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.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

A New Wrinkle

I've been considering a piece of evidence I hadn't thought about in a while, something that's rarely if ever discussed. Not something I myself discovered. I found it on a Facebook page devoted to the case -- can't recall what that was or how to find it again. But someone here might know.

I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I'm curious as to whether anyone reading here will see it. It concerns a very interesting difference between this page of the ransom note

and this one:



259 comments:

  1. Well you've got our attention now! This is fascinating.

    The only thing I see is the difference in the top margin. The space between the top of the page and the first line (actual line, not written line) on the first page is shorter than the distance between the top of the page and the first line on the second page.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  2. I looked around a bit on the internet and saw several handwriting analysts take note that the last lines look like a more natural handwriting. One suggested the note writer switched hands while writing the note: perhaps where the personal comments starts: Don't try to grow a brain. That's where the writing looks a little less squiggly to me. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and that last personal paragraph has a consistently (and unnecessarily) smaller right margin. (Words that were written on the following line could have fit on the prior line.) That paragraph could perhaps have been added at a later time. Maybe the ransom note was prewritten and the personalized ending was added the night of the murder. It does have a different tone than the rest of the note. kp

      Delete
    2. Larger right margin, I meant to say! kp

      Delete
  3. well the writer uses "john 3 times on last page, and does not mention "john" at all on the previous. Also only 1% seperating what happens to her.?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting observations. But not what I had in mind. It's far from obvious, but . . .

    If you look carefully you'll see that the lines on the third page are slightly thicker than those on the first two pages. Feel free to speculate on why that might be. But it's a very interesting clue, imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DocG, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by thicker lines. Can you explain more? kp

      Delete
    2. I meant the lines forming the letters.

      Delete
  5. The thicker lines would seem to indicate either a different pen was used or the surface upon which the note was written was different. There was nothing mentioned in the investigation about two pens found; they continually referred to just "Patsy's pen", which suggested just one pen. So that makes me think the surface under the paper was different. And the only reason I can see the surface changing is if John were suddenly interrupted and had to move to another spot to continue writing. Of course that would mean the pages were torn from the pad before written on, which makes sense because I don't believe they found evidence of any ink coming through the blank pages below, which marker pens often do.

    Other than that, I've got nothing. I'm dying to hear your thoughts Doc!

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't think the pages were torn from the pad as LE found pad had imprint of writing, note originally started wilth " Mr & Mrs Ramsey

      Delete
  6. It could also suggest that page was written with the other hand and more pressure was applied by that hand, probably the dominate hand. I remember Doc saying he felt John was ambidextrous, so perhaps he switched hands for the final page 3.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  7. I googled Sharpie pens and it said something like control the width of your lines by the amount of pressure you apply. Over time, as well, perhaps the point gets worn down a bit so the lines get thicker. Just a couple of ideas, assuming I understand what you mean by thicker lines. kp

    ReplyDelete
  8. ...but probably the pressure, since the word Victory and S.B.T.C is written lighter again. Seems like he may have been distracted by something and came back to writing the 3rd page.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Could this note be a photocopy of the original produced by the police? The horizontal lines and the writing on the last page appear darker than the previous page which could be due to the person making copies simply adjusting the shades on the copier. There are also smudges on the last page which indicate they were produced by the copy machine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. On closer examination, it looks to me like the letters are thicker in the first six lines only of the third page. From the seventh line to the end of the last paragraph the thickness seems consistent with the first two pages. Also, in the word "Victory," the letters look less thick, and also somewhat smaller than any of the others, as though he used a third pen just for that one word.

    So I don't think this could have anything to do with how the xerox was made. And according to reports I've read, there was a palm print on the note that was too smudged to be identified. That could be the smudge visible on the third page. I doubt it was smudged during xeroxing or they'd have tried again.

    What this suggests is that a different pen was used for those first six lines on p. 3, and that the writer reverted to the original pen for the rest of the note -- except for the word "Victory" which seems to have been printed with an even thinner point. Very strange!

    What this tells me is that the document was not simply written out from beginning to end in one go, but assembled over time. There's no sign that the first pen ran out of ink and he needed to replace it. Nor is it likely that he'd have needed to start using a different pen at the exact moment of continuation onto the third page. I have a feeling this note was assembled, with different segments printed at different times. Very possibly there was more than one attempt to print each page -- i.e., he probably made some mistakes and each time decided to start over at the beginning of the page. Which makes sense if he was tracing it from a computer display, which would not have been easy.

    Consistent with the note having been prepared in advance, it seems to me. I don't get the impression this was printed in a huge rush, at the last minute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My old bespectacled eyes do not see any significant difference in line thickness, at least nothing very obvious and nothing that wouldn't be explained by different pressure. I "blew up" the RN to see better (hold Cntrl and use the mouse wheel) and still can't see anything of significance. Slight differences here and there, yes, but nothing significant.

      At most it appears to me that only lines 4 and 5 on page 3 are thicker, along with the word John, on line 6. But again, it doesn't strike me as anything other than slight variance of pressure.

      A slight difference in line thickness can also occur by turning the pen slightly. Most sharpies, at least when new, have a tip cut at a slight angle. Most people use a sharpie with the "high" end of the tip either away from them, or towards them, but not to their right or left. (If I'm not being clear, grab a sharpie) Turning very slightly will cause a slight change in line thickness, but not significantly, unless the pen is turned about 90 degrees from "normal", or IOWs using it on the wide side, rather than the narrow side.

      "Victory" does appear thinner, but SBTC isn't thin, so you think he waited and added that later? With another pen?

      Well, anything is possible, but for me, I just don't think there is anything to this. I don't see a change in line thickness that would not be explained by very slight difference in pressure or very slight turning of the tip to the "wide" side.

      CH

      Delete
    2. I'd have to agree with CH. I have used Sharpies many times over the years, in both work and at home, and in various applications, and I know exactly what CH means. A slight repositioning of the pen in one's hand can turn the point just enough to create a wider line. I have always preferred a finer point to write with and I have actually found it annoying when this happens, especially when I'm writing a nice letter or signing a card.

      I suppose it's possible different pens were used and one disposed of, but what would the purpose of that be if he left the other behind anyway? And I suppose he could have written this note in stages, thereby holding the pen at different angles each time, but I think the same thing could occur while writing the note at one time, especially if he put the pen down once or twice during the writing.

      Just one more strange clue, indeed, but maybe not one that tells us anything significant.

      bb

      Delete
    3. I agree with CH.
      evej wrote about the repetitive use of 'John' on the last page- that seems curious shift in wording.
      OWL

      Delete
    4. Look again, folks. The difference is clear as day to me. It might be easier to see if you focus on the same word on both pages. For example, compare the word "chance," as in "99% chance" on page 2 with the "chance" in "100% chance" on the first line of p. 3. You'll see the same difference if you compare the word "stand" on both pages. It shouldn't be that hard to see that all the words in those first six lines of p. 3 are printed with just about exactly the same thicker line.

      Now as to the source of the difference, that's not at all clear. Could be a different pen, could be a different degree of pressure, or a different angle. What's hard to explain is the consistency of the change and the fact that it happens to begin right at the beginning of a new page. I can understand if the odd word or letter is written with a slightly different degree of pressure, but an entire 6 lines where the thickness is totally consistent? And then the reversion to the original thickness all the way to the end of the paragraph?

      I don't recall seeing any other variations of thickness anywhere else in the note. So it's hard to believe the writer just happened to bear down harder on those six lines if we assume he's writing the whole thing in one continuous go. It's easier to explain if there was a break between the completion of page 2 and the beginning of page 3, in which he either picked up a different pen or for some reason changed his writing method to produce a thicker line.

      It's also hard to see how anyone could mechanically trace or copy the note from a computer with total consistency from beginning to end if he did it in one go. And it would be all to easy to lapse into his standard mode of writing from time to time, which could give him away. It seems to me that there must have been quite a bit of trial and error involved before he got it just right, which would explain that discontinuity.

      That doesn't necessarily mean he could not have written the note after the murder. But I find it hard to accept that someone in a state of extreme stress, pressed for time, and nervous that his wife or son might wake up and catch him in the act, could have planned and executed such a complex series of tasks under such circumstances. Possible, yes. Probable? I'm not sure.

      Delete
  11. DocG-- did you ever see the website that posts the ransom note minus any squiggles and extraneous letter markings? The handwriting analyzer attempts to replicate what the pure simple handwriting would look like in the ransom note. Interesting. Google disguised handwriting Ramsey ransom note, or something like that if you are interested in seeing that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't recall ever having seen that. I tried to find it via Google but no luck. Do you have the URL?

      Delete
  12. Something I just read on-line, and don't know if this is true: The pad of paper from which papers were pulled out to write the ransom note was found in a garbage can near the spiral staircase. Anyone else hear that? kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not so. I believe it was the "practice note" that was found in the garbage can. (And by the way the "practice note" consisted of the words "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. Not much of a practice note, if you ask me.)

      The pad was found in its usual place. Not sure where that was, but there was nothing unusual or suspicious about where they found it.

      Delete
  13. I think the most simple explanation may apply here. As John changed to a new sheet of paper, he laid down the pen - perhaps reading over the first page- then picks up the sharpie to write again, and holds it at a different angle.
    As CH points out this is the nature of a sharpie, versus a ball point pen.
    OWL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's possible. But how often do you find a handwritten document in which a sudden change of thickness appears just like that, out of the blue, and then continues for several lines before reverting to the norm? All of us have habits of writing in a certain way, and that includes the angle with which we hold the pen and the pressure we use. It isn't that easy to change that sort of habit, especially when there's no reason to do so.

      Delete
    2. It happens with Sharpies, Flairs, really all sorts of markers. You turn the marker as you write to get the best ink flow and clearest print....if the marker flattens, then the line gets too thick and the text becomes hard to read. So you turn the marker a bit to thin out the line.

