would be embarrassing for sure, but it would also be a huge relief to learn that JonBenet was not murdered by her own father.

      That said, let me remind you that all sorts of people have become convinced of all sorts of things regarding this case -- usually based on evidence that's inconclusive or contrived. Which is why I decided to concentrate on the known facts.

      As far as the note is concerned, it's important to understand that over and over again what we hear is that John was "ruled out" as writer of the note -- and that has never been questioned by anyone involved in any way with this case. I really do think it's as simple as that. Once he's ruled out then the case is in limbo, because there is no case to be made against Patsy -- and there could have been no intruder. Rule John back in and the entire picture changes.

      Delete
    2. Doc, you said it better than I could have. J- do you have any information that indicates that the police did in fact fully question the opinions of the handwriting experts? Everyone here realizes that they should have. Like you, we all hoped that it was done. But as Doc points out, it seems pretty evident that they did not. I do not see the police as infallible. And whatever info your contact has, the police surely have it as well. So once again, we see that the police cannot or will not connect the dots. And frankly, I don't know if they not smart enough, or if this is now just a political hot potato. The police seem to be sitting around waiting for a smoking gun, and there is never going to be one. All you ever hear of out the DA office is talk about DNA and of course their ridiculous pursuit of the "confession" of John Mark Karr. However, lack of DNA or a confession does not preclude the search for justice. Also, I think you also are probably aware that the Boulder PD had little to no experience investigating homicides. Boulder has a very low homicide rate. -K

      Delete
  42. I 100% agree that the case was botched by the original team who investigated the crime and that unfortunately led to this case most likely not being solved. But a bigger problem then the handwriting experts, was Arndt not keeping the Ramseys in the same room and allowing JR to go search the house.
    My harping about moving past the handwriting experts is simply that 18 years have passed, and I just can't buy that nobody since then has ruled JR back in as far as a suspect. A Grand Jury found the parents guilty of being involved, so the Ramseys were clearly looked at and are to this day.
    Whats more odd though is PR and BR literally not saying anything about the case. Assuming JR is guilty, how does PR not say something when she knew she was dying? How does BR to this day claim he heard nothing and saw nothing? These are flat out lies, because we KNOW they observed each other the days, weeks and years after the crime.
    Lastly, the reporter I spoke with isnt a friend or contact of mine, I simply follow her on Twitter. She works for 48 Hours and is very responsive, but I do not think she can share her opinions based on the case being open. I would love for Doc to speak with her. My point was that she interviewed everybody involved, visited the house, spoke to the cops, etc and after all that she told me that she didnt buy this theory. So, it just puzzles me that maybe we are all missing something and since she has followed this case since 98 and done all of the work that she has, we must value her opinion.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that i am saying she's wrong, but Jeff Shapiro also had followed the case, and i really don't value his opinion.

      Delete
  43. So what IS her opinion? I do totally buy that Patsy and Burke have not spoken. 1. Burke may not really know that much. If JR did this alone, then obviously Patsy and Burke did not hear anything going on in the basement. 2. I do think Patsy probably got suspicious or at least wondered about John in her last years, but Doc points out that she could have bought the "John was ruled out" story, plus that story got the attention focused on her, so obviously that is scary -- thinking you might be framed for something you didn't do. She died 8 years ago, so who knows what she might be thinking today. The mindset that doesn't want to believe a loved one did a horrible thing is a mindset that many, many humans are trapped with. It is why incest is so secret and undiscovered in most families. Also, I think you are assuming that this is still an active investigation. It is not. They have declared it a cold case and are not actively working it. -K

    ReplyDelete
  44. K- Unfortunately she never shared her opinion. She ltierally just said "I dont buy it...sorry and I know ALOT about this case." I really wish she said who she thought it was
    Regarding PR or BR knowing something, I just think its a huge pile of crap. Even if BR wasnt involved at all in the crime, he can hide behind being asleep and not hearing anything. The problem is that he was around both of his parents, along with investigators being in the house. BR heard "something" simply because he lived in the house. Regarding PR, she supposedly loved JBR more than anything, so if JR was involved, I just find it hard to believe she never shared her feelings/opinions with anybody, as she certainly would have had to doubt Johns story. Thats honestly another problem with the JR theory, is that the guy isnt "Dexter." Between interviews, books, political campaigns, etc the guy hasnt really slipped up too badly. The broken window story is very fishy, but for a guy that could have committed this horrendous crime, he has never truly given anything away after all this time.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Opinions about this case are a dime a dozen. And all sorts of people have claimed to "know a lot" about ot. Perhaps they all do. So what?

      What interests me is not opinions, but logical arguments, based not on assumptions but actual evidence. In my experience, every attempt to pin this murder on either an intruder, Patsy or Burke has serious flaws. So, even discounting all the other evidence pointing so strongly in his direction, John wins by default!

      Delete
  45. Well, there is no evidence that points to Burke, its that simple -- no hard evidence and no circumstantial evidence. I've already stated that Patsy had many motivations for pushing any thoughts aside and remaining in denial. Not the least of which, if John went to jail, there goes anyone providing financially for Burke when she died. Then there is the concern that she was not ruled out as the writer of the note. As for John, why would he give anything away? He had a lot to lose if he did. And he's no dummy. He gives me the creeps, but he has worn the sheep's clothing for a long time and does it very, very well. Like a lot of pathological people are able to do. -K

    ReplyDelete
  46. K - Respectfully I couldn't disagree with all of the above, sorry.

    The 4 Ramsey members entered the house after 9pm that fateful night alive and in the morning, only 3 were alive. So, given that BR was one of the 3 Ramseys still living, then he automatically is a suspect since he was in the house. You said there is no hard evidence or circumstantial evidence, but do we have a murder weapon? No. I believe it was either a flashlight or golf club that struck the fatal blow to her head, but the police never found it. There were no witnesses and doctors debate whether she was strangled before or after the blow to her head. Also, regarding anything of a sexual nature, were they ever able to prove that there was a long history of JBR being molested? I do not believe so. My point is that there really isnt any "hard" evidence against JR either in fairness.
    My point regarding JR, PR or BR never saying anything was that its truly odd to me that JR, BR or PR never confided to a friend in a moment of weakness something revealing to the case. Im not claiming that I 100% believe BDI, however I believe there are a few scenarios that are believable as to how he may have been involved.
    BR and JBR could have eaten pineapple and then gone looking for presents when BR for whatever reason got angry and hit her over the head. OR BR was playing a game of doctor with his sister when she either screamed or did something that caused him to hit her over the head. Both scenarios would have had to end with BR telling JR that he screwed up and then JR would help in a cover up for his only remaining child. Burke's story is and always has been that he was asleep and didnt hear anything which could be the case, but I honestly just do not buy it. BR is the key to the whole case as even if he wasn't involved, he knows something to blow this case open.

    Oh and regarding PR.....if she suspected JR did it, then I do not think for a second she wouldnt have told somebody in the 7 years following the death of her daughter.


    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Revision---I meant to say " I couldnt disagree more with all of the above"

      -J

      Delete
    2. J, with respect, I can't let this go with out voicing my 2 cents.

      I agree that Burke knows something, namely, he knows whether or not the window was broken during the summer. He played with his trains in that room. Insects would have entered during summer. Cold air would have blown in during winter. So if BR would give us an honest answer about the window we'd know Doc's theory was right, or wrong.

      So, if grown up BR is reading this blog, he has all the info he needs. The window was either broken or not, and he knows. It's my opinion that BR probably doesn't follow the case, much the way I would suppose the Kennedy kids don't spend their free time considering various assassination theories. JMO.

      I doubt the object used to crack the skull was a golf club. More likely something cylindrical. Was it Spitz (sp?) that said the flashlight could have caused that type of damage? That makes the flashlight more likely. I seriously doubt BR could hit her that hard with a flashlight. He could hit her hard enough with a golf club, because it is long enough to give him leverage. With a flashlight, it's pretty much down to arm strength. I doubt BR was unusually strong for his age.

      For me the main reason to disbelieve BDI is that JR/PR are marching themselves to life imprisonment, and possibly death row. They simply would not risk their freedom/lives to cover for a boy who could not be prosecuted. The GJ wanted them indicted, and they wouldn't have let things go that far, taking that level of risk to save BR from - no consequences at all.

      Neither would they do it to save BR from negative publicity because the way they handled it, there couldn't be worse publicity. The "family honor" theories are nonsense. Nothing more dishonorable than having the world think either the Mom did it, the Father did it, the Brother did it, or all of them were in on it. The quietest way to handle an actual BDI situation would have been to tell the police that the kids were horsing around, the play got too rough, and BR accidentally killed her. He couldn't be prosecuted, the case would have been closed, and most of us would never have heard of the case at all.

      Nor did they do it make BR believe he did not kill his sister. If he hit her that hard, he darn well knows he killed her.

      I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't know how else to put this. BDI fails the common sense test. Every flavor of BDI fails the common sense test.

      I'm not sure JR is the first person BR would have gone to had he hit JBR. There is no way to know for sure, but when I was a kid I'd much rather have gone to my mom with bad news.

      You have made me consider another scenario that involves BR but is not BDI. I'll post separately and let others critique the idea.

      CH

      Delete
  47. I agree that BR probably could shed some light on the case if he wanted to. I believe he probably heard something that night. I know that his statement that JB was awake when they arrived home from the White's Christmas party was dismissed as confusion because of his age.

    J, I think you're assuming that if the Ramseys revealed something unknown about the case to a trusted friend, that that friend would then reveal it to the public. This obviously hasn't happened, but it doesn't mean that they never said anything to anyone. Their pastor could know something; Dr. Beuf could know something; their immediate family members could know something. It doesn't mean these people are going to reveal it, especially since they viewed the media coverage and public interest as excessive, intrusive, and unfair.

    Who knows? Perhaps BR will someday talk about what happened that night. Perhaps after his father has died. From their point-of-view, however, they probably want to just move on with their lives and never talk about it again. My younger siblings are a huge part of my life, but only because they've been around all this time. Had I lost one of them when I was nine years old, I don't know that, as an adult, I would spend a lot of time thinking about them. I'm just being honest. I'd remember them and mourn their passing, but I'd also move on. If strangers to me were still talking about the death of my sibling 18 years after the fact, I'd probably view that as obsessive, but wouldn't see it as having anything to do with me. And I certainly wouldn't feel like I owed it to the public to talk about it, no matter how sensational the events.

    That being said, I fully admit that I am one of the people who hopes that BR does break his silence and that we will someday know more about what happened to JB.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Firstly, you seem to be looking for something to fit your theory that Burke was involved, but there is no evidence to support the theory. Trust me, I have gone through all the scenarios and was so glad when I landed on this blog because I think Doc G has done a thorough job of looking at BDI evidence. From a logical perspective, I cannot follow your line of thinking. You seem to think that either or both of 2 adults would confide in someone about a matter that would put them in jail for life, but you conversely believe that if Burke hurt JonBenet, they wouldn't have called 911 for help? Finally, let's supposed Patsy confided in someone trusted, like one of her sisters. Do you honestly think those sisters, at least one of whom was for a time financially dependent on John, breach any confidence or talk if Patsy did not want her too.

    ReplyDelete
  49. A non BDI theory that involves BR.

    I've already decided this isn't very convincing, but since I said I'd post, so I will.

    What if the chronic SA, said to be consistent with digital penetration, was BR playing "doctor"? And what if the SA is completely unrelated to the murder? We have been assuming JR needed to silence JBR, but that is speculation (sensible speculation) so we can admit we don't know factually what the murderer's motive is. That opens the possibility of other motives, which we can't even guess at.

    Basically all I'm saying is the SA may be a red herring with respect to solving the murder.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well I see that I have sparked a debate which is what makes this site fun. I appreciate all of the opinions and counter arguments to my BDI theory as well as my feelings that at some point PR/JR would have had to confided in somebody at some point about something if they committed the crime. So, I will try to keep this somewhat short, but wanted to respond.
    CH and another blogger alluded to the idea that BR probably doesn't even follow this case and would want it to go away. Now assuming he wasn't involved, some of you honestly believe that while BR slept in his room on Christmas night, his little sister was murdered, and now no longer wants to follow the case? Really??? Either BR honestly believes neither of his parents were involved which would make him care more OR he believes possibly that his parents did it which is why he hasn't said anything to authorities to protect his family. None of us on here know the Ramseys at all and yet 18 years after the crime we come on here and share our thoughts. So complete strangers care more about justice for JBR than her brother? No chance
    My points regarding PR/JR talking to someone was simply that we aren't dealing with criminal masterminds. Fleet White the day the body was found had an altercation with John, so I just feel that in the 18 years since, that JR/BR or PR while she was alive must have made a comment that possibly incriminated them. I don't believe that comment was enough to incriminate them, but I do believe somebody heard something and hopefully they will come forward.
    Lastly, Docs blog completely convinced me of John Ramseys guilt, but the more things I read, it seems like people who know they case well don't believe in Johns guilt. Doc has laid out an extremely thorough and well thought out theory. But at the end of the day, those of you who say there is no evidence showing BDI, I challenge you to provide me with the evidence against JR. The flashlight definitely could be the murder weapon, but that was never found. So, I will admit that there isn't a smoking gun against BR, but there isn't a smoking gun against JR either. And if you are going to bring up the RN, I could make the case Patsy just as much as John wrote it. (I don't believe that, just saying)
    Oh, one last thing. If anybody is a parent, they know the unconditional love you have for your children, so if Burke did in fact accidentally commit the murder, then there is absolutely nothing a parent wouldn't do to protect that child, even if that meant life in prison. Had they told cops it was Burke then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to live the seemingly normal life that he has.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J, I'm a parent, but I have to disagree with you. The Rs wouldn't go to prison to "protect" BR, because a) BR faces zero consequences, and b) with both JR and PR possibly going to jail, it leave BR parentless.

      There is just no way they are both willing to go to prison (or die) to avoid having the police find that BR killed his sister. It's risk vs consequence and the consequences are zero and the risk is maximum. Makes no sense at all.

      If BR was old enough to be prosecuted, I'd buy your analysis, a parent might give up their life for their child. But BR isn't going to go to jail.

      CH

      Delete
  51. 1. The flashlight was found; it had the prints wiped off, including the battery area. 2. I don't know of anyone writing on this blog who believes JR did it that would say that there is a smoking gun; if there was one, JR would of course be in jail now. I will add my 2 cents that the handwriting analysis that Doc did of JR's handwriting is pretty convincing. He did a proper analysis - those so-called experts did not. 3.DocG's book lays out the case against JR - buy it, read it! 4. The argument that Fleet White had with John was about them going on CNN to say "there's a killer out there;" he was opposed to the idea for reasons he has given. 5. I doubt JR has said a word to anyone about this, he is a very smart man and he does not want to spend the rest of his life in jail. Would you talk to anyone if you were him? Doc has already explained where Patsy is coming from. If you don't buy it, then find the person(s) she said something to. That would be evidence! 6. This blog is about assimilating all the facts. If you logically put it all together, there is really only one solid conclusion with little to no holes in it. It is enough to indict JR. When he's forced to testify, this will be when there is a chance he will slip up reveal something. -K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, K. Sounds like you've read me very thoroughly. As far as a "smoking gun" is concerned, for me John's story about breaking the window the previous summer is the smoking gun. That story is so utterly preposterous, and his testimony regarding it so filled with contradictions and lapses of memory, not to mention his inability to recall whether or not a broken window that left his home open to the elements in the middle of winter had ever been repaired, that there is no question in my mind he is lying. And since the only reason for him to lie would be to cover for his own failed effort to stage a breakin at that window on the night of the crime, tells us there was no intruder in the house that night.

      As far as Burke is concerned, there are two things about him that tell me he knows something he's unwilling to share. First, the fact that he has never publicly defended his parents. They defended one another time and time again, but Burke never volunteered a word. Second, his refusal to speak with the police when they approached him a few years ago is very telling. If he had nothing to hide, he would have had no problem being questioned. My guess is that John and his lawyers persuaded him to keep his mouth shut. He's claimed he remembers nothing about that night, but I find that very hard to believe. At this point it looks like the only hope for justice in this case lies with him.

      Delete
    2. Doc, so true...Burke is the only hope. I forgot about the window story. Wish the police had arrested him then. Agree also that Burke has been schooled to keep his mouth closed by lawyers. If John passes away, maybe then he will speak up. Loved your book! -K

      Delete
  52. I was going to bring up the point about BR's refusal to cooperate with LE's attempt to question him, but DocG beat me to it. I hope this doesn't come off as confrontational, J, but if he did indeed care and want justice for his slain sister, he would have sat down with police a couple of years ago, as DocG mentioned.

    Here's a link to the story and some quotes from Attorney Lin Wood on the matter:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/15/jonbenet.ramsey.investigation/

    I do think they all want to move on. In fact, I think they all HAVE moved on. When he was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper a couple years ago, JR stated that while he does think about JB, he doesn't do so every day. I found it a bit odd that he would admit something like that.

    And I do agree with you that it's amazing that JR has never slipped up in all this time. If I had gotten away with murder, I sure as hell wouldn't then write books about the case and submit to interviews over and over again. I'd be too afraid of contradicting myself, or my body language giving me away. I suppose JR is just a better liar than I am and can keep the majority of his facts straight.

    On an unrelated subject, does anyone know why PR and JR were not forced to testify in front of the Grand Jury? I thought the whole point of such proceedings was to compel unwilling witnesses to testify.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Canuck, you aren't being confrontational...love the debate!

    K- I have read this entire website, so I know the theory that Doc has laid out. If somebody made me put money on it, I would admit that JR is the most likely culprit of this horrific crime. That being said, saying that BDI, doesnt mean that JR didnt also write the note, stage the broken window, hide the body in the basement, etc. There is NOT evidence that John specifically was molesting his daughter, so even though it fits nicely into the JDI theory, there isnt factual proof. There are Burke stories out there that he would play doctor with his sister and at his age its not a leap to think he was becoming curious sexually.
    People can write that Im attempting to just make things work that fit a BDI theory, but isnt that what everybody is doing for John? Motive is weak, no murder weapon, no proof he was molesting her that night or any night before. The window that JR tells is absolutely ridiculous and I'll admit with Doc that its almost a smoking gun against him, because why make the story up? I will say it one last time....if BDI was playing doctor and accidentally or purposely killed his sister, then everything after that moment with JR helping cover up the crime can be true. To quote Fonda in 12 Angry Men, "Im just saying its possible."

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J: As I've stated previously, while I believe I can prove that John wrote the note, that John lied about the window, and that Patsy was not involved in either the murder or the coverup, I am unable to prove beyond doubt that John could not have been covering for Burke. While I believe Burke's involvement to be highly unlikely, strictly speaking there is no way to conclusively prove he could not have killed his sister. Nor is it possible to prove with absolute certainty that John could not have staged the kidnapping to cover for his son.

      Nevertheless. Since all the facts point to John's involvement, and since we can safely assume that an adult male is far more likely to have sexually assaulted the victim than a nine year old boy, there is certainly more than enough probable cause to place John Ramsey on trial for the murder of his daughter. If, during the course of the trial, the defense might want to argue that John was only covering for Burke, then they will certainly be in a position to do so. And it will be up to the jury to decide whether such a possibility would constitute sufficient reasonable doubt to get John off.

      Given such a defense, the prosecution could call Burke himself to the stand to support the defense's contention. Since he was too young at the time to be prosecuted, he would not, I believe, be in a position to take the 5th Amendment, and would be forced to testify under oath as to whether or not he was the one who killed his sister.

      I seriously doubt that John or his lawyers would attempt such a far-fetched defense, as it would force John to admit that he'd been lying all along. But if in fact he was only covering for Burke that would be his opportunity to reveal the truth.

      My goal has always been not to see John tossed in jail, but to give him his day in court. And if he is able to defend himself convincingly, so be it.

      Delete
    2. J- unlike you, I absolutely do think it is far-fetched to think that BR was playing doctor and/or molested JBR. We're told that she was very precocious. Most precious children are not afraid to tell on their sibling, and even if this was a "first" for Burke, it is doubtful he would do this during the night, especially a night when everyone was tired and more than ready for bed and sleep. I also think 9 year old boys being sexually active is very, very rare. The ones that do it live in dysfunctional families where they are exposed to too much adult behavior/media/etc that is inappropriate for their age. Even more far-fetched are the extremes that John theoretically went thru to cover up for him. So now we're taking "nice, normal, father, who just wants to protect his son," and believing that he would do all that to his equally precious daughter? This is why, even though you can't prove JR did this by ruling out Burke, you can still look at the likelihood of such actions and realize it all doesn't fit together. -K

      Delete
    3. This is why I do not believe BDI:

      If BDI, it is safe to assume that one or both parents covered it up for him. There is NO way Burke wrote that ransom note or constructed that garrote. So now comes the argument of whether the parents would, in fact, cover for their son, which puts them smack dab in the middle of a big lie and immediately makes them culpable. Not to mention that they would have to come up with this crazy, elaborate cover up just minutes after they have learned their daughter is dead ("no time to cry Patsy . . . just start writing that ransom note! I'll start tying the garrote and make sure it is tied tightly around Jon Benet's neck.")

      OR would they just report what REALLY happened -- that their son got angry, hit JBR too hard, causing her death, accidentally. Even if Burke was responsible for the sexual abuse, surely the Ramseys had the power and money to keep that detail hushed up. JonBenet's death would have ultimately been reported as an accident.

      If BDI and told his parents, the first call they would have made would have been to 911 in hopes that JBR could still be saved. Their second call would have been to their attorney. It is ludicrous to think they would decide to cover it up and have to live that lie forever.

      bb

      Delete
  54. bb,

    Excellent post

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  55. There are a few things I cannot get my head around regarding this case. Why did fleet white allegedly call 911 accidentally on the 23rd from the Ramsey home, and why would the ramseys especially patsy if innocent, call so many friends round putting jbr at risk of getting her back safely, I for one would have thought only about whether to call le or not.

    ReplyDelete
  56. BB, K - I am not sure if either of you are parents, but I am and ask anybody who is and they would tell you that they would take a bullet for their child in a second to protect them. A quick aside, I have never in any post I have written said that PR was involved on any level, so I just want to keep this to JR helping in a cover up if BDI. I am not saying 100% that BDI, but once again I am saying that its possible and the person who you both quote (Doc) and who created this site has admitted that you can't prove that Burke wasn't involved. Also, do we know that the garrote wasn't made at a different time then that night? No we don't know that
    The other issue that is annoying is this talk that a 9 year old is basically helpless. Comment after comment talking about a 9 year old and their behaviors and nobody knows anything about that. We can speculate that a 9 year old wouldn't be experimenting sexually, but nobody can say for certain and with 100% certainty nobody can speak to the behaviors of Burke Ramsey in the years leading up to the crime. So, K and BB I respect your opinions, but as hard as you want to try, you will never be able to completely prove Burke's innocence just as I cannot.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "they would take a bullet for their child in a second to protect them"

      Taking a bullet is one thing. Going to all the trouble and risk of concocting a phony kidnapping, complete with a 2 1/2 page "ransom" note, the staging of a window break in, and the stonewalling of the police for months, is another.

      Parents have been known to fake an alibi for a son or daughter, but I can't think of any precedent in the annals of crime for a parent to go to the lengths John went to in order to cover not simply for his son, but a son who not only raped his daughter but also brutally attacked her in such a violent and disgusting manner, including ligature strangulation with a "garotte."

      If an innocent parent discovered that his son had done all these things that son would be in danger for his own life. And under such circumstances I find it impossible to believe anyone would be willing to "take a bullet" for such a child.

      When we add to the above the fact that Burke could not be prosecuted, it's very hard to accept that his father (or father and mother together) would take such a huge risk simply to defend "family honor." Some have argued that the Ramseys may not have been aware of Burke's immunity -- but John lawyered up very quickly and his lawyer would certainly have set him straight. At which point, John's most reasonable course of action would have been to admit that he'd been lying, but only to protect his son.

      The most interesting question, of course, is: would anyone have believed him? Because after all, as I ask in the book, would anyone believe such a story?

      So if Burke did in fact rape and murder his sister, and if John is in fact innocent of that crime, the possibility of John being seen as the perpetrator would in all likelihood be the strongest motive for a coverup, rather than the "taking of a bullet" for his child.