      MM

      Delete
    3. Yes, of course. But if that's all there was to it then we'd see more or less random variations in thickness. This one isn't random. It's six lines in a row, at the top of a page.

      I don't see much point in continuing to speculate on what this might mean, if anything. As far as I'm concerned, however, the sudden switch at the top of a page (whether a new pen or a change of angle, whatever) does suggest that the document was assembled in bits and pieces and not written at one go. That's consistent with the evidence from the notepad, which indicates that several pages were torn out in the same area where the note originated. It stands to reason that a certain amount of trial and error would have been necessary in assembling this document. Doesn't mean it could not have been written after the murder. To me, however, it seems more consistent with pre-planning.

      Delete
  14. The more I think about it as well, the more I think the note was likely written the day before. Not well in advance, as there is evidence of it being written in a rushed manner (several missing letters in words, spelling errors, cross-outs). Yet the relatively calmly stated, elaborate content, structure, flow, and handwriting disguise efforts--not to mention length--took more time and focus than the killer (or any person) could have possessed that night--along with completing a complex murder and staging that also required lots of concentration and thought. I still wonder if the last few lines were a later add-on, as its personal tone and larger margins differ from the rest of the note..

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, I wasn't going to comment anymore, as I'm trying to put this case behind me and move on to other things. (I'm finding it hard to quit cold turkey)

    Fist, there just isn't any significant difference between the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3. Any difference is insignificant, and certainly not consistent.

    If we look at some words we will see that there is no consistency. Doc asks us, for example to look at the words "chance" on page 2 and 3, and I agree that "chance" on page 3 looks ever so slightly thicker. But look at 99% and 100%, the are the same thickness. Especially look at the % sign, and the way it has a hood at the bottom. It's quite evident that they are the same thickness.

    Look at "Follow" in the last line of p.2 and "Family" in the 3rd line of p. 3. They are the same thickness. You can go through the last several lines of p. 2 and the first several of p. 3 and you'll see inconsistent differences in thickness between words, and you'll see that many words in the first 6 lines of p. 3 are no thicker than the words on p. 2.

    One technique that anyone can use to determine thickness is to first blow up the RN as large as your computer will allow. Then change your pointer to a hand. The had will have an index finger sticking straight out, a thumb, and 3 fingers folded in. Since the had will always be the same size you can place the knuckle of the index finger on the left side of a letter and the "fingers" will tell you how wide the line is. If you do this with several letters in several words you'll find some variance, but nothing significant, and sometimes you'll find no difference at all.

    Even if we were to agree that page 3 starts out thicker (which I certainly don't agree with) it would be a natural place to set down the pen, get out another sheet of paper, pick up the pen, and start writing again. It could easily be that the angle changed slightly when the pen was picked up again, as OWL points out in a prior post. IMO this doesn't tell us that the note was assembled in stages, it just tells us the obvious, that starting a new page is where the positioning of the pen would be changed. This doesn't show that it was not assembled in stages, but the notion that it somehow indicates that it was is simply not a fact. It could be, but to me it's more probable that the position of the pen is simply changed slightly as writing resumes.

    The sentence that appears at the top of page 3 actually begins on the bottom line of page 2. If it were assembled in stages I'd expect that the new sentence, would begin, anew, on page 3. The fact that it starts on page two would suggest to me that it was a continuing process. It would be necessary to put down the pen and get the 3rd sheet of paper, but the thought process had already begun on 2. Did JR write "Follow our instructions....." then come back an hour later to complete his thought? I highly doubt it.

    Notice that when Doc first informs us that the lines are thicker his post states that it's "far from obvious". That's right, very far from obvious. So far in fact that no one noticed it.

    So, we are witnessing one of two things. A) a case of confirmation bias, or B) an attempt to demonstrate to the readers how easily people can be gaslighted. Not sure which.

    ...continued....

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Fist, there just isn't any significant difference between the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3. Any difference is insignificant, and certainly not consistent."

      That's not the way I see it. And I wasn't the one to discover it, so it's not just a matter of confirmation bias. Wish I could find the link, but this observation was made by someone on a JonBenet facebook page. Since there were some things on that page that made me skeptical, I didn't take anything they said very seriously at first. Then, when thinking about the possibility of premeditation, I decided to double check. And sure enough, I saw it too. And the copy I have is especially clear. Could be an artefact of xeroxing but then all the lines would be thicker and darker not just the first six.

      As for the possibility that the pen was laid down at the end of the page and then picked up again, in a different position, at the beginning of the next, that does seem possible, yes. But since we don't see any other examples of that same pattern appearing anywhere else in the note, I have my doubts. Looks to me more like a different pen with a slightly larger point and/or more ink flow, which would also produce the thicker, darker effect. Now of course the use of a second pen doesn't mean he wrote it ahead of time either, so this might not mean much at all, agreed. But I do think it worth considering.

      More significant, I would think, is the fact that several pages had been torn out of the notepad in that same area where the pages from the note originated. Since those couldn't be accounted for, we have to ask what happened to them? And what was on them. My guess is that they were part of a process of trial and error, where entire pages were discarded when a serious mistake was made.

      "The sentence that appears at the top of page 3 actually begins on the bottom line of page 2."

      Yes, exactly. If, as I suspect, it was initially composed on a word processor, then the entire note would have been completed prior to being copied on paper.

      As far as confirmation bias is concerned, your refusal to see what is clearly there on the page tells me the bias is yours, not mine.

      Delete
  16. ...continued....



    None of this means that the note couldn't have been written before the murder, the there certainly isn't any reason, from the physical nature of the note itself, to think it was more likely to have been written before the murder.

    The cross outs suggest to me that the note was written (or at least copied) in a hurry w/o time to recopy, suggesting it was written after the murder.

    PS, Doc I sent you an email, hope you got it. To the regulars here, I'm dropping out of the discussions. I've spent enough years of my life on the Jonbenet case. Time to move on. Now if I could just break the habit of coming to this blog almost every day.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I got it. And I responded. Thanks for your participation, Chris. And your support (most of the time). You will be missed.

      Delete
  17. A poster above stated,

    "I still wonder if the last few lines were a later add-on, as its personal tone and larger margins differ from the rest of the note.."

    I would agree with this. Putting the thickness of letters aside, the message does seem to take on a more personal tone and the right margin is noticeably larger starting with the line, "Don't try to grow a brain . . ." As I read it over and over, it's almost like John is talking to himself: "You are not the only fat cat around . . . killing won't be difficult", "use that good southern common sense of yours " and "it's up to you now John" Maybe that's Mr. Hyde talking to Dr. Jekyll.

    As to the note being written before the night of the murder, no one has pointed out the practice note found in the trash. Certainly the note was started in the house that night, as this tossed draft suggests. Why else would it be in the trash the next morning? Even if he started the note in the house a day or so earlier and had to stop because someone or something interrupted him, and then finished it elsewhere, he would never have tossed that practice note in the trash for someone to possibly see beforehand.

    CH, so sorry to hear you're leaving this blog. I have always enjoyed your intelligent and insightful comments and I've agreed with many of your theories. I can understand the need to pull away though . . . my housework has suffered a great deal because of my addiction to this blog, but I am just too obsessed with this case to pull away! I fear the day when Doc decides to retire from it as well! I hope you, and the rest of us here, live long enough to see justice for little JonBenet.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The practice note in the trash...that's right. But that could have been staging too--kept from the day before and then tossed in there while retrieving and staging the ransom note on the steps- to make it appear it was completely written that night in the home by an intruder.. I think I read that the garbage can was very near the spiral staircase. kp

      Delete
    2. The practice note was not found in the trash. Not sure where that one came from. It was found on a page preceding the region in the notepad where the actual note came from. It was apparently written using the same Sharpie pen. But since no reproduction has ever been made public we have no way of evaluating the handwriting. Could have been something Patsy wrote. Or it could have been an oversight by John.

      In any case, it wasn't really a practice note. It just read, in its entirety: "Mr. and Mrs.," followed by a vertical line -- supposedly the beginning of the name, "Ramsey." Not much of a clue.

      Delete
    3. I'll add that it would be very interesting to learn exactly where in the notepad the three sheets used for the note were found. If they came at the beginning of the torn out area, then I was wrong and the note was probably penned at one go. If they were dispersed, or at the end, then it's more likely it was assembled from various attempts.

      Delete
    4. DocG--yesterday at 8:09 AM you commented that the practice note was found in the trash. I'm confused! kp

      Delete
    5. Yeah, my mistake. Sorry. The story about the notepad being found in the trash got me confused. Reminded me of some report from somewhere that said the "practice note" was found in the trash. I couldn't remember exactly, so I looked it up. It wasn't the trash, it was in the notepad. But we don't know what it means because we can't be sure it was even related to the ransom note. Could have been something already there. Wish we could take a look at it.

      Delete
  18. Also adding to the "personal" tone of those last few lines is the use of "John" --- used 3 times in that short paragraph. It's as if he is talking to himself.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  19. And perhaps a little later on reflection, deciding to add the personalized comments at the end to greatly enlarge the pool of potential suspects--from an unknown foreign faction, to a disgruntled coworker (who somehow knew the amount of his bonus) to someone who knew Ramseys informally or personally. That would send law enforcement on a wild goose chase in every possible direction. No, I think this letter was carefully and thoughtfully planned ahead of time to maximize the confusion and widen the circle of who could have done the crime. So interesting. Smart person who did this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ...as well as showing a remarkable level of restraint in not calling the daughter by her name JonBenet, and not commenting on her sexual attractiveness or seductive beauty at all--after all, it was a sex crime, no? Something a father simply could not in the end, make himself write.