      Burke could, of course, have "confessed," but in the eyes of the prosecution, judge and jury, that confession might not mean much, since the consequence for Burke of lying would not have been great -- and he might well have been persuaded to "take a bullet" for his Dad. Especially so if JonBenet had been the object of his resentment, as many have suspected.

      Another example of how easy it is to get entwined in the "morass" that is this very strange and convoluted case.

      As I mentioned earlier, we can safely avoid all these complications when we realize that John is by far the most likely perpetrator, most likely to have sexually abused and attacked his daughter, most likely to have written the ransom note, and someone who has been caught lying or dissembling on numerous occasions -- while there is no reason whatsoever to suspect Burke, other than some very remote possibilities, which seem highly unlikely, but cannot strictly speaking be refuted.

      Meaning that John can be indicted for probable cause and Burke (even if he'd been older) cannot. If John is put on trial and Burke is the one who actually did this crime, then John would have the opportunity to set the world straight on that score. And the question is: would YOU believe such a story?

      Delete
  57. J
    It's true. BDI cannot be proven to be 100% wrong. But we can speak to the likelihood that BDI, and imo, that likelihood is extremely low.

    I am a parent, and yes, I'd take a bullet for my son, but only if someone was shooting at him. That's the problem with your example, BR is in a bullet proof force-field. You have JR taking a bullet for BR when no one is even talking harshly to BR, much less shooting at him.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Doc, thanks for the response, you make some good points. But to both you and the above post, I think you took my "take a bullet" example to literally. My point was that a parent would do ANYTHING for their child, especially if there child was in danger. Recently we saw Casey Anthony's mother flat out lie to the jury and put herself in danger of going to jail for perjury by saying it was her and not Casey that researched chloroform. We have absolutely zero clue what took place inside the Ramsey house in the years that JBR was alive. For all we know, Patsy showered JBR with attention and BR was always feeling left out. Maybe John, being the man of the household was always trying to be there for Burke who might have been a little different from his sister. John Ramsey had already lost 1 daughter, so IF BDI and goes to his Dad for help, John stumbles upon a scene where he has now lost his 2nd daughter and might not have wanted to lose Burke. Again, this is pure speculation, but since we are talking about a very cold case, why not think outside the box a little.
    I mentioned in my last post, but we do not know that the garrote was made that night and for all we know JR could have been teaching Burke how to tie knots. The fact remains that the motives you all have listed for JR is weak. A guy who travels as much as he did is supposedly molesting his daughter with no concern that she is left alone with the pediatrician or Patsy. Then all of a sudden, the night before they are to leave in 8 hours to jump on a plane where he will be present with JBR the whole time, he decides to shut her up? It just doesn't make any sense at all. I will say it again, then I do believe JR is the most likely suspect, but a jealous brother who hated the attention is cute little sister got, is more of a motive then John had.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  59. JR was in no danger of loosing BR. BR was in no danger. Can not be prosecuted. No danger. Might need some psych counseling, which would be appropriate if he'd killed his sister, but no legal consequences of any kind. None. No danger. No need to "take a bullet" for someone who is in no danger.

    OTOH, going to jail for life, or being executed, is the same as loosing BR, for all practical purposes.

    The theory that JR was "protecting" BR makes no sense as BR was not in any danger.

    I do like your point that JR had often been away from home leaving JBR to tell all to anyone who'd listen.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes, that IS a good point. However, we have no way of knowing when the abuse began. First time could have been only a few days or even a day prior to the night of the murder.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hey CH - I feel like Im writing too much on here, but we dont know that JR would have just known that BR faced no legal danger. Its easy for us to sit here and say what the laws are in Colorado, but that might not have been what went thru JR's mind at the time. Plus even if legally BR wouldnt face any charges, in the court of public opinion, Burke would always be the kid who killed his sister which would have never left him.
    I know that Im coming off as a conspiracy theorist which isnt my intention regarding a BDI theory, but I started down this road and find myself wanting to defend it. My 2 biggest problems ultimately are IF Doc's theory is correct, than there is zero reason that he should have been charged already. Its a well thought out theory, but not complicated. My 2nd problem is that John had ZERO motive.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J

      You aren't posting too much. I am. I just can't let a BDI argument go unchallenged.

      You're right, JR may not have been familiar with CO law, but certainly by the next day he'd have been informed by his lawyers, so at that point why keep marching towards indictment for murder ? And would he allow PR to be indicted too?

      As far as the court of public opinion goes, it would have been better for BR (if he really did it) for JR to simply tell police what happened. The case would have been closed and there really would be no knowledge of it outside Boulder. Even in Boulder most people wouldn't be talking about it 18 years later. Everything JR did guaranteed BR would be viewed with suspicion. As it stands now, half the "sleuths" on the internet figure BR killed his sister.

      CH

      Delete
  62. As to your first problem the answer should be obvious: John was ruled out as writer of the note. In the face of that finding, accepted by literally everyone at the time, indictment would have been impossible.

    As for your second problem, we have no reason to assume Burke had a motive either. The difference between Burke and John is that there is evidence of prior molestation, and prior molestation implies molestation by an adult male. And if John was indeed molesting JonBenet, then fear of exposure would certainly have been a motive.

    There is no such chain of evidence and reasoning linking Burke to the crime. Burke may have resented JonBenet, but there is no real evidence of that. Nor is there anything special about Burke's history to suggest that he would have been sexually active at age 9. A possibility is NOT evidence. And in this case the probability is remote.

    It's important to understand that all sorts of things are possible, but the mere possibility of such and such being the case means very little. It's possible, for example, that JonBenet arranged her own death deliberately and paid someone to enter the house that night to assault and kill her -- and then write a phony ransom note to make sure her parents wouldn't be blamed. Possible? Yes -- because all sorts of things are possible. Probable? No, because such a theory makes no sense at all. Same with BDI, as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I posted via mobile and it seems to have got lost, what significance if any does it hold, that Fleet White allegedly made a 911 call from the Ramsey home by mistake on the 23rd?. It also bothers me why John and/or Patsy would call so many friends round, instead of putting JBR safety first. I think i would be more concerned as to whether to call LE or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the call was made from the Ramsey home, but from the White home, during the Xmas party. If it had any significance we may never know. Another one of the literally hundreds of "clues" that constitute what I call the "morass."

      As for the friends, my guess is that John suggested calling the friends prior to Patsy making the 911 call, possibly because he sensed her unease, but more likely because he wanted witnesses to the contents of the note, before he destroyed it.

      Those calls might have been made, in fact, prior to the 911 call. Some of the friends seem to have arrived suspiciously early. Or Patsy may have decided to call the friends anyhow, after the 911 call, since John had put that idea into her head and she'd already made up her mind to call them.

      All the above is pure speculation, of course. We'll probably never know what actually happened that morning and what was going through their heads.

      Delete
  64. At least one of the calls (maybe more) were probably made after the 911 call, as PR's failure to completely hang up the phone (which resulted in the infamous "conversation" where supposedly BR is heard to ask questions) would have left the phone "off the hook" when police arrived. The 911 call must have been finally terminated by a subsequent call. Of course it's possible that PR or someone else simply noticed it wasn't properly hung up.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  65. Besides the handwriting expert ruling JR out early, there has to be another reason he has not been charged. I know the fall back response by JDI believers is that its all because of the handwriting, but look at the theory summarized: Happy family comes home from a friends Christmas Party. The next morning wife finds a ransom note that suggests a kidnapping demanding money. A kidnapping obviously didn’t take place because the girls body is found in the basement by her Father. The Mom seems legitimately distraught and the son is absolutely no use to authorities because he supposedly saw and heard nothing while he slept. There is no sign of forced entry by both the authorities and by the Father who says everything was locked up. Upon examining the girls body at some point it looks like not only was she hit over the head, but also molested and strangled. Throughout the day, not 1 phone call is made taking responsibility for the crime.

    On the surface, there isn’t one reason to not suspect that JR is the killer of his daughter. But yet, JDI believers (I may be one of them, not sure) still always go back to that original handwriting expert as being the reason he hasn’t been charged. Sure, in the beginning that might have been the case, but somebody PLEASE give me another reason. I can just picture the BPD looking at this case and going “geez, JR had the access, lied about the window, is mentioned repeatedly in the RN, was in the NAVY so he could have learned to tie a garrote like the one we found, would have had the access to molest her, but you know what…..that handwriting expert 18 years ago that he hired said he didn’t write the note, so lets move on to the next suspect.” Honestly, how dumb does that sound?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  66. J, I can try to give you another reason.

    Hunter knew the odds of a conviction were slim. Patsy's lawyers blame JR, and vice versa. LS is pushing the intruder theory, and there's just enough to it to create some doubt * Hunter could also be concerned about the possible conviction of both, if he sincerely believed one (PR) was innocent. Additionally, double jeopardy prevents subsequent prosecution, so there is only one chance to get it right, and if he walks, he walks forever. OTOH, the SOL never runs out on murder.

    * JMO on this thing we call "reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt supposes that there is such a thing as unreasonable doubt, which is true in an abstract sense. But in reality if someone has a doubt, they don't consider it unreasonable. If they think it's unreasonable, it doesn't really come up to the level of a doubt. It's an abstraction, far fetched. So, if a juror gives any credence at all to IDI then their doubt as to JR's guilt is -in their mind- reasonable. IOWs, people don't have unreasonable doubts. They have doubts, or they don't, and if they do, they consider those doubts to be reasonable. Get just one juror to believe it's barely possible an intruder did it, and the prosecution case is blown up. Some of the more thoughtful IDIs, such as Anti-K, are pretty good at knocking down RDI theories and sowing doubt. No doubt a good defense lawyer could do so as well.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While CH makes some excellent points, I'd like to add an additional factor. One of the things that made the case especially difficult to prosecute was the fact that the investigators were dealing with a plan that went wrong. And I don't think they ever figured that out. So when faced with the "fact" that "the Ramseys" called 911 while the body was in the house, it became very difficult for them to reconcile the clear intent of the note (i.e., a staged kidnapping) with two people who had decided to call the police right away, before they'd had a chance to dispose of the body. Calling the police so soon made them look innocent. And it would have been extremely difficult, given the Ramsey's high powered legal team, to convict a jury given this clear evidence that they had no idea there was a body in the basement. Ironically, the call that totally blew John's carefully contrived plan actually worked quite well for him -- possibly better than if there had been no call and he'd been able to carry out the plan after all. Another problem was that they had no way of telling who did what. You can't prosecute two people for a crime most likely committed by only one of them, even if the other was an accomplice.

      As for the difference between reasonable doubt and just any doubt, I disagree with CH on that score. "The dog ate my homework" isn't really much of an excuse and it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see through a defense of that sort. Same with the sort of thing Anti-K loves to spin. An effective prosecutor could easily get a jury to see through that sort of thing, imo. There's a difference between meaningful evidence and pure spin. It's not that hard to see, and in fact the great majority of those following the case have had no trouble seeing through it, which is why so many to this day feel sure this murder was an inside job.

      Delete
    2. Doc, I think I failed to fully articulate my thoughts on reasonable doubt. What I'm trying to get at is the actual state of mind of the "doubter".

      A dog ate my homework is seen through immediately precisely because it's not believable. The teacher doesn't hold the excuse in mind as an "unreasonable doubt", it simply never makes it to the level of a doubt. It's just a lame excuse. If the student could come up with something original and believable the teacher might give him the benefit of the doubt. e.g. the teacher may not believe it, but would consider it possible, and therefore, reasonable (even if just barely)

      Likewise in a trial, once doubt is sowed in the mind of a juror, that juror isn't going to say, well, I have some doubts, but I consider them to be unreasonable. If they are unreasonable the juror views them as lame excuses, or spin, not as genuine doubts. Once a juror has doubts, those doubts are, in his mind, reasonable, if they weren't, they wouldn't be doubts.

      While you and I would not buy the defense team's arguments - IOWs we wouldn't have any doubt it's and RDI case- plenty of people would. We see this all too often on the websites about the case. If someone doubts either of the Ramseys would do these things to their daughter they aren't going to reject those doubts as unreasonable. I find it hard to believe the defense team couldn't persuade one person out of 12.

      The standard of course, is reasonable doubt. Not preponderance of he evidence, not likelihood. As we know, different people have very different ideas as to what is reasonable.

      CH

      Delete
    3. CH, you make an interesting case, and from a strictly philosophical standpoint perhaps you are right. Anyone feeling doubt most likely sees that doubt as reasonable, or else he/she would not have it. So I must admit that, strictly speaking, you have a point. Nevertheless, I do believe there is a good reason why the legal system has adopted the notion of "reasonable doubt," instead of simply "doubt." Because the responsibility of a juror is to make a hard decision, regardless of what his or her personal feelings, or doubts, might be.

      Take the case of Rudy Guede, now serving time, as we know, for the murder of Meredith Kercher -- allegedly in collaboration with Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito. According to Rudy, he did in fact make love to Meredith, but had nothing to do with her murder, which took place, according to his story, while he was in the bathroom. He heard her screams, and caught a brief glimpse of her attacker. But he was not the one who attacked her, he just happened to be on the scene at the time.

      The principal problem with his story is the lack of evidence pointing to anyone other than him in the room where the assault took place. His DNA was found, his bloody fingerprints and footprints were all over the place, and aside from one very doubtful trace of Sollecito's DNA, nothing comparable belonging to anyone other than the victim was found.

      So not only is his story highly unlikely in itself, but there is no evidence to back it up. It makes sense, therefore, that the jury voted to convict. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that his story could be true. I must admit that I myself have some doubts in that regard, because one never knows -- and many innocent people have in fact been found guilty in a court of law. However, the same principle could be applied in just about any criminal case, and if the jury felt compelled to acquit simply on the basis of any level of doubt at all, then every criminal would go free.

      Thus, while in strictly technical terms you have a point, in practical terms there is in fact a difference between levels of doubt and in a criminal case that difference is crucial. In the Guede case I do have some doubt, but in fact there is actually no good reason for my doubt, it's just a feeling I have that Guede might possibly be telling the truth. In a court of law that simply isn't good enough. The doubt must be based on reasons, i.e., must be "reasonable."

      Delete
  67. Dredging up the size 12 panties again,

    I got myself sucked into Websleuths again (and I really need to break it off and quit wasting time having the same conversations I had years ago, with the same people) and the panty issue came up.

    To my surprise, someone (Anti-K) came up with some "fresh" insight (fresh to me). Let me say as a preface that I think this issue is still "folklore" and cannot help us solve the case, but......

    It was pointed out that the panties and longjohns are both urine stained. That means she peed herself when alive, or shortly after death as a postmortem release. In turn, that means she was not redressed after death. In fact, there is a good chance she was not redressed at all. If she was wearing size 12s under LJs and the garments were pulled down for the molestation and wiping, then pulled back up, it means that was what she wore, prior to molestation,and prior to death.

    If she'd been redressed after death (allowing enough time for postmortem release) then neither garment would have urine stains.

    This fits with PR's statement that a package of 12s were placed in JBR's room (I don't recall if they were supposed to be in her dresser or bathroom) and JBR would sometimes wear them.

    This also accounts for the "missing" panties of the correct size. There simply weren't any missing panties.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This urine stain evidence is not new to me and I've given it some thought. I must say it's hard for me to believe that JonBenet was wearing those oversized panties prior to the assault. Judging from the photos I've seen, they would have been ludicrously too large and she would hardly have been able to walk while wearing them.

      As far as the coroner's report is concerned, it's important not to jump to conclusions. If she'd been struck on the head first, as I feel sure she was, then she would have been rendered unconscious, giving John an opportunity to run upstairs, find panties imprinted with the proper day (Wednesday) and take them downstairs again to redress her. Presuming his semen had stained the original pair, that would make sense. If he decided to strangle her at some point later on, after he'd discovered she was still breathing, then she might well have urinated at that time.

      It's also possible he redressed her the following morning, possibly when Arndt was distracted. The coroner's report refers to urine stains, but says nothing about how fresh they were or how extensive the staining was compared to that on the long johns. So some stains from the long johns might have gotten onto the panties then. A lot would depend on how extensive the urination had been, and we don't know that.

      Delete
    2. It's true that we can't really know exactly what happened, and therefore time spent on this is largely unproductive. We'd really have to figure out who killed her first, then figure out how the size 12s fit into the picture. All we can really do is speculate.

      But, the idea that she wasn't redressed (redressed as changed to different clothes) has some things going for it. If the culprit is going to use long johns, then there really isn't a reason to use panties of any size. The panties don't tell the police anything, as they are not going to see them. They don't obscure anything form the coroner either. That she's wearing 12s because that's what she had on before the SA/murder makes some sense. The culprit replaces what he removed, or pulls up what he pulled down. The simplicity has some merit.

      This also goes along with PR's statement tthat the panties were in JBRs room. JBR could have put them on herself, prior to the SA. Perhaps she'd wet herself and needed a change.

      It's true we don't know the age of the urine stains. But we have two garments soaked through, and a stain on the carpet outside the WC. That makes a pretty strong argument that she was wearing the 12s (and LJs) at the time of death.

      This theory eliminates the problem of the missing correct size panties. And since the long term molestation is consistent with digital penetration, there may never have been any semen on the panties. Whatever JR may have been doing with his other hand need not necessarily involve JBR's panties.

      In the past we've speculated on who'd be likely to redress her in size 12s. PR can be ruled out on that score. It's hard to see PR selecting the size 12s for the purpose. JR might not be as keenly aware of sizing, but this would be especially true if JBR were already wearing the 12s. He wouldn't give them a second thought at that point.

      In your theory (the Docg theory) it's important that JR (re) dress her as she was at bedtime given that there is a possibility of the body being discovered in the house, as well as being discovered outdoors at some later date. It's hard to see an "intruder redressing her at all (as in putting back on what she had been wearing) let alone changing clothes to something she had not been wearing originally. As I see it, the non-redressing theory (as in not changing to different clothes) goes right along with your theory of the case.

      It's also notable that she's not redressed (if she was redressed) after urination. No concern for pee stained clothing. The likely sequence of events then would be SA, wiping,, dressing or redressing, bash to the skull, strangulation, urination, hiding the body in the WC.

      While it's possible she was redressed at a later time, such as the next morning, if that was the case she was redressed in urine soaked panties and LJs. To me it seems more probable that she was "found" wearing what she had on at the TOD. It also seems probable, to me, that what she was wearing at the TOD is what she was wearing prior to the SA/murder.

      CH

      Delete
    3. As always, CH, you make some excellent points. Let me respond as follows:

      Let's assume she was wearing normal size panties when assaulted (by whomever). And let's assume her attacker spilled some semen on those panties at some point. An intruder would simply remove the panties, place them in his pocket and ultimately take them from the house. No need to redress her. And besides how would he know where to find another pair?

      John, on the other hand, would not so easily be able to get rid of those semen soaked panties. So it makes sense that he might at that moment (very possibly before he'd worked out his kidnap staging plan) decide the best thing to do was dump them in the laundry hamper, where they'd just blend in with all the other laundry. However, if he'd left the body without panties, that might cause the police to turn the house upside down looking for the missing panties and they might well have found them in the hamper, which for him would be fatal. Much better to simply replace them. So, after knocking her unconscious, he goes upstairs to where he knows her panties are kept and looks around for a pair labeled "Wednesday," as supposedly was the case with the original pair. Being a man, he is oblivious to the difference in size, so takes the fresh pair downstairs and redresses her. This seems to me like a reasonable hypothesis and neatly fits with Patsy's testimony that as far as she knew JonBenet had been wearing normal sized panties.

      To assume that JonBenet had been wearing oversize panties from the start is really quite a stretch, since Patsy would certainly have known about them (and, CH, we both agree that she was innocent with no reason to lie about that) and also they would have been extremely uncomfortable to wear while she was at the party.

      So all we're left with is the possibility that she might have wet herself and, half asleep, changed without thinking into the oversize pair. And while that is certainly a possibility, it seems to me far less likely than the scenario I've outlined above. She was certainly aroused from her bed by whoever killed her and would certainly have noticed how uncomfortable the oversize panties were if she'd been wearing them at that point. And she would probably have changed at that point before going off with her soon to be attacker.

      I see no need to be bothered by the urine evidence, since it's consistent with her being redressed prior to strangulation, so as far as I'm concerned it seems pretty clear she must have been redressed, most likely after the head blow and before the strangulation. But also possibly the following morning, as the fresh panties could have gotten stained from the long johns.

      Delete
    4. I think that's a very reasonable hypothesis, I always have. I think the non-redressing is also reasonable. There isn't any way, that I can see, to pin it down. IMO both theories go well with your overall theory of the case.

      I take your point that if she's not wearing panties, that might set the police searching for the "missing" pair. But two things; One, since she's wearing LJs, is there any need that there should be panties underneath? Do the police immediately need to assume she was wearing normal size panties under the LJs? LJs are underwear, after all. Second, the size 12s raise red flags, and probably also send the police searching for the "normal" size panties, so there seems to be no real advantage. IMO, JR did not realize the size was an issue or he'd have left the size 12s alone. Not realizing the size discrepancy fits nicely with the idea that she was wearing them before the SA. JR would have assumed they were alright for her to wear, since she was wearing them.

      I don't think it's such a stretch to believe JBR was wearing the size 12s and may have put them on herself. It fits with PR's testimony - that the 12s were available to JBR in her room. It's always struck me as likely that PR was telling the truth (to the extent she knew it) because why lie when you know the questions in advance, and you know whether or not the police could find any 12s in JBR's room? Her story is inconsistent with the facts (to the extent we know them) but that doesn't mean she lied.

      As to discomfort, It's hard to say. Certainly too small clothing makes nearly everyone uncomfortable, but too big might not bother as much, especially when sleeping when loose fit is preferred. If she had wet herself she might well have changed her underwear, putting on the 12s at that time. (I'm not suggesting she wore them to the party) It's possible she wet her original panties, just a bit, and the LJs, just a bit, changing to clean panties and putting the mostly dry LJs back on over them.

      Since we both agree that PR is innocent, I think we can both agree PR's story about putting on the LJs at bedtime is probably true. (and also explains why JR needs to put them back on her, since she must be dressed as per bed time)

      If she wore normal panties at first, then JR needs to get rid of them. You suggest the hamper, and if all had gone to plan no one would have looked in there that morning. However, eventually laundry day comes, and semen stains are quite noticeable even when dry, and that would raise questions too. It's possible of course that JR planned to dispose of them later. I see it as more like the normal panties, if the were any, were flushed. (As an aside, I work in building maintenance and was informed a few days ago that a pair of panties got flushed "accidentally". Didn't cause any problems, though these were probably considerably smaller than size 12)

      The fact remains that the "missing" panties were never identified. The non-redressing theory is consistent with that fact.

      Anyway, I have no desire for a discussion that lasts several days and still doesn't tell us who did it (which we already know). I don't disagree with your take on the panty issue, I think it makes sense. I think the non-redressing theory makes a good deal of sense as well. As I see it, it could go either way.

      CH

      Delete
    5. "since she's wearing LJs, is there any need that there should be panties underneath? Do the police immediately need to assume she was wearing normal size panties under the LJs?"

      Yes, because that's how Patsy reported that she was dressed. If Patsy said she'd had underpants on and the underpants were missing, then the police could have begun searching for them.

      "Second, the size 12s raise red flags, and probably also send the police searching for the "normal" size panties, so there seems to be no real advantage."

      But John would not have realized they were too large. Moreover, it's not clear when the discrepancy in size was noticed by the investigators. Or whether they bothered to look for the original pair at all. It's also possible that John got rid of the original pair when he went AWOL late in the AM on Thursday.

      As far as semen stains are concerned, they would have been noticed only if someone was closely examining each pair of panties, which apparently did not happen. And as I suggested above, John might have been able to get rid of them before the investigators had a chance to notice anything.

      You've raised an interesting question, so I don't see any reason to apologize for dwelling on it. But I'm sorry it just makes no sense to me that JonBenet would have been wearing grossly oversized panties, for any reason. If she'd wet her original panties, I see no reason why she would have bothered replacing them with another pair anyhow. Simpler to just remove them and pull up her long johns.

      And it does make sense that John could have redressed her in such panties without realizing it. As you say, it's not a crucial issue as far as understanding the case as a whole is concerned. But it's nevertheless an interesting piece of the puzzle.