    ReplyDelete
  21. CH- I imagine you will most likely not read this- but your comments are so insightful, well- written, and easy to understand what you are saying.
    My hope is to hear what you have to say- once charges are brought in this cold case.
    OWL

    ReplyDelete
  22. To sum up my take on this issue, here's what seems to me the most likely interpretation of what we see in the pages reproduced above. It seems to me as though the note was first composed on the computer with certain segments simply copied and pasted from ransom note texts found on the Internet. Once the document was written and edited, it was then necessary to copy it by hand. This could have been done by tracing or careful word for word copying. The evidence for the use of a computer font as a model can be found on this blog if you do a search on "Courier New."

    It looks to me as though the ink in the first pen used must have run out at some point which meant the writer needed to continue with a fresh pen. The thicker, darker lines seen at the beginning of the third page are consistent with a fresh pen, as the flow of ink in a Sharpie type pen tends to be faster when first used. After writing a few lines with the new pen, the flow could have normalized, which could explain why the following lines are not so thick.

    Now. If the ink in the first pen ran out, why don't we see evidence of that toward the end of p. 2? The absence of any sign that the ink ran out on that page suggests to me that there must have been an earlier version of p. 3 in which the ink ran out, and that page must have been discarded. A new pen would have been found, and the copying of the third page would have started over from the top.

    Can we be sure it happened that way? No. But as I see it, the evidence is consistent with such a sequence of events. Does this mean the note was written prior to the murder, when the writer would have had more time to prepare it? To me this seems the most likely scenario, but it's also possible it was written after the murder, by someone capable of pulling himself together emotionally and using his time efficiently.

    As for the last 8 lines, it's been noted that they are different in content from what came before, and also, as has been pointed out, the right margin is consistently wider, suggesting that this part of the note was an afterthought, added on at a later time.

    The only other thing to explain is the word "Victory" which looks to me like it must have been written with a third pen, with a finer point. Suggesting that this too might have been an afterthought, added on later.

    I'm sure other interpretations of this text are possible, but that's the best I've been able to come up with. And to me it suggests premeditation. No way to be sure about that, but that does seem most likely when we consider all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doc,

    To change the subject, I was wondering if you know whether or not JonBenet's red sweater that she had worn at the White's house on the evening of the 26th had tested positive for urine if it was even tested at all?

    BG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's something I've never researched, sorry.

      Delete
    2. I think it's worth investigating. Patsy first testified that JonBenet went to bed wearing a red sweater and then later recanted that story. The red sweater was found in the bathroom. Possibly JonBenet wet the bed that night and had to change clothes. Why would the Ramseys not mention that JonBenet wet the bed in the middle of the night? Suspicious.

      BG

      Delete
    3. Can you be specific? In her 1997 police interview Patsy said that she'd wanted JonBenet to wear a red sweater like her own, but she didn't want to and wound up wearing "a little white, kind of neck like this, kind of a . . .
      TT: Kind of a crew neck?
      PR: . . .crew neck and it had a little, little rhinestone, little kind of sequin kind of star thing on it."

      As I recall that's what JonBenet was wearing when her body was found.

      So in her first interview Patsy mentioned a different sweater, not the red one. Did you find an earlier reference to her claiming she was put to bed in a red sweater?

      Both John and Patsy claimed they slept soundly through the night. So obviously neither one would mention any bedwetting that night, even if they knew about it.

      Not sure why you find any of this suspicious.

      Delete
    4. It would be suspicious if Patsy lied about what JonBenet was wearing when she went to bed.

      BG

      Delete
  24. the following outlines an understanding of the ransom note and explains movie references

    http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12366

    ReplyDelete
  25. The police determined there was no forced entry into the house. How then did Mr. Cruel get inside? And I'm pretty sure the police investigated anyone who ever had a key to the house.

    JonBenet ate some pineapple that night, after she went to bed. Are you suggesting she ate it with Mr. Cruel?

    How did Mr. Cruel know the amount of John Ramsey's bonus?

    Just because the police did not find any of these movies in the Ramsey home doesn't mean they didn't watch them. Mr. Ramsey traveled a lot and probably watched all his favorite movies in his hotel room. Those movies are the favorites of many, many men, not just Mr. Cruel.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it possible John got the movie references from the Internet and pasted them into the note.

      Who is this Mr. Cruel? Does he have a name. Where exactly was it that he committed those crimes?

      Delete
  26. "Mr. Cruel" is the name given to an Australian murderer and rapist who attacked girls in suburban Melbourne in the late 1980s and early 1990s. His identity is unknown" (Wikipedia)

    The link posted above purports that Mr. Cruel's favorite movies were the ones quoted from in the ransom note. It goes on to suggest that Mr. Cruel actually believes he is "Scorpio", the bad guy in Dirty Harry. I don't know who the author of this link is or where they got this specific information, especially since Mr. Cruel has never been identified.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  27. Another direction with the ransom note--I was reading about the Leopold and Loeb kidnapping back in the 1920's. Someone online compared the ransom note in that case and the Ramsey ransom note. There are many structural similarities. I checked and they did make a movie of that case in 1992 called Swoon. Wondering if anyone saw that movie and if the ransom note was written during the movie or if it played a prominent role in the movie. It's an interesting comparison. kp

    ReplyDelete
  28. ...it appears there may have been 2 ransom notes--I'm referring to the first and longer one in the 1920 kidnapping.

    kp

    ReplyDelete
  29. i too notice something about this letter notice the s.t.b.c what if it means sign the t.b.c is the killers initial's judging by how it was written my guess he use both hands notice how some are scribbled and other are not if you look closesly at the writting it has poor grammer and very off paragraph no mistake teacher would make this writting if jon mar karr actually kill her dont you think his initial would be j.m.k
    0.o but then again they could of thrown off cops just to hide from the law that would link themselves so obvious

    judging by the murder scene it was
    not accidentlly its premeditate im not
    a cop or even a scientist but i have friends who are actual sheriff's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's an outsider:

      When they entered the house, how did they stop her from screaming?
      When exactly was she killed?
      How long or short could it take to write a detailed 3 page letter on paper identical to what's in the house?
      how long would it take to find a brush, rope, blanket?

      find the basement door?

      What would the motive be to kill her AND leave a note teasing parents?

      Yeahhh, I think it's an accidental death due to increased tension in the family and home.

      Delete
  30. you know if you look closely at one word at
    how it was design you
    can tell if the person switch hands ;p

    ReplyDelete
  31. if you look at the murder scene clearly its a sick individual who is smart well planned out he knew how to get in get out and knew exactlly where she live and knew around the house to me the child knew her killer family friend maybe someone they met in any event or school yard honestly her parents slept the whole thing i call it BS if i was her taken from my room i would of screamed loud enough to wake my parents no she was lurd by the person she knew

    then again im not a expert i seen lot of cases on movies where killers use some type of drug that knocks you out into a coma on a napkin covering the mouth to prevent you to scream that also explan how they didnt hear anything i saw it alot of movies its really sad :(

    rip baby girl you deserve justice <3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's something people might not think of. Is there PROOF John and Patsy were home that night when they put her to bed? It's been said they were all at a get together that day, came home and she was put to bed around 10.

      Devil's advocate: What's the likelihood these parents would go BACK OUT to have a good time, leaving their children alone sleeping?

      For the record, I think the death was accident. I think she either was hit hard, or fell, hitting her head hard. And they make it look like she was strangled. But she died of head abrasion right?

      She had partially digested food in her stomach. I say she was fussy or overtired and "something" happened lleading to an accidental death. That would explain Patsy's deer in headlights look.

      Delete
    2. I invite you to read more in this blog, or get my book. You'll find discussions of the various possibilities and why I believe John Ramsey committed this crime.

      Delete
  32. everyone knows teachers are perfect when it comes to spelling and always correct you with how bad your grammer clearly is.

    so no school teacher jon mar karr
    did not kill this innocent child ps dna
    didnt match he clearly only confess probably because he was seeking fame on tv idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  33. i didnt knew her but i was thinking of joining the beauty pagent contest i was the exact same age as jonbenet ramsey at the time she went beauty pagent i was going to meet her one day hoping to enter the same contest as her but my mother refuse because i had to move to hawaii i too was born 1990 but i was a march if jonbenet ramsey was alive she would of been my age i never met her but i was interested in joining the same contest when i saw her pic on a book panlet at a food store i begged my mom to take me but she said on christmas year i hated that year because my mom wouldnt let me join 1 day later my mom told me she was killed i saw it on tv thats how i knew about the case ;o

    ReplyDelete
  34. except i was living in oregon and i was born california D; at the time she was killed i never got a chance to join or a chance to meet any of the contest i wanted to join so bad /: because i thought dressing up and tea partys was fun plus i wanted to feel like a princess my mom ruined that for me /:

    ReplyDelete
  35. Doc, the more I think about the note being premeditated the more I believe it to be true. The fact that the note is 3 pages and so wordy speaks more to somebody who had time to construct the perfect note, almost as if it was a school assignment. The reasons WHY it was written ahead of time or HOW far in advance it was written can be debated, but I really believe that it was written prior to the date of the crime. The movie references, and length just do not speak whatsoever to a person who was not only up against the clock, but also trying to avoid somebody walking in on it.

    Another observation was that I don't believe it was just COURIER NEW, but Courier New Font in Bold Italics. All of the letters slant right in the note.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting observation regarding the slant. Actually several letters are left slanted, but most do seem to be right slanted. Whether the slant reflects the writer's natural tendency (possibly switching hands from time to time) or his tracing of the font is hard to say.