      Delete
    6. Patsy doesn't mention how JB was dressed until she's questioned, months later, so the absence of panties would not have immediately set the police on a search. But it is true that she needs to be dressed as she was put to bed, otherwise some explanation for clothing change is needed. (PR doesn't have a good explanation, giving us yet another reason to doubt her involvement in the whole mess.)

      The size discrepancy would have been noticed as soon as the LJs were pulled down. As things actually happened, that was the next morning at autopsy. Had John been able to follow his plan the body would possibly never be found, but more likely would be found some time later - days/weeks/months. So again, the discrepancy would be noticed at autopsy.

      I feel sure JR didn't know about the size discrepancy because if it doesn't make sense for a real intruder to put 12s on the body, it doesn't make sense as staging either. Had he taken size 6s off her he could hardly fail to notice the size difference if he took the 12s out of JBR's room or from a package in the basement. OTOH, if she were already wearing them he'd just assume them to be appropriate.

      If there were 6s on her originally, and if they were semen stained it would seem to me he'd get rid of them immediately. It would be bad if semen stains were found on JBR's underwear, even if it were a few days later when laundry was done.

      It's true stains would only be noticed if the panties were examined. In my experience, watching my mother, sisters, and wife do laundry, this is what women do, they pick up each article individually. Can't say all women do it, but it seems a common practice. Myself, I just scoop an armload of whites and put them in the washer, I don't inspect anything. I'd assume JR would take great pains that no one should find his semen on JBR's panties, so I think it more likely he was very careful about disposal. Throwing them in the hamper would have left him very vulnerable.

      It might have been simpler, if she'd wet herself, to just discard the panties and pull up the LJs, but people don't always do the simplest thing, especially kids.

      I agree that it's hard to understand why she's wearing size 12s for any reason. Yet the fact remains she was. There are only two possibilities consistent with your overall theory of the case; JR put them on, or JBR did. In my view either works. But, if JR did it, then he failed to notice the size difference, despite just having taken size 6s off her. If he were thinking clearly (and I always proceed as if that were true) and if he had noticed the size difference, he'd know better than to put them on her, as they'd only raise questions down the road. So, the only likely scenario in which JR puts the 12s on JBR is one in which he doesn't notice the size difference, and that in turn is more likely in a situation where she was wearing them all along.

      Additionally JBR putting them on is consistent with PR's claim that the 12s were available to JBR and the she sometimes wore them. Since we both agree PR isn't involved there is no reason to think she's lying about that.

      So, while I think either theory of the panties is believable, I find the non-redressing theory a bit more convincing.

      I always enjoy discussion with you as you don't get defensive, you just deal with issues logically. It's been fun, but for my part, we've exhausted this bit of folklore.

      CH

      Delete
  68. Sorry to go back down the BR road, but 2 things I wanted cleared up:

    1. Ive read that BR hit his sister in the face with a golf club to the point that she was injured? Is this confirmed? If so, I do understand accidents happen, just odd that she is dead due to being hit over the head

    2. The marks on her neck, the sexual molestation and specifically the hand drawn heart on her hand....couldnt all of these be explained by a doctor/patient game BR played with JBR?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there was such an accident. This was in 1994, when Burke would have been 7. No reason to believe it wasn't more than just an accident.

      The marks on her neck were petechial hemorrhages, due to strangulation. The sexual molestation was far more likely to have been at the hands of her father than her 9 year old brother. And the "heart" (which actually doesn't look much like a heart) could have been drawn by anyone, including JonBenet herself.

      Delete
  69. Hi DocG,

    You and another poster were discussing earlier the 911 call made before Christmas. I know it's all part of the "morass" at this point, but I found this on a website showing the JBR Case timeline (http://crimeshots.com/RamseyTimeline.html):

    December 23, 1996: The Ramseys host a Christmas party, with approximately 30 guests attending, and with former journalism professor Bill McReynolds playing Santa Claus.

    At 6:47 p.m., someone attending the party placed a 911 call, which was answered by police dispatcher Therese Hilleary. The caller hung up without saying anything. Police call back only to get the Ramsey's anwering machine. Officer "B.O. 266" goes to the home at 6:54 p.m. and leaves at 7:09 p.m., after being assured that there was no emergency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Canuck. I stand corrected, sorry. Got my Xmas parties mixed up. I did an Internet search just now, and came up with this, from a post on the Topix forum:

      Ramsey book Death of Innocence page 97. "During the party Fleet White used our phone to make a series of calls, trying to get some medicine to his mother in a hospital in Aspen, Colorado. Apparently he dialed wrong and got 911(instead of 411). The Police called back, but after checking with Fleet and the rest of the people at the house, Susan Stine informed them that the call was a mistake."

      Delete
  70. Doc, I found the below post on Webslueths and wanted to know your thoughts. Was Fleet every interviews about this?

    I don't know for sure. It should be in the cops' reports if they saw the window was broken but, unfortunately, we don't have access to those reports. However, Fleet found the window broken during his 6:20 AM search of the basement, so it was broken prior to the 5:52 AM 911 call, if that's what you were thinking about. But Fleet did not report the window as being open.

    Frankly, I don't believe John visited the basement at all after the cops got there, as he claimed. It appears he made up that story to give credence to his intruder theory. Why would he wait four months before telling anyone about this obviously extremely important piece of information?

    However, I do think John was in the basement hours BEFORE the cops arrived. The evidence supporting this is the chair that John says was blocking the trainroom doorway, and hence blocking the way to the window in the trainroom. He said he had to move the chair, and some boxes, to get into the room. But Rick French and Fleet White had entered the trainroom BEFORE John Ramsey claims he had entered it, at 6:05 and 6:20 respectively, and they didn't report any chair, or boxes, blocking the door.

    Therefore, John had inadvertently mis-spoke during the interview when he revealed that he had to move the chair. He was obviously in the trainroom prior to the 911 call, even though he denies it.

    John Ramsey had lied again.


    -AL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what I think is the most likely sequence of events, give or take some alternative possibilities:

      Patsy unexpectedly calls 911, and then makes her calls to their friends.
      Surprised by Patsy's 911 call, John realizes that his window staging is incomplete and now looks very suspicious. (His original plan was to complete the staging on the following night, after Patsy and Burke had gone off with friends, "for their own safety.") While Patsy is on the phone, he rushes down to the basement, closes the window and cleans up most of the glass, probably collecting it in a paper bag or garbage bag. His new plan is to claim he'd broken the window on an earlier occasion. Otherwise, his window staging would have been obvious.

      The police arrive shortly afterward. John truthfully reports that all the doors with external access are locked, and a police officer confirms this. While some have wondered why John wouldn't have opened a door, claiming this is how the intruder got in, Patsy would have known that all the doors were kept routinely locked, so he probably felt he had no choice at that point but to tell the truth. (According to Patsy, they never used the house keys, invariably entering the house using the garage door opener.)

      Shortly after his arrival, a policeman goes down into the basement, looking for the "kidnapper's" point of entry. What he saw in that basement isn't clear. I don't recall reading his report. But he did try to enter the windowless room -- unsuccessfully because he never found the latch holding it closed.

      A short time later, Fleet White enters the basement and the train room. He reports seeing the broken window and noticing that it was closed, which is consistent with John having closed it earlier (as part of his attempt to unstage his earlier staging). He also sees a few shards of glass that he places on the window sill. And he notices a Samsonite suitcase propped flush against the wall. He reports that he moved it, which is why photos taken later show it at an angle to the wall.

      By the time John is interviewed, months later, he is most likely aware of White's testimony regarding the closed broken window and the suitcase. By then, however, his faith in his original window staging plan has been renewed, due no doubt to the efforts of Lou Smit, who eventually went on television to demonstrate how an intruder could have entered and left via that window.

      Realizing that the police have apparently accepted his story about breaking in earlier, he decides to "confess" to having seen the window open when he checked it, and then closing it (which would make it consistent with White's observations). By now, it's important that he make them aware that the window had been open, because an intruder would have had no reason to close the window behind him as he left (after boosting himself up using the suitcase).

      When John was questioned as to the exact time he went down into the basement that morning, he "couldn't recall." It's usually been assumed he was down there after the policeman and after White, but I feel sure he was down there first, probably before either the police or any of the friends arrived.

      Delete
  71. Does anyone know where I might find the most accurate timeline of events in this case? I often wish I had one to refer to when sorting out all the details of this complex case.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you do a Google search on "Ramsey case timeline" you'll find a variety of different timelines. Unfortunately most cover too long a time frame to be very useful in determining what happened the morning after the murder. And the one's that do attempt to cover those details tend to be inconsistent. No one can be sure exactly who did what and when, because of all the confusion and all the different people who came and went shortly after Patsy's 911 call. Most of these timelines simply accept without question John's version of what happened, which is, from my perspective at least, completely unreliable.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Doc. I just want a general timeline of events, so I'll take a look keeping in mind what you've said.

      bb

      Delete
  72. Hi DocG, the phone call i was referring to earlier in my post, was from the Ramsey house on the 23rd. Anyways wanted your opinion on something else now. I have been reading about a murder case from 1968 in subic bay, onboard a ship, this has nothing to do with JR. But what did strike me was the info on the page. you can read the details here. U.S. Navy Cold Case : ...
    www.allthingscrimeblog.com/.../u-s-navy-cold-case-a-sisters-persistence-.Various things are mentioned, such as the money, the hitting over the head then strangulation, No body, the interview in the "windowless room" with walls lined with photographs of his life, the message was clear "we know" etc. Could John have remembered this case, and then in the mid 90s when it was all brought up again by the mother in the news, perhaps got some ideas from this. Not that it would solve anything here but interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, evej. It's an interesting case, but the thing that stood out for me was not the incident itself, but the reference to an organization of Subic Bay personnel known as the "Tailgate Club." And I'm wondering whether the answer to the SBTC mystery could be: Subic Bay Tailgate Club.

      Delete
    2. I believe you meant to write 'Tailhook Club', DocG. Good observation from that link. kp

      Delete
    3. Oops, sorry. Actually a "tailhook," as I understand it, is the hook connecting an aircraft to an aircraft carrier. I'd also assume that some sexual innuendo is implied in the name of that particular club.

      Delete
    4. Just a detail. A tailhook grabs an arresting cable and helps the plane come to a stop before it runs out of runway. Carrier landings will, I believe, always involve the tailhook method of stopping. The Air Force also uses the method where runways are short, or where the plane may have a malfunction making normal landing impossible.

      CH

      Delete
  73. Interesting read--also, the whole point of the murder was that the person was murdered because he was going to reveal something significantly incriminating about the murderer and he needed to stop that. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I read the articlel I thought the details including the tailhook club, all seemed to fit with this case itself. The timing also would say something as it happened around the time Jr was stationed there, then around 95 the missing sailors sister had this cold case looked into, which i'm sure would have been in the news.

      Delete
  74. I think the timing of the Subic Bay incident is quite interesting. It happened in 1968--2 months before John entered the Navy from what I read, so it's very likely he heard about it. And then, the sister able to get that cold case reopened in the mid 90's. I wonder how much publicity it got in the mid 90's. That is quite a coincidence. I'm glad you shared that. kp

    ReplyDelete
  75. The only issue is that I dont think the JBR murder was pre-meditated. If it was, then the person who committed the murder had zero clue how to cover it up.

    Despite her probably being a little nuts, why has Linda Arndt never given her theory of what she thinks happened? Given her opinion doesn't get us closer to an arrest, but between what she saw that morning and what her and PR discussed for an hour Patsy died, it could shed light on the case.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi j, I do believe it was premeditated but with mistakes and perhaps unknown occurrences. Linda Arndt said on an interview on YouTube that the morning she was called to the Ramsey house,Jr was cordial and that she counted in her mind how ma y bullets she had. As for patsy, I believe Li da and Lou smit both visited her before her death and she revealed nothing.

      Delete
  76. Speaking of Linda Arndt, I've read she was involved in a lawsuit with the City of Boulder or Police Dept --- not sure which. What was that all about?