      Delete
  36. I'm just really having a hard time believing that this was premeditated. I know the length and content of the note suggests that, but what about the cross-outs in the note? If it were prepared ahead of time, wouldn't it be perfect? Moreover, if it were prepared in advance, why not just type it or construct it with cut out letters? In my opinion, both could be done secretly enough so that it could not be traced. I mean, if he actually typed the note on a computer and then copied it, wouldn't that be just as risky as just typing the note and then printing it. Either way, the text is on the computer. He was a computer guy. I'm sure he would know how to delete this permanently. So why not just print out the typed note?

    I am also conflicted over the premeditation because I have just finished Dr. Wecht's book, "Who Killed JonBenet." Dr. Wecht has a very convincing theory based on forensic pathology. He believes JonBenet's death was an accident arising from a sex game (erotic asphyxiation). Now most people argue that this is not likely since the pleasure gained during EA is for the person being strangled and obviously JonBenet would NOT have enjoyed that. But, Dr. Wecht points out that the pleasure could be for the perpetrator. I had never thought of that before. So maybe John had a perverse sexual fantasy of depriving air from JonBenet. Still, I'm sure there are some folks who would say that is too over the top to believe, but, hey, isn't molesting your own daughter over the top??

    Dr. Wecht believes JonBenet became unconscious during this sex game and then John tried to revive her (he points out evidence of "shaken baby syndrome" to JonBenet's brain). When it became obvious to him that he could not revive her, he had to stage it to look like she was murdered by an intruder. That's when he would have clubbed her over the head. And that would explain the lack of bleeding in her skull ---- she was already basically dead.

    The more I think about this theory, the more I believe it.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "what about the cross-outs in the note? If it were prepared ahead of time, wouldn't it be perfect?"

      There are only two cross-outs. The first could easily have been an afterthought, changing "do respect your bussiness" to "respect your bussiness." The "do" could have been crossed out after the note had been copied. The second, however, could not have been an afterthought, because it affects the layout of the entire sentence -- "delivery" is replaced by "pickup," so they could not both have been present in the original.

      When first discussing the possibility of his tracing from a word processor display, I noted that the layout of the note matched the layout of the word processor text for the first sixteen lines, but after that there was a divergence. That led me to believe he must have got tired of tracing and decided to continue in the same manner, but with a less strict adherence to the original. So by the time he caught his earlier mistake on p. 2, he would no longer have been tracing (or copying) word for word and line for line, so must have simply incorporated his correction into the written down text without bothering to alter the digitized text. As it does seem clear that he began by tracing (or copying) the word processor text pretty carefully, it seems reasonable to conclude that the computerized text had been completed prior to the written out version. So this change could simply have been a last minute alteration applied only at the final stage of the process.

      "Moreover, if it were prepared in advance, why not just type it or construct it with cut out letters?"

      That's what I too thought, initially. Which led me to conclude it could not have been premeditated. However, I eventually learned that a printed text would be easier to trace than a hand written text, because each print head can be identified on the basis of unique wear marks, visible through a microscope. (Same holds for typewritten text.) That would rule out his home printer or his office printer, as they would have been checked. And it may not have been possible for him to get hold of any other printer.

      And yes, if all he needed was a very brief text announcing the kidnapping, he could have cut and pasted letters from a magazine. But a fairly long text was necessary, as the note needed to serve several different purposes: frighten Patsy into not calling the police; establish the ransom amount and how the "kidnappers" wanted him to raise it; establish that the "kidnapper's" call was to come "tomorrow," rather than that same day (thus giving him over 24 hours to fully prepare all the elements of his plan); set up a situation enabling him to dump the body while claiming to deliver the ransom; constructing a kidnapper with a personal grudge against him.

      Finally, while I have great respect for Wecht, there is good reason to doubt his "erotic strangulation" theory. For one thing, it seems unlikely that John and JonBenet would have wanted to play such a game on that particular night, when both would have been exhausted by the Xmas day events and also need to get up so early the next day to catch their flight. Also, for various reasons, most pathologists believe the head blow came first, followed by the strangulation. Also, clumps of her hair were entwined in both knots of the "garotte." If she'd been conscious when it was constructed, she'd have been screaming with pain as her hair would have been pulled in the process. Finally, erotic strangulation is performed with a kerchief or some other soft cloth, not a narrow cord that cuts deeply into the flesh, and again would be very painful.

      Delete
  37. Hi Doc, sorry if this is the wrong place for my comment, but I came across this quote from PR during a CNN interview, ".. it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit." Now maybe I'm reading too much into it, but why would an intruder/kidnapper leave the ransom note there specifically? Is there another staircase that could be used? Why put the note on any staircase? I believe JR put it there so PR would have to see it before she went to wake up the kids. I agree with you that JR didn't want police involved until the body was out of the house, and if PR went about her morning routine without seeing the note, she would have surely called 911 as soon as she saw JB was missing. I also agree that the note was never meant to be seen by anyone but PR, and was addressed only to JR so the responsibilities of following the instructions would fall only on him. Maybe that's why the "practice note" was there addressed to possibly both the Ramseys. He had to scrap that idea because he didn't want PR anywhere near the "ransom exchange", bank withdrawal, etc. As far as premeditation, I think only part of the events of that night were planned ahead of time. Meaning JR knew he would eventually have to silence JB at some point in time. Perhaps some of it was planned in a general sense, but the details came at the time of the murder? JMO
    Daisy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Daisy. I agree with most of what you've written. However:

      Imo the note was written to serve several purposes. Part was for Patsy's benefit, as you say. But other parts were designed for the authorities to see, since they provided an explanation for why John would not have wanted to call the police, and for why his car might be spotted near the place where the body would eventually have been found -- he could claim he'd been delivering the ransom. Also the note made it look like the "kidnapper" was someone with a personal grudge, and some inside knowledge of him and his family.

      It IS possible that, as you say, the plan had been premeditated only in part, and that something happened that night which could have forced John to take action, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he premeditated the murder ahead of time, although the "garotte" may have been an afterthought, when he realized the head blow hadn't killed her.

      Delete
  38. bb - In response to your above post, my take is that it was important to actually hand write the note as opposed to typing it because it would 100% rule John OUT as the author. By tracing a typed out font like Doc suggested, it would for sure rule John out and maybe thats why John was so quick to hire the handwriting experts because he knew there would be no way to tie him to it. In fact, whose handwriting it is, is something that is still speculated today. IF he did in fact trace the note over a font, then its pretty brilliant.
    I really have never gone with the theory that this was done by John because he was trying to shut JBR up, and by doing so, he would cover up his sexual abuse towards her. I feel like a person who would do that, would also be willing to kill PR before he would ever let her dial 911. A theory that I think is plausible is that JR was jealous of JBR due to the attention she received from Patsy. John might have felt neglected both sexually and emotionally from Patsy since JBR was in the pageants which made this murder, something out of rage. Adding onto that, John was and is said to be an extremely religious person, so maybe John HATED how sexualized his young daughter was becoming as thats not how he wanted his daughter to be.
    I am sure I will have doubters on the above paragraph, but I have jumped in with Doc regarding premeditation, so now I need to give a reason as to why. The "sex game gone wrong" theory is just another theory that doesn't add up for me. I just can't believe John would get JBR out of bed to have some weird sexual game with her, when they are leaving in 7 hours to go see a ton of family. Not to mention, JBR surely would have been tired, and if Patsy asks her why is she so tired, how does John guarantee her silence?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "my take is that it was important to actually hand write the note as opposed to typing it because it would 100% rule John OUT as the author. By tracing a typed out font like Doc suggested, it would for sure rule John out and maybe thats why John was so quick to hire the handwriting experts because he knew there would be no way to tie him to it."

      Excellent point. Of course we have no way of knowing what was on John's mind as he concocted that note. But it's possible he felt confident his use of the computer font might disguise his hand sufficiently that the "experts" would rule him out. And of course that's precisely what happened. And only a hand printed note could be used to rule him out. A printed note, or some sort of collage from magazine texts, could not. John's many travels on company business would have put him in touch with all sorts of people who might have known something about how such "experts" think and what they look for, so he might have felt confident he could fool them.

      However, I can't go along with jealousy as a motive for this particular murder. John might possibly have resented JonBenet, but I can't see such an emotion being powerful enough to prompt such a vicious attack. Fear of exposure is a time-honored motive for murder and I see no reason to assume any other motive was at work in this case.

      Delete
  39. John was not then, in 1996, extremely religious; he even said so himself. He claims to be religious now, and that last book he wrote is an effort to portray himself as a victim who has overcome a lot of suffering with the help of his faith. I call hogwash on that claim. After reading his book I think he's an imposter posing as a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree...and my question is why does he need to try to whitewash himself.

      And shouldn't we also learn from his ability to author such a book that he probably possesses just as much literary skill as his "journalism major" wife did?

      Why did Patsy have to be the one most usually tagged as the author of the RN based on the fact she had a journalism degree, when JR was also well qualified as a writer.

      MWMM

      Delete
  40. J - How did JR know that if he hand wrote the note it would 100% rule him out? I don't understand that. Of course he DID get ruled out, but how would he have known that would happen? After all, Doc certainly believes he wrote it, and many of us on this blog do too. How could he know that the BPD wouldn't bring in more competent experts who might NOT rule him out? Besides hiring some handwriting experts himself, I think he just got lucky.

    And, I think it is more likely JR was sexually attracted to young girls, especially JB, rather than feeling jealous of the attention Patsy was giving JonBenet. If he were jealous of the whole beauty pageant thing, I think he would simply find someone he could have a fling or affair with. After all, he did have an affair during his first marriage.