    I also read that she visited Patsy shortly before her death. Is that true? I can't imagine JR would allow it. He knows she suspects him so why would he ever allow her to talk with Patsy?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hi Doc,thanks so much for your blog, I appreciate you and other posters being so respectful and gracious to every one even in they don't share your opinion. I must admit before finding your blog I was convinced of the intruder theory simply because I couldn't believe PR was involved. It never occurred to me that JR could have been working alone. It is still so hard to accept that a father would do something like this but unless you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle, your theory is the only one that makes sense.
    I wanted to comment on the BDI theory, I think it can be put to rest by what previous posters have said, if Burke had done this accidentally or otherwise, there is absolutely no way his parents would have let him go off with friends immediately after, he was 9 years old he couldn't be trusted to keep that kind of a secret. I think that should put the BDI to rest for good.
    That being said, PR's behavior after the 911 call is extremely troubling to me as a mom. I have 6 yr old boy/girl twins and I can tell you that if I woke up to my daughter gone and a ransom note, I would scour every inch of that letter, read every single word over and over for any clue or link to who had my daughter and where she was. Also, if my daughter had just been kidnapped, there is absolutely no way I would let my son out of my sight, regardless of how traumatic the scene may be for him, it wouldn't matter, he would not leave my sight. I know that none of us know how we would act in any given situation but just speaking from a mother's perspective here. I do not believe PR was involved in JBR murder, there is no motive there, but those 2 things imply her somehow being involved afterwards.

    I have a question regarding the redressing that some posters were talking about earlier. Didn't JBR go to bed in her Barbie nightgown and was found in longjohns? So she had to have been redressed, unless you are suggesting that she had an accident in the middle of the night and changed her own clothes?

    Cece

    ReplyDelete
  78. Can't believe you might have just solved the SBTC mystery, genius, Doc, genius.

    Cece

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh and forgot to mention the tailhook club was notorious for sex and booze.

      Delete
  79. I just want to reiterate what Cece said above. This blog is, by far, the best blog there is regarding this case. And I believe it is because of 2 things: Doc's genius in putting his theory together and backing it up with FACTS; and, second, that the posters on this site are, indeed, very respectful and kind to all other posters, whether they disagree with them or not. I think Doc sets this tone and everyone follows it.

    Love this blog. Thanks so much Doc.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, bb, to you and everyone else who's been so supportive. Your support means a great deal.

      People have commended me for all the hard work I've put in to this blog, and the book based on it, but for me it hasn't been work at all. As with most projects I've been involved with over the years (and there have been a great many), I just find myself getting obsessed and doing what's necessary to work out the obsession. If all goes well, and it usually does, I express myself in the process, which is very self-fulfilling -- not like work at all. I guess you could say I've avoided work all my life. Just doing what fascinates me.

      This project differs from all the rest, however, because of the consequences of my possibly being wrong. And this presents a quandary. It's really hard for me to see how I could possibly be wrong. And I'm grateful to find so many seeing this case as I see it. On the other hand, I can't really say I hope I'm right, because being right would mean that John Ramsey is some sort of monster, which I'd prefer to think he isn't.

      Delete
  80. Doc, we have disagreed at times about who may have committed the actual murder, but both you and the person who help put together the Subic Bay Tailhook Club is something I couldnt stop thinking about all weekend. I cant imagine that the authorities were ever able to put this together and is direct evidence tying JR as being the author of the RN. Surely PR or an intruder would have never known about the Tailhook Club. Absolutely brilliant!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  81. While I agree that Doc is brilliant, I'm not sure about SBTC meaning Subic Bay Tailhook Club. What would that add to the overall plan? Are the police supposed to think someone who was at Subic with JR did it? When was the last time JR was in Subic, prior to the murder? If JR wrote the RN why would he make any reference that ties it to himself? The idea is to blame it on an intruder.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  82. Subic Bay would no more tie to JR than the garrote, which I understand is something he learned to make while in the Phillippines. Maybe these are the "funny little clues" he talked about once. Subic Bay is definitely a possibility, but I also think "Saved by the Cross" is another. He probably was feeling the need for some salvation after murdering his daughter.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Subic Bay Tailhook Club is certainly a possibility. But I agree with CH in that it's hard to understand why JR would want to include something only he would know about.

      The note expresses hostility toward John and it's occurred to me that it could have been written to suggest a "kidnapper" with a personal grudge. A reference to Subic Bay could have been added to suggest that this person was an old "friend" from his days in the navy. But if that's what John intended, then why wouldn't he have suggested Subic Bay Tailhook Club from the start? Why act as though he had no idea what SBTC might mean?

      Unless he did mention it and the authorities decided to keep it quiet, as it might tip off the "intruder" that they were on to him. So many possibilities when we try to account for all the strange odds and ends in this case.






      Delete
  83. I think we are all thinking too hard about this. I have read that some people think it could have religious meaning, but I never really bought that. JR clearly was up against the clock and thought he could outsmart everybody by making it look like a Foreign Faction took his daughter, so when figuring out how to sign the letter, the S.B.T.C probably just came to him. Again, JR isnt some criminal mastermind, so to look too much into how or why he chose that name is a waste of time. Also, considering the crime happened 18 years ago and this is literally the first time I believe somebody has ever mentioned it standing for the Tailhook Club, he did a pretty good job.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, J, I tend to agree. Since the note was supposed to be from a "small foreign faction," he apparently decided to end with an acronym supposedly standing for the name of this group. And the choice of letters might well have been just a spur of the moment thing. SBTC might not actually stand for anything at all -- just one more misdirection.

      Delete
  84. I'd like to bring up something that hasn't been discussed for awhile. Now, I must first say that I have been convinced of John's guilt in this crime for some time, but I still find myself, from time to time, wondering about Patsy's involvement. After all, so many things have been brought up that point to her involvement, in some way. The latest such thing is what I've read in Dr. Wecht's book, "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey." In Chapter 24 he writes about Judith Phillips, a "banished" friend of Patsy's, who was a photographer and apparently had a "sensitive eye" that could recognize shapes and forms. At the police department's request, she produced an enlarged photograph of a poster Patsy had painted that they had found in the basement. This photograph was to be submitted to handwriting experts. Patsy had written on this poster and apparently Judith and an investigative journalist found 47 similarities between the writing on the poster and the writing in the ransom note. Judith claimed, "It was her penmanship, even though it might have been left-handed."

    So once again I have been doubting my JDI theory, based on the ransom note. I know that when I listen to the way Patsy talks and her mannerisms of speech (most especially in her interrogation with Tom Haney), it reminds me of the types of things said in the ransom note. This boggles my mind because I just can't get myself to really believe she was involved in any way. And, of course, there is Doc's argument that if she was involved, she would never have made that 911 call with the body still in the house.

    So I put myself in her position. If I had anything to do with JB's death and I then tried to cover it up by staging a kidnapping, including writing a ransom note, but I just couldn't bear to dispose of the body (for various reasons), I believe I would still have made that 911 call, because that's what an innocent person would do. An innocent person would not know the kidnapping was staged and that the body was still in the house. An innocent person (especially a mother) would have been going out of her mind and would want to notify police right away. Making that call is what most people would have expected an innocent person to do, regardless of the threats in the note. And calling over her friends and pastor is also something an innocent person might do, while at the same time it would help to contaminate the crime scene (something a GUILTY person would do).

    But why leave a ransom note at all, you might ask? Well, perhaps she just felt the need to pull any and all suspicions away from the family and by leaving a fake note, that immediately makes people believe someone from outside the house was involved. And once the body was found, it could be speculated that the "kidnapping" must have gone wrong. The "intruder" seed was planted by leaving that note, and although most now believe there was never any intruder, there will always remain that doubt. Whereas, if JonBenet was just found murdered in her own home, most people would look at the family, and possibly the family alone, as suspects.

    Don't get me wrong: I do not believe there was an intruder that night. And I do not believe BR did it. But I guess I will always wonder about Patsy. Did she do it? Or did she know JR did it? DID SHE WRITE THAT RANSOM NOTE??

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are assuming Patsy (and presumably John collaborating with her) would have used a kind of reverse psychology. That's an intriguing possibility, yes. Fake the authorities out by doing something that makes you look guilty (since it reveals that the ransom note was phony, as there was no kidnapping) because only an innocent person or an idiot would deliberately do something that makes her look guilty. So by undermining her own effort to stage a kidnapping, she is actually making herself look innocent.

      Cool idea.

      Only problem is that you left something out. If the writing on the note so obviously resembles Patsy's hand, to the extent that even rank amateurs such as Judith Phillips and her journalist friend could tell, simply by examining a poster, then Patsy was not only undermining the staging in the note, but also handing the authorities sure-fire evidence that would certainly have been used against her, if she had in fact written it.

      You are also leaving out another important aspect of the case. The note was written not simply as part of a plot to make "the Ramseys" look innocent, but to stage an intruder breakin. By knowingly calling 911, Patsy would have seriously undermined the intruder breakin that the note was clearly intended to stage. Once it's clear the note is phoney, meaning it's likely there was no intruder, then Patsy (and John) look very guilty anyhow, despite Patsy's 911 call. Which is why, despite that call, so many people all over the world are convinced of "the Ramsey's" guilt.

      As far as Judith Phillips and her friend are concerned, take a look at the following blog post http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/big-bad-wolf-or-dangers-of-cherry.html

      You'll see the results of someone's very detailed attempt to "prove" Chris Wolf wrote the note. It actually looks VERY convincing. Because it is almost always possible to find what you are looking for when it comes to handwriting or in fact many other things (such as a stun gun, for example). At a certain point just about everyone was looking for evidence that Patsy wrote the note, so that's what Ms. Phillips found. If you read the chapter titled "Desperately Seeking Patsy," in my book, you'll see many more examples. Actually Patsy's hand is totally different from that of the note, as I've demonstrated very clearly in the book and on this blog.

      Delete
    2. "If the writing on the note so obviously resembles Patsy's hand . . . "

      Whoever wrote that note probably thought they had successfully disguised their handwriting enough so as not to cast suspicion on themselves. If John had written that note, the same thing can be said --- that he undermined his intruder staging by leaving evidence pointing to him (although he lucked out and it didn't). But my point is that whoever wrote that note may have felt it was worth the risk of leaving their handwriting behind if it would misdirect the authorities and help stage an intruder. This is actually one reason I do not believe this was a premeditated murder. If it had been, whoever wrote that note would have typed it ahead of time on a computer that could not be traced back to them.

      "Once it's clear the note is phoney, meaning it's likely there was no intruder . . . "
      I don't believe the writer of the note thought it would ultimately be considered a phoney. Otherwise, why would they have even left it? Even if they knew the body would ultimately be found in the house, I don't believe they thought the police would then instantly rule out the kidnapping theory (hence, the kidnapping gone wrong theory). Especially if other staging is done to point to an intruder, weak as it might be.

      I know it's true that there are many cherry pickers out there who look for similarities in Patsy's handwriting and that of the note, and I realize Judith Phillips is not only an amateur and she was also a spurned friend of Patsy's. I'm just being a bit of a devil's advocate and saying that it's possible Patsy could have somehow been involved even though she made that 911 call.

      I will read your blog post about Chris Wolf and re-read "Desperately Seeking Patsy" I'm sure the pendulum will then swing back to JDI. That's what makes this case so intriguing. It's the search for the real truth that pulls us into all these tangent theories.

      bb

      Delete
    3. "Whoever wrote that note probably thought they had successfully disguised their handwriting enough so as not to cast suspicion on themselves. If John had written that note, the same thing can be said --- that he undermined his intruder staging by leaving evidence pointing to him (although he lucked out and it didn't)."

      But if Patsy had disguised her hand, then why is it that so many who've convinced themselves she wrote it find that conclusion so obvious? If any amateur spending five minutes with the note can decide it's "got Patsy written all over it" then clearly she didn't do a very good job. But apparently she did, because the LE experts found it "unlikely" that she wrote it.

      The point is: neither Patsy nor John had any experience, to our knowledge, with handwriting or with forgery, so by calling the police and handing them a note written by either one of them they would have been taking an incredible risk. Why take such a risk when you aren't even planning on removing the body from the house to make it look like a real kidnapping?

      Once the body is found in the house, the note becomes suspicious and the police are going to study it very carefully for signs that either Patsy or John wrote it. On the other hand, if the call is not made and JBR's body is eventually found in some remote spot where supposedly her kidnappers murdered her, then the perp might at least hope that the police would accept that the kidnapping was real and not scrutinize the note so carefully.

      More likely imo is the scenario I present here, where John's plan involves dumping the body AND destroying the note, after showing it to Patsy and some friends who will serve as witnesses. And also very likely making a hand written or computerized copy before destroying it.

      Very simply: if Patsy had written that note there is no way she'd have both called 911 when she did AND hand the note over to the police where it could become evidence sending her to prison for life. I don't care how innocent the call might have made her look, if she had written that note there is no way she'd have handed it over under those circumstances. If she wanted to just get it over with and stage a pedophile attack or a failed kidnapping she would never have written the note in the first place. (What kidnapper leaves a ransom note after failing to kidnap his victim? What sort of staging is that?)

      Delete
    4. It's really this simple - you either stage a fake kidnapping or a fake intruder/muderer. You don't stage both at the same time discrediting both scenarios. You stage one, or the other, and you make the scene tell a consistent story of that scenario.

      So, If a fake intruder/murder then there is no RN. If a fake kidnapping then you have to have a RN and no body.

      We have a RN, a body, a sexual assault, and a murder. Doc's theory is the sole theory which makes sense of all these seeming contradictions.

      There is an important distinction to make between PR writing the note and JR writing it. If PR wrote it, she's an accomplice, at least in the cover up, and possibly the murder. If one is going to be an accessory to murder, or accessory after the fact, one wants to be sure the faked scenario is plausible. So, I'd have to agree with Doc's analysis - she wouldn't call 911 with the body in the house. OTOH, if JR acted alone, as Doc's theory suggests, JR would have no choice but to write a RN. So JR might risk letting the authorities see a RN that could be identified as his handwriting because he'd have no choice. IOWs, JR would do what PR would not do, because he is out of alternatives. (Though he could always stage an intruder/murder with no kidnapping angle and hope for the best). Once it's been decided to stage a phoney kidnapping, there has to be a RN.

      Finally, something I've mentioned elsewhere in the blog comments- RDIs assume there was not really an intruder. IOWs, we assume there was not a "kidnapping gone wrong". Yet some RDIs are so eager to involve PR that they are willing to believe that "The Ramseys" actually thought LE might believe there was a kidnapping gone wrong. But there is a logical problem taking this position. Either the kidnapping gone wrong really is plausible, in which case there's a very good chance this is actually an IDI case, or, the kidnapping gone wrong is so obviously phoney (as RDIs by definition believe) that there is no reason to believe "The Ramseys" thought LE would buy this theory. You can't have it both ways. Either IDI is plausible or it's not, and if not, you can't have "The Ramseys" staging a kidnapping gone wrong and expecting LE to believe it. If IDI is plausible, then you may as well approach the case from that perspective.

      If you re-examine the reasons for rejecting IDI you'll realize "The Ramseys" couldn't be staging a kidnapping gone wrong.

      CH

      Delete
  85. I looked again at John Ramsey's brief handwriting exemplar and noticed he spelled "occasions" wrong--he spelled it "occassions" it appears. That same kind of spelling mistake turned up in the ransom note--business and possession were both incorrectly spelled bussiness and posession. I never noticed that before--makes me think, perhaps that they weren't deliberately misspelled. I don't believe there were other spelling errors in the note. I think Doc G also suggests the spelling errors weren't deliberate. Other difficult words were spelled correctly--and except for the word tomorrow (which was correctly spelled)--there weren't other words with double letters--the specific spelling challenge John Ramsey evidently has. I wonder if he personally provided that exemplar--if he did, he likely didn't realize the misspelling--since the same type of misspellings occurred in the ransom note. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch! One of many indicators pointing to John. And no, the exemplar was not provided by John -- it simply appeared without attribution on the pages of a tabloid. None of the handwriting sample provided by John to the authorities has ever been made public. A great example of how screwed up and misleading the media treatment of this case has been.

      Delete
    2. Actually there were a couple of other words such as 'arrange' and 'attache' that had double letters that he spelled correctly. It's the double 'ss' in words that he may have trouble with. It would be very interesting to see other writing samples to see if in fact he does have problems spelling difficult 'double s' words. kp

      Delete
  86. Another interesting thing in the ransom note is how the amount is written out $118,000.00. The final two zeroes are superfluous. Very few people would include those digits. I read that actually John's bonus totaled $118,117.50. Those final two digits were written on his bonus check, which he likely visualized in his mind's eye as he wrote $118,000.00. Others may have noticed this too--but t's a new observation to me. kp

    ReplyDelete
  87. Just an idea- but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the Caylee Anthony case. Another little girl who deserved justice...

    Just as a side question, do you believe anyone knows what actually happened to Jon Benet? Burke? or maybe John confessed to Patsy?
    I guess I am asking do you think this case will ever get more answers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never followed the Caylee Anthony case in any detail at all. But from what I've been able to gather from news reports it sounds to me as though her mother must know who killed her and is covering for that person. Possibly because she's afraid for her own safety. I don't think the mother actually killed her, though, because 1. there doesn't seem to be a motive and 2. if she were the guilty party I think she'd have done a better job of covering up.

      As for your other question, I think John is the only one who knows the whole truth, though Burke may certainly know some things he'd rather not make public.

      Delete
  88. Not to get off topic from the JBR case, but I followed quite a bit of the Casey Anthony trial and the case seemed pretty cut and dry to me. Casey on a prior occasion was accused of using chloroform to knock out her daughter so she could go out on party. Whether she tried to kill her or not I don't know, but I believe Casey used chloroform again on Caylee and killed her. Then Casey panicked and made up all of the lies about Zenyatta Gonzales, working at Universal, etc.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  89. Doc,

    Have you looked at the Julia Wallace case at all? I'd be interested in your opinion. PD James feels that Herbert Wallace killed his wife. I don't think she's correct.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  90. If I could have any question answered about this case, it would be what Patsy believed or thought just before she passed away.

    ReplyDelete
  91. If I could have any question answered I'd ask BR if that window had been broken for a few months prior to the murder. If not, Doc has pretty well nailed this case (which I think is true, even w/o BR's answer)

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  92. The housekeeper and her family (husband and grown children) were in the basement just days before Christmas, moving several artificial trees and ornaments upstairs. If the window was broken, they would have noticed. The CO chills and winds blowing in the basement. Yet, they did not notice a broken window.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. The housekeeper's testimony is really key, because 1. she was in the best position of anyone to know whether or not a window in that house was broken; 2. she had no reason to lie (unless, of course, she was involved, which is another story entirely).

      With all respect, CH, I don't see much point in questioning Burke on this matter because it's clear he's not about to say anything that's going to make his father look suspicious. If he were willing to do that he'd have done so long ago.

      Delete
    2. I was assuming a situation in which the person being questioned had to tell the truth.

      If I could ask any question but could not be sure of the truth, I don't think I'd bother questioning anyone at this point.

      CH

      Delete
    3. It was the phrasing "If I could have any question answered" that erica used that made me think she meant we could get a truthful answer. BR confirming the window wasn't broke pretty much confirms your overall theory. OTOH, if he says it was broken, then it's back to the drawing board.

      CH

      Delete
  93. CH, I think the problem with asking a child or adult nearly 20 years later would be that very few people would even honestly remember. Ask my kids which window in my house was broken last month or even yesterday and I can guarantee they wouldn't know which one. I know, but if you're relying on memory it will be more and more flawed as time goes by. In fact, just about anyone can be convinced of remembering something that never actually happened.

    That's why I don't think Patsy was actively lying about the broken window when she was interviewed by police. I think she was just convinced of it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting -- and relevant -- link. Thanks Erica.

      Delete
  94. Whats really crazy is that IF JR did it and most on here believe he did, then why didn't PR say something before she died? She gets cancer and her health gets worse and worse to the point where she is bed ridden, so at that point why not confide in the authorities that she not only believes JR did it, but saw something? While she was alive I guess I understand being in fear of John for financial reasons or whatever else, but when she knows her life is coming to an end, how does she not try to bring justice to the person that did it?
    Patsy lied to help cover up Johns BS window story and I guess I could potentially understand wanting to believe your husband wasn't capable of such an awful crime against your child. But, once she divorced from John and dying, WHY NOT SAY SOMETHING!?!?!?!?!

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  95. J, Patsy and JR were never divorced (were they?). And the issues you bring up are exactly why I think Patsy simply mis-remembered the window being broken months before. I cannot fathom a situation where John would risk Patsy's suspicion by asking her to lie. I'd put money on it being a simple gas-lighting thing; just falsely implanting memories, which is very very easy to do. Especially when someone is in a vulnerable position.

    I think Patsy either believed John's innocence until the very end or figured it out on her death bed and maybe possibly confided in someone who isn't talking. There is absolutely no way for any of us to know for sure. That's why I want it to be the one question I'd ask.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imo Patsy never suspected John at all. It's important to understand the effect of the decision to rule him out as writer of the note, which no one in the investigation ever questioned. For the great majority following the case, including the police, the DA's office and the media, the decision to rule John out could mean only one of two things: either an intruder wrote it or Patsy wrote it. But for Patsy, assuming (as I do) that she is innocent, there would have been only one possible conclusion: an intruder wrote it.

      Since no one else involved in the case doubted the decision to rule John out, why would Patsy have doubted it? Clearly she accepted it, and therefore, in her mind, there was no way John could have been involved, he had to be innocent, regardless of anything she might have suspected earlier or anything he might have told her that might make someone suspicious under ordinary circumstances.

      The decision to rule John out was a huge blunder for two reasons: first, because it was wrong, as I believe I've demonstrated; but second, because it gave John huge leverage over the investigators and over Patsy. That ruling should never have been made public and certainly never shared with the Ramseys or their lawyers.

      Delete
  96. J - besides the other reasons, I don't think Patsy would want to ruin Burke's life on her deathbed. At that point, she had more to lose by ruining Burke's ability to get along in the world without his dad and given her religious beliefs, felt that she would be reunited with JBR soon and God would deal with JR. -K

    ReplyDelete
  97. Wow, let me correct the part about them being divorced. I could have sworn I read that somewhere, so my apologies.
    The Ransom Note suggested a kidnapping which you would think would cause fear to Patsy. But, once the body is found in the house and no phone call is made, you would have to think that she started to have some type of suspicion about John. She couldn't have been that blind, so I just don't understand how she clearly had to see something but never spoke. Sure, she may have told somebody who hasn't come forward (Linda Arndt, somebody else) but how pathetic that she never came forward with anything.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  98. J-

    You also have to remember that John's handwriting experts ruled him out. I don't see any problems with being able to convince Patsy of John's innocence especially when he's being supported by experts, lawyers, family and friends.

    We on this board understand that handwriting analysis isn't an exact science, but at the same time there are millions of intelligent and educated people out there who believe polygraphs are always accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hey Erica,

    Thanks for the response! I am completely aware of the handwriting experts ruling John out early on, though I think its not even worth discussing at this point. Early on I understand that the experts may have convinced Patsy that John wasn't involved, but as days and years went on, she would have to be the most naive person in the world to not suspect John. Here is just a quick list of things that she would have to ignore: I believe two 911 calls were made that morning and it has been argued that John may have told her to hang up the first time….why? When cops asked Patsy about the broken window she was fed a story from John that she not only repeated to police but she also lied about having workers come repair the window that she knew was never broken. Then we have a ransom note where a supposed terrorist group takes responsibility and demands money, but we never hear from anybody via phone or mail. Also, there is everything that took place in the Ramsey house through conversations and actions that we will never be privy to.
    Patsy and Burke are so frustrating because they both saw and heard “something” that could be vital to the case and unfortunately with Patsy, we may never know what she knew. Just a shame that her daughter may never get justice due to both her and Burke keeping so quiet.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  100. J-

    "Early on I understand that the experts may have convinced Patsy that John wasn't involved, but as days and years went on, she would have to be the most naive person in the world to not suspect John."

    Personally, I think people who discuss this case forget that we're not emotionally involved. Our daughter wasn't murdered, and our husband isn't the most likely suspect. I think it would take a lot. And I mean a whole hell of a lot of evidence to convince a wife and mother her husband is guilty after she had been repeatedly convinced of his innocence.

    "Here is just a quick list of things that she would have to ignore: I believe two 911 calls were made that morning and it has been argued that John may have told her to hang up the first time….why?"

    IF that is what happened, I'd guess he told her to hang up when he read out loud to her the part of the ransom letter where it said not to call the cops. She hung up then quickly changed her mind. But there are countless possible explanations as to why someone hung up and called back. Panic, blood rushing to ears and not able to hear the ringback tone, falsely believing one dialed incorrectly...