    But you've got me on your comment about JR waking JonBenet up after a long day and with an early rise the next morning. It doesn't seem plausible that he would want to do anything but sleep that night and he would be taking a risk that JonBenet might tell Patsy she was tired from being up late. This is true. Unless of course he'd been drinking that night at the Whites and had the desire to do his thing with JonBenet regardless of that risk.

    bb




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bb - to your point, I think it is common knowledge that sexual urges in many people, perverse or otherwise, override their common sense. That said, I still think JR was planning to silence JB for good . That night, for whatever reason, ended up being the night he followed through on his plan. I really think he had given plenty of thought to as to what he might need to do to silence JB. Maybe he had thought of more than one option. That night, something happened and he was faced with executing one of his previously-thought out options.

      Delete
    2. The main problem I have with the "silencing" theory is that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse. That was obvious to Det. Arndt, who was present during the autospy, and, most credibly, Dr. Wecht, who did a thorough analyzation of the autopsy. If JR killed JonBenet to silence her, wouldn't he worry that this evidence of chronic abuse would be discovered and that he would be under the veil of suspicion anyway? Such suspicion of John abusing his daughter would certainly lead to the suspicion that he was also responsible for her death, which is the prevailing theory of many posting here. In other words, killing her would not completely "silence" the fact that she had been abused PRIOR to the night of her death. So the only advantage of killing her would be that she could not actually point the finger at him, but the suspicions would still be there, in addition to the suspicion that he also killed her. I think killing your daughter in such a violent fashion is a rather extreme way to silence her, especially if you are a millionaire and have the ways and means to just keep your 6-year old daughter quiet. And it is a risky thing to do because then you have the very real possibility that you will not only be accused of abusing her in the past, but murdering her to silence her.

      I have always felt this murder was a result of sudden rage or panic during a sexual assault and many of my prior posts state this, but now, after reading Wecht's book, I am convinced it was actually an accidental death. The physical evidence, as described by Dr. Wecht, is very, very convincing. Here is part of an interview of Dr. Wecht where he describes what the evidence of the autopsy reveals:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJYiEN1OnI

      He begins talking about the autopsy at around 1:25 in this video.

      bb

      Delete
    3. "If JR killed JonBenet to silence her, wouldn't he worry that this evidence of chronic abuse would be discovered and that he would be under the veil of suspicion anyway?"

      Good question. It's occurred to me that the sexual assault associated with the murder might not have been sexually motivated after all, but motivated by a need to provide an explanation for the prior damage to JonBenet's hymen.

      Since John had no experience with forensic pathology he may not have thought much about the problem of chronic erosion to the inside wall of the vagina. It would have been the damage to the hymen that he'd have seen as the problem. If he'd been able to get the body out of the house, the sexual assault would have been attributed to the "kidnapper." So he could have made sure his digital penetration drew blood, thus making it "acute," thereby masking the real cause of the damage to her hymen, i.e., chronic abuse.

      "I think killing your daughter in such a violent fashion is a rather extreme way to silence her, especially if you are a millionaire and have the ways and means to just keep your 6-year old daughter quiet."

      We just don't know the circumstances. In many cases abusers have found ways to intimidate their victims into keeping silent. But JonBenet was a very intelligent and independent child and she might not have been so easily controlled. I think John must have had reason to believe she might "tell" on him during their upcoming family visit. He may have seen that night as his last chance to silence her prior to the trip. Give her her Christmas day -- and then silence her for good the following night.

      The video interview with Wecht is very interesting, and also convincing -- up to a point. And of course I have the greatest respect for Dr. Wecht, whose knowledge of forensic pathology is unparalleled. But as you know I always place facts over opinions, no matter how authoritative the opinion might be. So:

      FACT: her sweater was not found covering her neck, as Wecht implies, where it might have softened the pain of being strangled with a cord. The cord was found deeply embedded in her neck. NOT consistent with erotic strangulation.

      FACT: the lack of blood from the head blow has been explained by other pathologists as not unusual. E.g.: from an article in the Daily Camera:

      "Adams County Coroner Mike Dobersen said he reviewed the autopsy photographs and thinks there would have been much more internal bleeding inside the brain if JonBenét had been struck first and strangled later.

      But Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center, said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding.

      "We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."

      FACT: strands of JonBenet's hair were found entwined with the knots of the "garotte." Which tells us the device must have been constructed right on top of her rather than ahead of time. Not consistent with erotic strangulation. If she had been awake at the time the device was constructed she'd have been howling with pain from having her hair pulled so tightly.

      All the above strongly suggests that she had already been rendered unconscious when strangulation took place.

      Delete
  41. DocG, Have you ever done a post where you articulate your methodology for unraveling this case? I think that you have essentially created a toolbox for unraveling accepted knowledge that is based on false premises and would love to read more about your process.
    -Nira

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My methods are discussed rather thoroughly in the first half of the Introduction to my book. The key is the emphasis on facts -- and by facts I don't mean simply what certain people might consider factual, but what everyone agrees to be factual. Everyone. That way there is no need to quibble.

      Delete
  42. J - This thought just occurred to me in response to your comment that you felt it unlikely JR would choose that particular night --- when everyone was exhausted and had to get up in 7 hours --- to have his sexual playtime with JonBenet. Well wouldn't this night also be a bad night for carrying out a premeditated murder and coverup?? In fact, committing a murder and then covering it up would be a lot more complicated and time consuming than a sexual assault. One would take hours to complete. The other would probably take less than an hour. It might not be believable to you that JR would have this sexual urge on this particular night, but I find it even MORE unbelievable that he would carry out a premeditated murder and coverup this same night. That night was probably not the best night to do either, I suppose, but it is probably more LIKELY that he simply had a spontaneous urge to assault JonBenet and carried it out. Who knows, maybe that was his practice in the past --- waking her in the middle of the night when everyone was asleep. I think that's a common time when abuse occurs.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It might not be believable to you that JR would have this sexual urge on this particular night, but I find it even MORE unbelievable that he would carry out a premeditated murder and coverup this same night."

      Good point. However, there is a big difference between the impulse to have a sexual encounter and the carrying out of a preconceived plan to commit murder. If John had been abusing JonBenet it seems likely this would have been done when the two were home alone. And if it were ongoing then there would have been no need to choose that particular night, when everyone was home and it would have been particularly risky, not to mention the need to get up really early the next morning. He could easily have waited for a better opportunity in future.

      If, however, the act had been premeditated, then his choices would have been very limited. Since the family was planning a big reunion on the following day, followed by several days of celebrating together, that night would have been his last opportunity to carry out his plan. The staging of a kidnapping would have been far more risky with the whole family hanging out together. And if, as I suspect, he felt certain JonBenet was on the verge of exposing him, he would certainly have felt pressed for time in any case.

      Delete
    2. Why would that night have been JR's "last opportunity" to carry out his plan? What about this family reunion would make him feel so nervous about JonBenet spilling the beans? If she had told him she was going to tell someone, she could have just as easily done it BEFORE the trip. I think the most probable person she would confide in would be her mother, not half-sister who she only saw occasionally, and she could have told Patsy anytime before that night.

      As you can tell, I just don't buy the premeditation theory, especially if it suggests this crime was planned to take place that particular night. I find that almost as farfetched as the murder happening because of a bedwetting incident.

      As to his routine with respect to when and where he abused JonBenet, I don't imagine there were many times they were alone, other than at night when everyone was asleep. Essentially, they WERE alone that night in that basement. I find it less of a risk to molest in a house with the family in the house than the risk to molest AND murder AND stage a phony kidnapping with the family in the house. He probably got pretty good at sneaking into JonBenet's room at night undetected to molest her. It happens all the time in families where incest occurs.

      bb

      Delete
    3. There are no facts that tell us unequivocally whether or not the murder was premeditated. So all we can do is speculate. And one odd thing about speculating is that everyone seems to have their own personal sense of what seems more likely and what seems unlikely. To me it seems likely that he could have planned the murder in advance and prepared the note (or at least some of it) ahead of time. It also seems unlikely that he would have killed JonBenet in a sudden rage. That doesn't seem to fit with the fact that she was struck only once over the head, and also the fact that there was no blood. Seems to me that someone in a blind rage would have beaten her bloody before killing her.

      As far as the timing is concerned, I see no reason to assume John could not have made his decision on the day before Christmas, due possibly to something she said. Which would have given him only the night after Christmas to do the deed, because they were going to be with family from then on, which would have complicated things. The circumstances were certainly not perfect on the night of the 25th/26th, but he may well have been in a panic at that point, fearing she could spill the beans on him at any time. Also I don't see John taking the risk of a sexual encounter on that particular night, because that's something that could have been postponed until they were alone together and had more time. But if he'd decided she was about to expose him, then he might have convinced himself he needed to act as soon as possible -- so killing her could NOT have been postponed, he'd have been forced to take the risk.

      To me all this is speculative, but also understandable.

      To you it's not. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As I see it, John would have had no ideal options, so no matter how we look at this situtation there are things that might seem unlikely. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. But I think you do need to be more open to all the possibilities.

      Delete
    4. Doc, thanks, as always, for your replies above. I have the utmost respect for your knowledge of this case and your theories. I am completely open to all possibilities. That's why I am so addicted to this blog! If I was completely set in my own opinion, I would stop reading about this case and would go on with my life. But that fact is, I've juggled many different theories over the years -- trying them all on for size, so to speak. It's that kind of case. Your theory is by far the most convincing to me, except for the premeditation piece. And Wecht's opinion that this was an accidental death, backs that up for me.

      You are absolutely right about the garrote being tight around her neck with the cord against her skin, not over her shirt. Wecht is incorrect about this detail and I actually caught that too. He says tying the cord over the top of her shirt would prevent marks on her neck, but there were, in fact, very obvious marks on her neck. I wonder why he got this wrong.

      A poster above stated something interesting. Maybe JR had, indeed, been thinking about doing away with JonBenet, and maybe something happened that Christmas Day or evening that caused him to think it had to be done that night. Sort of a combination of premeditation and spontaneous act, eh?

      I keep hoping I will have some sore of psychic vision or dream that will tell me exactly what happened that night! For for now, this blog gives me lots of visions.

      bb

      Delete
    5. Yes, I think it could have been a combination of both. He might have done some advance planning but not made his final decision until the night of the murder. He might have awakened her, tried to convince her to keep quiet, and when his efforts failed, decided he had no other choice but to carry out his plan.

      Delete
  43. I read online that JonBenet developed an exaggerated and unexplained clinginess to Patsy sometime in Dec. 1996 that her teachers took note of at school. Perhaps that was a sign that something was amiss and starting to unravel, and John was aware that it was only a matter of time before JonBenet would be asked some damning questions. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's possible. Also the bedwetting and defecating may also have been signs she was being traumatized.

      Delete
    2. I just found that website that mentioned the clinginess. Would agree that John's secret could have been unraveling. I think this goes along with DocG's theory about John. If that article is accurate, then it is clear that JBR was being sexually abused so I find it hard to believe that anyone would conclude her death was due to toilet rage. There is no reason to ignore the sexual abuse and focus on a mother who had no MO for this sort of thing. Incest is way more common that killings due to toilet rage. After reading this, I am even more convinced that Patsy behaved as an innocent mother would. To me, her comments sound like someone desperately reaching for ideas about who would have written such a note. John, on the other hand, continues to come off as suspicious in his behaviors. In every aspect, he presents as someone who has something to hide -- lying, reading his mail, disappearing, lawyering up his entire family, lack of emotion, fake crying over JB's body, being the one to find her body, having affairs which is a statement of character, the list goes on. If I had to guess - John grew up under a stern father. Maybe he didn't "feel the love" from his parents, or maybe he inherited or learned an anger management problem. Regardless, he was said to be "cold" which means he had difficulty maintaining close, intimate relationships with women. Men that have affairs are usually looking for love in all the wrong places, and if they are perverts, they can find it in some really wrong places. I believe that John is a sexual deviant, he is a cold person, and he is intelligent and conniving enough to fool many people. He may even be a sociopath. As for all the posters who think everything John did was calculated and perfect, yes -- he tried to be perfect in covering up for himself. He probably grew arrogant over the things he pulled over on both of wives without getting caught. No one is perfect, but many are lucky. For that matter, serial killers are lucky; that's why they aren't caught until after they have killed a number of people. John has been lucky for sure. I still think his current wife will learn one day that she married a sexual deviant. Of course he is older and no longer rich, so thus not attractive to many women anymore.

      Delete
    3. Good post on John's character. I think you nailed it.

      bb

      Delete
  44. Doc or anybody else, the one thing that I keep coming back to is the 911 call and what John's plan was going to be HAD Patsy not dialed 911. If we are to believe that John was using the RN to allow him time to himself to carry out the cover up, then was his intention to bury the body where it would never be found? Was he going to leave the body out in the open to be found? Obviously we will never know the answers to these questions, but I keep wrestling with the idea that maybe JR never intended to take the body out of the house. The body was tucked away in the basement either in the suitcase or somewhere where it couldn't be found and John knew that the RN would have to be treated seriously at first, so no serious search of the house would be done.
    Also, if John did in fact trace over a Courier New or any other type of font, he knew for a fact that the handwriting experts would rule him out naturally. I understand the "staging" wasn't done in regards to the window or the body, but there is just no way possible that he ever allows Patsy to dial 911. If Doc's theory is correct regarding John wanting to take the next day to stage, then how on Earth does he let her pick up that phone? In that scenario, Patsy dialing 911 was as good as the cell doors slamming behind John......so I ask, are we certain that John's plan never involved the body leaving the house?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If John really wanted that call made, he'd have made it himself. And as far as his ability to restrain Patsy is concerned, she might initially have agreed not to call the police, which would have put him off his guard. And then suddenly changed her mind, waited for a moment when he was distracted, and then made the call. Since we have no way of knowing exactly what happened, it seems pointless to insist that would have prevented her from making it at all costs. All we know is that she did in fact make the call. And if they'd been collaborating on a coverup neither of them would have wanted it made.

      Delete
  45. A thought: I have never heard why the K-9 unit wasn't brought in immediately or even later that day. The dogs would have sniffed her out in seconds. Her body already had the scent of decay when John found her. Don't get that. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The K9 unit would in all likelihood not have entered the home at all. Until the body had been found, the police were clearly convinced it was a real kidnapping and that she was out of the house. If she hadn't been found, then the dogs would have been used in an attempt to trace her movements from one of the doors or the window and from there to wherever she might be held.

      Delete
    2. Right, but the dogs could have been used to trace her movements that morning--for example checking if she actually went out a door or a window. If they didn't found a fresh path out of the home somewhere, it would suggest that an intruder never entered the home, as law enforcement suspected at the start.

      Delete
    3. You have a point. Dogs could certainly have been used to detect the presence of an intruder in the home at some time during the night. Unfortunately, the police were caught by surprise and probably never thought of that.

      Delete
  46. "If John really wanted that call made, he'd have made it himself."

    This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Obviously Patsy who we can assume wasn't in on the crime would have a much more natural reaction on the 911 call than John who knew the Ransom Note was a fake, written by him. So, John calling, wasn't an option.

    The point of my post was that, John potentially premeditated the RN, and plotted out the murder of his daughter to in yours and others opinions, cover up the molestation of his daughter, BUT allows his wife to just pick up the phone and dial 911. Imo, he murders her before that phone is ever dialed. UNLESS, John was fine with that call being made and his plan never involved the body leaving the house. I dont want to focus on him stopping PR calling 911, I want to focus on the idea that just maybe he was OK with the call being made.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If his plan was to get the body out of the house and use the ransom note as an excuse for his actions, then I can't see how he'd be OK with that call. And if he had some other motive for writing the note -- and handing it over to the police while the body of his victim was still in the house -- I can't imagine what it would be.

      Delete
    2. It seems to me that John had a backup plan in case Patsy decided to call the police, but the ransom note was clearly Plan A.

      BG

      Delete
  47. I've been talking to someone about this case and the views posted on this blog. He often says we have all over analyzed many of the details about this case and he sees things much more simply. When we were talking about the RN and why JR would ever allow Patsy to make that 911 call, he quickly replied that JR most likely planned on removing the body that night and was somehow interrupted (heard a noise, thought someone had woken up), he panicked and then decided it was just too risky. At first I thought it crazy to think he might have wanted to get rid of the body at night, with the obvious risks involved:
    - What if Patsy woke up and discovered JR out of bed?
    - What if she checked on JonBenet and found her missing?
    - What if she went to the kitchen for something and heard the car leaving the garage?
    - What if she discovered BOTH JR and JonBenet missing and the car gone?

    Well many of the same risks were present that night when JR decided to molest JonBenet and ultimately kill her:
    - Patsy could have woken up and discovered JR out of bed.
    - Patsy could have woken up and discovered JonBenet out of bed.
    - Patsy could have gone to the kitchen and heard noises coming from the basement.
    - Patsy could have discovered JR out of bed AND JonBenet missing
    - Patsy could have discovered JR in the basement with JonBenet

    There were definite risks for JR to molest and kill is daughter in that house that night. And there would be additional risks if he left the body in the house. It's possible that after he wrote the RN he planned on taking a little drive and dumping her body. But when that plan failed and the body was still in the house, he had to go to Plan B: he had to hide the body and hope that no one would find it. But when Det. Arndt told Fleet White and JR to search the house, he knew at that point that he had better find the body and not Fleet White.

    Doc would argue that the purpose of the RN was to scare Patsy from calling the police so that he could complete his plan and remove the body the next day. But maybe not. Maybe all those threats in the note were simply added to make the "kidnappers" look like experienced terrorists ("foreign faction") who would think nothing of killing JonBenet. After all, JR knew that JonBenet would never be found alive. All those threats in the note might have been meant to simply set the stage for the discovery of a dead JonBenet.

    I would agree with J that if John didn't want Patsy making that call and his plan depended on that, he would have prevented it. He would have convinced her that any call would result in JonBenet's death. And if he felt she was still going to call, he would have stayed right by the phone until he had her under his control. If he really planned on getting the body out of the house that day and his life as a free man depended on that, he would have stopped at nothing to prevent that call. But perhaps he knew he could never remove the body and would just have to do the second best thing . . . discover it himself and contaminate the scene and body at the same time.


    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your friend's theory is interesting. However:

      1. trying to dump the body that night would have been far too risky. Not only because Patsy might hear the garage door opening and the car leaving, but because someone in the neighborhood might observe him leaving the house in his car -- or the car might have been spotted by anyone along the route he would have taken. One witness who saw that car in the street that night would have been enough to blow his plan and send him to jail for life.

      2. If his plan was to dump the body and call the police the following morning, then why did he have the kidnapper say he'd be calling tomorrow? The police would be expecting that call -- which would never come.

      3. Obviously he failed to dump the body, even if that were his intention. And other those circumstances he would definitely NOT have wanted the police called, regardless of the original plan. Since the note would have given him an excuse to dump the body the following night, claiming to deliver the ransom, that seems a far more likely plan B than calling the police while the body is still in the house.

      4. If he wanted the police called at that time, he'd have torn up his note and flushed it down the toilet, and claimed she was killed by some pedophile intruder. And he would not have hidden the body but displayed it openly. A ransom note and a body hidden in the basement don't mix.

      Delete
    2. When I discuss this case with my spouse, he says I have over-analyzed too! But when I bring up just the facts, as Doc has done, and explain the most logical conclusions, his comebacks are no good :) I tell him his problem is that he has under-analyzed just like those lazy cops who didn't question the handwriting analyses.