    "When cops asked Patsy about the broken window she was fed a story from John that she not only repeated to police but she also lied about having workers come repair the window that she knew was never broken."

    DocG has an entire blog post about why Patsy would lie about the window. I had commented on that post why I'm personally not convinced that Patsy was actively lying to the police. I honestly think she was just convinced to remember something that never happened. I don't remember her claiming that she hired workers to repair the window, only that she remembers asking the housekeeper's husband to repair it. Again, I don't think she's actively lying, just remembering something that never happened. She would have mis-remembered asking someone to repair it because that's what she would have done if it did in fact happen. This is what I had written about Patsy and the window a few months back, and I'd like to paraphrase if I may:

    Who can remember the exact circumstances of cleaning up broken glass a few years ago? Was it that time your son dropped a water glass? Or the time a picture frame fell of the counter? Was it cold outside? Hot? Okay, good. You remember the temperature because it was the window that was broken. Now, who helped you clean the glass? Wasn't it the housekeeper? Don't you remember cleaning the glass from the broken window with the housekeeper? This is very important that you remember. It was when I lost my keys, remember? I had told you the whole story with my taking off my clothes and everything!

    "Then we have a ransom note where a supposed terrorist group takes responsibility and demands money, but we never hear from anybody via phone or mail."

    She, like everyone else who believed in IDI thought it was a failed kidnapping. Besides, John was ruled out as the writer. Why would the kidnappers have called when the body may have been discovered right away? Remember, a theoretical intruder would have no clue how and when JonBenet would have been found. Why risk being traced by calling?

    "Patsy and Burke are so frustrating because they both saw and heard “something” that could be vital to the case and unfortunately with Patsy, we may never know what she knew. Just a shame that her daughter may never get justice due to both her and Burke keeping so quiet."

    We don't know that. No one has a reason to believe that Patsy and Burke heard or saw anything that made them suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi Erica,

    I appreciate the response as you make some good points and put a lot of time putting it together. I have debated with other bloggers on here before regarding Burke and or Patsy seeing “something” or hearing “something” that could be a major clue. My argument on this isn’t an opinion of mine, its simply a fact. 4 Ramseys entered the house alive that night and only 3 woke up. So, besides JR, Patsy and Burke were the other 2 people that not only were there the morning the body was discovered but all of the time after. For you to say that we don’t know that they saw something just defies logic as unless their ears were plugged and they were blindfolded, it would have been impossible to avoid seeing something.

    Ok, regarding your response about Patsy mis-remembering or simply not remembering exact circumstances about the window baffles me. Your examples of not remembering when my son dropped his milk or the time a picture frame fell off the wall isn’t really what we are dealing with here. Patsy Ramsey’s daughter was molested and brutally murdered, so a window that was open, but then closed by her husband is kind of a big deal. As Doc has even said, the broken window story told by JR is all but a smoking gun proving his guilt. So, it is completely unacceptable for Patsy to either go along with some story that John fed her or just mis-remembering the details of the window. Sorry, I just can’t see an argument for her just simply forgetting a detail that could solve her daughters murder.

    I do agree with you that the emotional attachment to the case is something that none of us will understand. But the fact that Burke and Patsy till her death kept their mouths shut leads me to believe they know a whole heck of a lot more than they have ever said.

    --On a side note, Im still not convinced of Burke’s innocence, but that’s a whole different discussion that we don’t have to get into.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hey J,

    I understand your point, but I can absolutely conceive of Burke and Patsy never hearing or seeing anything that they would understand as a smoking gun in favor of John's guilt. Anything short of hard, tangible evidence probably would not convince them. John tended to use the word "hence" in conversation. He was in the navy and perhaps learned how to tie a slipknot. He knew what his bonus was. None of that is evidence pointing to anyone's guilt. It's just conjecture. So, they're hearing or seeing anything short of John outright confessing or witnessing the murder wouldn't make them suspicious in the first place, since he had been ruled out as the note writer.

    And I also get what you're saying about the window. But if something horrible happened to your loved one tomorrow, you still wouldn't be able to recall with perfect accuracy your cleaning broken glass last year. A tragic and horrible event doesn't give you perfect clarity of a distant memory. John claimed he had broken that window purposely the summer before, months earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Oh and another thing, J-

    I read what you wrote earlier about Burke, and I agree with a lot of your points. I don't have a problem at all of conceiving a 9-year-old boy molesting and/or hitting his little sister hard enough to crack a skull. And I disagree with K's assertion that most children who behave sexually are in dysfunctional families and exposed to sexuality far too young. You can find precocious sexuality in a lot of children, regardless of their home life.

    What I can't be convinced of is the cover-up. Previous posters put it more eloquently than I can, but why would parents even think of staging a phony kidnapping? With the BDI theory we're left with the same problems as the RDI theory. Why call the cops with the body still in the house, etc. I know your idea was that JR staged it without Patsy's knowledge, but again, why? Burke would not had been in one iota of legal trouble. He was nine-years-old. I know that perhaps JR would have possibly thought otherwise, but with all due respect it just seems to me like common sense that a 9-year-old boy wouldn't be prosecuted for such a thing.

    I know what you mean by taking a bullet for your own child, and I have kids too, but I'm willing to bet that you or anyone's move after finding their still-living 6-year-old daughter hit over the head by their 9-year-old son would be to call an ambulance. You wouldn't then garrote her to finish her off, stage a kidnapping, and send your son off with friends unsupervised. It just doesn't add up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It absolutely doesn't add up. You don't save your nine year old (who's in no trouble) by garrotting your daughter, writing a fake RN, and implicating yourself in murder.

      As far as BR molesting JBR, I think it may be possible that playing doctor caused some of the "molestation". In what other way could the coroner describe the injuries? He dose not know how the injuries happened. He couldn't very well conclude that the prior "molestation" resulted from kids playing doctor. But BR being a long term sexual molester (in the real sense, not playing doctor) is quite a stretch.

      As far as the head injury, I find it hard to believe it was Burke who did it. It's possible he could swing a ball bat or golf club that hard, the he'd really have to be trying. It's hard to see the skull fracture as the result of an accident.
      If the weapon was the flashlight, I don't see BR being able to swing it with enough force to do that kind of damage.

      We can't rule out BDI 100% as a matter of logic, but common sense allows us to rule out BDI 99%

      CH

      Delete
  104. Here's something I don't understand. John and Patsy always said they believed someone entered the house that night and killed JonBenet. John broke the window to stage the place where the intruder entered. But, once the police determined that there was no forced entry into the house, John had to explain the broken window and then concoct that wild story about breaking the window himself. John had also stated that he had locked all the doors in the house. So with the window ruled out as the entry point, where does John think the "intruder" entered? Did he retract his statement about all doors being locked?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think John probably felt he had no choice but to admit that all the doors were locked, because Patsy would certainly have known they were always locked. According to one interview, Patsy insisted that they never used those doors because they always entered via the garage, using the garage door opener in their cars. That's been confirmed by their housekeeper, LHP. Also, at that point it's possible that he was still hoping the police would buy his basement window staging. But would have changed his mind when he became aware of the intact spider web found on the window grate.

      Months later, John did in fact attempt to retract his statement by pointing to a photo he'd seen of an open door, usually referred to as the "Butler door." This is an excellent example of his deceit, since he knew very well that he'd reported to the police that he'd checked all the doors and found them locked -- and that the police double checked and also found them locked. (The Butler door had been opened by a police technician prior to the photo being taken.)

      Delete
    2. Of course, John could always fall back on the possibility that someone with a key entered the house. According to the facts of the case, ONLY someone with a key could have entered, since there were no signs of forced entry.

      Delete
  105. Erica,
    I just wanted to quickly respond to your comments on my BR posts. My point with Burke has always been that I just don't think we can rule him out. I understand its taking a huge leap of faith to think John would go through all of the trouble to cover it up, but as I said before, John is a guy who already lost a daughter previously and now loses JBR. So, we just have no idea what could have been going through his mind, IF BR did in fact commit the crime.

    Doc, why didn't JR just leave the basement window open and go along with a theory that an intruder left via that window, not entered? With the body being found in the basement and an open window, it would seem plausible that an intruder not wanting to be detected could have left that way. Just baffles me that he would make up the window story and draw attention to himself.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Doc, why didn't JR just leave the basement window open and go along with a theory that an intruder left via that window, not entered?"

      I think that may have been his plan, even after Patsy called in the police. Although he might have been planning on completing his staging the following night. In any case, it soon became apparent that the police were not buying into his staging. The turning point may have come when a policeman noticed an undisturbed spider web straddling the grate and the lawn. John probably overheard their conversations and realized his staging was not going to work and might well backfire.

      An intact spider web would mean that no one could have entered OR exited the house via that window on the previous night. Which meant that the window could not have been broken by an intruder. The only other possibility would have been staging from inside the house. So at that point John would have realized that he had to find some innocent explanation for that broken window, or his staging would have been obvious.

      Delete
    2. Doc- Do you know if BPD did forensics on whether the window was broken from inside or outside based on glass analysis? If it was broken from inside (mostly likely scenerio if done the night of crime), then this evidence contradicts JR's claim of breaking the window to get inside the house.

      Delete
  106. Doc - thank you for the excellent work!

    I pretty much agree with your theory. One thing that bothers me though, is why did JR go and find the body?

    I believe he hid it and hoped to get rid of it, but PR called 911. Did JR panic? Why wouldn't he wait until the police decided to search and let them find it?

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR was told by Det. Arndt to systematically search the house, so he had no choice. If he searched everywhere BUT the place where the body was hidden that would certainly have looked suspicious.

      Delete
    2. Thanks. I completely forgot he was told to do so. I guess the police made a mistake there.

      Delete
  107. Has it occurred to anyone that JR might have made up the ridiculous story about breaking the window months before to give police the impression that someone may have been "casing the place" looking for a point of entry?
    Also to the previous poster who asked why JR "found" the body - if he had in fact moved the body while Arndt lost track of him then he would have fibers from the blanket found on the body on his clothing and carrying the body upstairs after "finding" it would explain that.
    And speaking of the blanket covering the body, that suggests a relationship between perp and victim, not something a crazed pedophile intruder would do. And not likely that he covered the body to hide it since according to Fleet White the body has not been in that room when he looked previously, so who was JR hiding the body from - himself?
    Does anyone know if JR knew that FW had previously looked in that room? Seems unlikely that JR would have stashed the body there knowing that FW had already looked in there and seen nothing.

    Cece

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Cece

      If someone had been casing the joint, looking for an entry point, they'd have found the window (had it actually been broken) so they'd have come in that way, meaning the web would be broken, and the grate lifted out. Since the grate is in place and the web intact we know, and the police knew, that no one used it as an entry/exit point. So if someone were casing the place why'd they pass up the window, and how did they get in ?

      CH

      Delete
  108. I just can't believe there aren't detectives in the BPD that would love to solve this crime, as so many of us bloggers want. It seems like it would be a simple task to uncover some of JR's handwriting samples (from work, from court documents, from letters sent, etc.) to compare again with the RN. I know he was ruled out as the writer of the RN, but that shouldn't prevent a savvy detective from doing his own investigative work in the hopes of finally solving this case. And why couldn't they investigate the broken window further and examine the glass shards they found to determine how the window was broken (from inside or out?) Maybe I've been watching too many detective shows, but it certainly seems like there are many rocks unturned in this case. Is it because their hands are tied and they are not permitted to do anything more on the case?

    I find it very frustrating that this case appears to have come to a permanent halt, especially when I read the very logical, intelligent posts on this blog.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  109. Handwriting would prove anything, in itself, but it certainly could demonstrate similarities between JR's writing and the RN. People could at least re-examine their belief that PR wrote the note. A new "cold case" investigation could certainly dump the conclusions of the handwriting "experts".

    Since the window frame was hinged that presents a problem. A break from the inside would indicate staging, but a break from the outside could either be an intruder (or JR when he lost his keys) or staging. Since the window swings in, it could be broken from "outside" while standing in the basement.

    As Doc has pointed out somewhere here on the blog, the strands of spider web clumped up on the broken glass suggest a recent break. If the break were months old, the web would be re-spun and stretch across the broken out area.

    CH

    ReplyDelete