      Delete
    3. There's no getting around it. This case is complicated. While imo identifying the killer is a pretty simple, straightforward process, explaining all the details regarding what he did and why can get pretty involved. Bottom line: the case makes no sense unless we see it as a kidnap staging gone wrong, as something that was never intended to play out the way it did. Following all the twists and turns of that scenario requires a considerable amount of analysis no question. If we want to understand this case, it's unavoidable.

      I'm glad you were able to stand up to your husband. Good for you!

      Delete
    4. Hehe Doc - I stand up to him a lot. Now I'm reading your book out loud to him at night. He's too lazy to read it and this way I can throw in my convictions, which are that John had been premeditating this, he just wasn't sure when he would need to carry it out. I think JonBenet did or said something, or maybe Patsy started really worrying about JB's medical issues, and he knew he had to do it before JB said something in Michigan to Melinda or something on the cruise ship to Patsy. Wouldn't it be awful for him if the truth came out while on a ship? There would be no escaping for John; Patsy could have had him arrested on the ship. As for confiding in Melinda - perhaps they were to share a bedroom room in Michigan. Melinda would know about the bedwetting and probably be awakened by JB getting up to change clothes. She is a nurse...she would probably be asking JB questions. I think it very likely that JB could say "it burns, it hurts...I don't like to be touched there. And at some point say "I don't like it when daddy touches me there." For all we know, John got her up to have pineapple and try to prompt her to not talk to big Sis about their little secret. Maybe the precocious child enraged him when she said, do you play this game with Melinda? I do believe she said something to let him know his time was up. So there was premeditation, there was rage, there were mistakes because his plan may not have been totally baked on Christmas night but he went through with it out of fear. -Anonymom

      Delete
  48. they don't mix, yet he is walking free

    ReplyDelete
  49. WOW...ok I was re-reading the note you posted above and I think I might have proven that the note was in fact traced from a pre-typed font.

    In the sentence where the note says "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do (NOT) particularly like you.... The word NOT is inserted, which tells me that it was typed and clearly spell check or anything simply wouldn't have caught it. If you are handwriting a note, you wouldn't forget to write NOT. Maybe I am off, but it seems like that is something that was added after re-reading what was just traced.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thinking, J. I hadn't noticed that, but it makes sense. Our thought process is different when we type from when we write. The problem is easily seen almost everywhere on the Internet, where words are routinely omitted, even in high end publications such as the NY Times. I've done a lot of that myself. But I can't recall omitting anything when I write it out. It does appear to be a different dynamic.

      Delete
    2. I disagree. I think the word "not" could just have easily been left out if the note were written from scratch, i.e not traced from a pre-typed note. The word "not" could have been left by accident either way. What about the scribbled out word "delivery" ? How would that fit into the theory that this note was traced from a typed note?

      Now having said that, I DO agree with Doc that the note was made to look like the Courier New font, in an effort to disguise the writer's handwriting. JR may have typed up a draft of the note and had it up on the computer screen while he was writing the note, making every effort to make his letters look like this font. I think this is why the first page lines up so perfectly with the typed version. As Doc pointed out in his blog about this topic, only the first page matches perfectly to the typed note. If it were traced, how can this be explained? Personally, I think he was just looking at the font as he wrote the note and he probably did keep it matched up perfectly for the first page. After that, I think he began to feel hurried and wasn't focused as much, explaining why the rest of the note does not match up with the typed version and also explaining leaving the "not" out and also writing "delivery" instead of pickup.

      bb

      Delete
  50. bb - I just think it makes sense that it was traced from a pre-typed note, because by doing that it would be impossible to ever find a handwriting match. Even if John was paying off his handwriting experts, it would still have been a huge risk to hire them early on, only to have them say that they can't rule John out. By tracing it, John knew that there wouldn't be a handwriting match by any person in the world. Imo, the scratched out words are a way to make it look more real and natural.

    It has been said over and over that the author of the RN is the killer, but the catch is that there is no way to determine the author of the note, due to the fact that this was not written by someone's real handwriting.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  51. I do agree that by copying the text to look like New Courier font makes it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the writer. But I don't think it was TRACED from a pre-typed note. If it were, every page would line up, word for word, just like the first page lined up. And I don't think the fact that the word "not" was left out proves it was traced. The word "not" could have been left out of the typed note, or he could have just inadvertently left it out when he was copying the typed text.

    My point here is that I don't believe this murder was premeditated and that it why I don't believe the note was traced from a pre-typed note ahead of time. It's very possible that he typed up the note after he had killed JonBenet and then just copied the letters while looking at the computer. I envision him either looking at the computer while writing the note, or printing out the note and then putting the printed copy just above the blank paper he was writing on and copying the font as close as he could. In fact, if he traced the note, the letters would look more perfect and maybe so perfect that the police would figure it out. But by just copying it from sight (not tracing), the writing still maintains a natural look, but one that could not conclusively be linked to anyone.

    I totally agree that whoever wrote this note also killed JonBenet. I know there are many out there who feel Patsy wrote it as John dictated what to write, but that is absurd --- on so many levels. And it's pretty obvious that Burke didn't write it. And most would agree that there was never any intruder. So that leaves John. He wrote it. I have no doubts about that.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  52. bb- As complicated as this case is, there is one thing that I am 100% certain of and that is that John Ramsey was involved. I know that sounds obvious, but its for sure a starting point for where any theory can go. I have tried so hard to find a way that John wasn't involved, but there is one thing that cannot be explained and that is John not telling anybody about finding the basement window open and supposedly closing it without telling anybody. Then following that up with a ridiculous story about having to crawl through that window......which btw, I think there is a lie in his story to the police.
    When CH kept discussing the window grate and how it had to be removed, Doc found the video that shows that the window grate doesn't get lifted off, it simply looks like its on a hinge that goes up. SO, why does he say:

    Steve Thomas: "Did you remove that grate and get down into the window well?"

    John Ramsey: "Uh huh."

    Its a small thing, but there is a real good chance that John Ramsey never had to lift that window grate up, so maybe John made the same assumption that CH did as to how that window grate would lift up. We already know the story is crap, but this imo this is just another inconsistency.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  53. I totally agree. I, too, am certain John is responsible for this murder. The only thing I am not convinced about is:

    1) Premeditated murder? (note prepared in advance or that night?)
    2) Reason for killing (silencing JonBenet, accidental death or act of rage?)
    and the ever popular question . . .
    3) Which came first . . . the blow to the head or strangulation?

    I toss these things around constantly. My current opinion, based on Doc's blog, Dr. Wecht's book and my own gut instinct is:

    1) Not premeditated
    More staging would have been done if this was planned in advance
    2) Not killed to silence her
    I think he had the ability to keep her quiet; killing is an extreme measure to take
    3) head blow first
    The hair caught in the garrote seems to indicate she was already unconscious when garroted. However, this goes against Dr. Wecht's belief that she was killed accidentally because he feels the strangulation came first, as part of a sex game.

    So that leaves me to believe it was a spontaneous act that night. Just because they had to wake up early the next morning doesn't mean John wouldn't have had a sexual urge that night, especially if he had had a few drinks at the White's home earlier that evening. I also believe that something happened ---- not sure what ---- that caused John to snap and then strike JonBenet over the head with the flashlight. Realizing what he had done, he had to cover it up and make it look like a psychopathic pedophile had killed her.

    His mistakes?
    - redressing her (what psychopathic killer does THAT?)
    - wrapping her up in her blanket (common sign that she was killed by someone who cared about her)
    - staging the window, only to have to unstage it later
    (he should have just left a door unlocked to make it look like someone with a key entered the house)
    - writing that obviously phony ransom note
    (he should have made it short and sweet, without giving all those little clues that point to him and he should have TYPED it)
    - coming up with that RIDICULOUS story about breaking into the house through the window (this was just an out and out lie)
    - lawyering up
    (something that made everyone suspicious of him and Patsy)
    -not cooperating with police and delaying interviews with them
    (also something that made everyone suspicious of him and Patsy)

    Of course, some would probably say he did everything right. After all, he got away with it, didn't he? At least for now. I still think some day there will be an investigator that works on this cold case and is able to solve it. Unfortunately, John Ramsey will probably die before that time comes.

    So this case will probably go down in history as one of the most notorious, unsolved murder mysteries of all time.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  54. One more thing . . .

    I've often wondered why Det. Arndt said she didn't think the person responsible for this murder would ever be indicted and that they would get away with murder. She seemed pretty confident about this. I wonder why? What did she witness that day or know about from the police reports that would cause her to feel this way?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  55. BB- your post just above is something that I wonder as well. I threw it out there that BR was responsible, which means that the murderer would in fact forever get away with the crime as he couldn't be charged. But, if she did believe it was John, what an odd comment to make and why did she have that specific feeling?

    Back to your other post, the problem I have with the murder being spontaneous is that what a tremendous risk he would have taken, getting her out of bed out of some urge, when they had to be up so early the next day. Even if he gets her up and has her in bed by midnight, that only leaves 5 hours of sleep which JBR surely would have shown the next day. Not to mention they were going to be around a lot of family, so it just seems like a risk that he surely wouldn't have taken.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  56. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt5yVV3HGmI

    ReplyDelete
  57. I srill can't get my head around why the RN would refer to the way patsy refered to John. If we are to believe that either John or Patsy or both were involved, why write anything to points towards Patsy.?

    ReplyDelete
  58. sorry meant, "i still"

    ReplyDelete
  59. Its Linda Pugh Hoffman, husband and someone else

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her name is Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. So you don't even know her correct name or how to spell it, and you're posting an unsubstantiated statement on this blog, which is chock full of information that I'm sure you have not read? This is blog is a forum for a serious discussion on this case. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. And you think your discussion is serious? You just a bunch of know it all experts aren't you?

      Delete
    3. and apparently neither do you..

      Delete
  60. In order for it to be ANYBODY where it doesn't involve John Ramsey, then you will need to come up with a very good explanation as to why John would close the basement window without telling anybody. You will also need to explain why John would make up a story about crawling through the window months earlier because he claimed he lost his keys.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc, I type out page 2 of the ransom note in courier new. The right margin is very uneven so I don't think John actually traced the document. I think he copied it from his screen. No big deal, but typing it out makes you realize he wasn't following a right margin -its more obvious when using courier new, but here it is:

      money and hence a earlier
      pick-up of your daughter.
      Any deviation of my instruction
      will result in the immediate
      execution of your daughter. You
      will also be denied her remains
      for proper burial. The two
      gentlemen watching over your daughter
      do particularly like you so I
      advise you not to provoke them.
      Speaking to anyone about your
      situation, such as Police, F.B.I, etc.,
      will result in your daughter being
      beheaded. If we catch you talking
      to a stray dog, she dies. If you
      alert bank authorities, she dies.
      If the money is in any way
      marked or tampered with, she
      dies. You will be scanned for
      electronic devices and if any are
      found, she dies. You can try to

      Delete
    2. Thanks, that's helpful. Yes, I think he started by tracing, or at least closely copying line by line. but after 16 lines or so, it looks like he gave up on that and used a less strict method of copying. I was not able to match the lines after 16.

      Delete
  61. Docg, in comparing JRS handwriting to the RN, i notice that John writes most letters along and above the same line with exception to Y's and unusually P's. in which he drops the tail. Even his F's are above. If he wrote the note, perhaps he forgot his traits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting observation. But obviously he was disguising his hand. The legal document was written spontaneously. The note was carefully planned.

      Delete
  62. I received the following a while ago in an email from "Guru Josh," who had problems posting here:

    Hello Doc! Thanks for the thoughtful blog. And I love your active participation and your welcoming of any theory provided there's no ad hominem etc. Thank you!
    I have always thought, and still think, that Burke did it. I also think PR wrote the note.
    The note warns of "beheading" JBR for failure to comply with demands. Why would she have called 911? It always seemed obvious to me: She called 911 to EXPLAIN why JBR is dead (not beheaded but not too far from beheaded either).
    The kidnappers warned Patsy not to call anyone. She not only called 911 but invited half her church over. Ergo, JBR was brutally killed by the "kidnappers" for PR's failure to comply.
    As for JR's purported authorship: Is your hypothesis that an IT CEO wouldn't know how to spell "business"? He would write "Any deviation of my instructions", like a grammar-challenged fourth-grader?
    I'm still willing to entertain the possibility that the word was deliberately misspelled. But let's not pretend that the note writer was JR and he accidentally misspelled "business". That would be absurd, sorry.
    By the way, there is no acute/accent over "attaché" in the note. The "accent" is just the tail of the author's odd method of writing lower case "y". Look again, compare, you'll see. Hopefully that's the last time I read about an "accent" over "attaché" on your blog.
    Anyway, re: the aftermath, if the parental units covered for Burke, why did they not admit everything once their lawyers informed them that Burke couldn't be charged? Because all the lies they told, and the snowballing national media circus following, made it impossible for them to reverse course.
    I even think that Alex Hunter knew almost from the start that BR did it.
    Anyway, I love reading alternate theories. Just can't imagine John Ramsey as a one-time sex abuser/paedophile/brutal murderer, then never again to commit a crime. Sounds very unlikely.
    Why hasn't Burke spoken out? Well duh, because he's guilty. But I actually forgive him, since I think he had poor impulse control, possible on the autism spectrum (just a hunch), and has suffered immensely after the premature death of his loving mother PR. No one deserves that.
    To me this case is just a curiosity showing what can happen when moderate wealth, community influence, lies, and poorly training investigators (and the political election of American DAs) all come together in an unexpected orgy of media lunacy.
    The problem with your theory is that you "stick to the facts", yet work backwards towards motive to arrive at a scenario that is borderline laughable: JR is apparently a one-time, Ted-Bundy-esque sociopath who never re-offended and lived the rest of his life without blemish (including remarriage, cordial relations with his ex-wife and their 2 remaining kids, etc.). Doesn't add up (and no matter how your pare the "fact" down, in the end, the motive to some extent has to add up).
    Jim Kolar solved the case, yeah... but like I say I suspect Mr. Hunter probably worked things out around Day 3 of the investigation.

    -Guru Josh (used to participate on the forums, had a bit of a weak spot for ol' Blue Crab's theory re: BR and DS, I admit..)

    Sorry if double or triple posted!! Weird how blogspot has issues with every major browser including IE, Chrome, Firefox! Please post anywhere you see fit. Thanks again for your Blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Josh. My thoughts on Burke are encapsulated here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-kolar-book-part-2-burke.html Also: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-four.html

      While it does seem strange that Patsy would call 911 in the face of all those dire threats, it's hard to see that as evidence of guilt. If she wrote the note with the intent of calling the police right away, then why would she have included all those threats in her note? As I see it, her decision to make that call regardless of the threats in the note speaks more to her innocence than her guilt for that reason. It does seem unlikely that a loving mother would make that call in the face of such threats, but it's far more unlikely that she'd have made that call if she was the one who wrote the note. My best guess is that she made her decision to call in a panic, before reading through the entire note.

      As for the mis-spelling of "business," all words containing double consonants are frequently misspelled. John would have been in a panic and I think that word just slipped by him. As for "deviation of my instructions," while it's true that this is strictly speaking incorrect, it's not an uncommon usage. John was not a professional writer.

      As for attache, it looks to me as though you're right, but the mark could be interpreted either way, as part of the line above or the line below. It seems too far to the left to be part of attache, but so many details in this note are so wacky that it's hard to say what was intended -- other than deception.

      John "lawyered up" very early on, and if Burke did it, then he would certainly have confided in his lawyer, who would have informed him at that time that Burke could not be prosecuted. At that early date the only "lie" on his part was the claim that he slept through the night and had no idea who killed his daughter. Once he'd learned that Burke couldn't be prosecuted, I see no reason why he couldn't have changed his story and told the truth. His lawyer would certainly have advised him to do so, especially since all the evidence at that early date pointed squarely at HIM.

      As for the "one-time" nature of John's crime: 1. We know very little about John -- he spent most of his time away from home, and much of it in Amsterdam, world famous for its brothels and lenient attitude toward sexual deviance -- no one suspected Ted Bundy for a very long time because he seemed like such a straight arrow guy; 2. this particular sort of crime, based on a need to hide both child abuse and incest, is very different from the sort of thing that habitual pedophiles do -- incest happens in "the best" families, and the fathers who abuse their children may have no interest in abusing other children. JonBenet was an unusually sexualised child and that might have had a special appeal for her father. He is currently married to a woman who designs costumes for Las Vegas showgirls.

      By sticking to the facts, I arrive rather easily at the guilty party, who is certainly John. Once we realize that no one else could have committed this crime, THEN we search for motive. Which in this case, given the evidence of prior abuse, isn't that difficult to find. Kolar doesn't even bother to consider John, he's simply off the radar -- which leaves a huge hole in Kolar's book, especially after devoting an entire chapter to his duplicity.

      And if Hunter "worked things out" so soon, why would he have gone to all that trouble and taken all that heat for years for no reason? It's sometimes assumed that a minor who commits a serious crime can never be identified publicly, but that assumption is false. There have been several such cases and in every case the circumstances have been made public as soon as they became known.





      Delete
  63. In regards to John's spelling challenges with double consonants--check out the only very brief handwriting exemplar out there for John. He spells occasions 'occasions'. He also appears to spell separate as 'seperate'. I believe more exemplars were not released because of his problems with spelling--especially double consonants, which would be incriminating. kp

    ReplyDelete
  64. Oops--meant to say he spells occasions as "occassions."
    DocG--feel free to correct my original entry!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Also, if Burke did it, why hasn't he reoffended again? That same argument applied to John would also apply to Burke.

    ReplyDelete
  66. To be fair, a kid who was curious at 9 years old doesn't make him a monster in regards to molestation. It is curious that John hasn't reoffended in regards to the sexual nature of the crime

    ReplyDelete
  67. I really wish people could put the BDI theory to rest. There are just so many reasons this theory just doesn't add up. One of those reasons has to do with the garrote.

    Let's assume Burke was, in fact, the one molesting JonBenet and that he bludgeoned her over the head rendering her unconscious or dead. If John and/or Patsy decided they had to cover it up to protect him, why go to the extreme of garroting her? Certainly they would have been in total shock having just discovered their son killed their daughter. Even if they had the presence of mind to construct that garrote, I can't believe for a second that they could put that cord around their little girl's neck and tighten it like that.

    And if Burke, himself, constructed the garrote and strangled JonBenet, I believe, without any doubt, that John and/or Patsy would have immediately taken it off after discovering her body. They might have even felt she could still be revived. But even if they knew she was already dead, they would not disgrace her lifeless body by leaving that cord around her neck.

    Furthermore, I agree with Doc that the Ramseys' attorneys would have advised them that Burke could not be prosecuted and I don't believe they would then continue with any coverup. After all, that would put them in the position of being suspects themselves and perhaps even prosecuted and put in jail. How could they protect their son then?

    If DA Hunter believed Burke was the killer, he would never just sweep in under the carpet, even if the Ramseys wanted him to. District Attorneys want to solve their cases.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks bb. Very sensible. Especially the part about the garotte. I can't see that as part of a coverup. Nor can I see them leaving it on her if Burke did it -- which in itself is extremely unlikely in any case. Good thinking.

      Delete
    2. I don't think the garrotte was part of any coverup. I think John thought was dead from the head injury, but she may have started making death noises, and realizing he didn't want to leave dna, John fashioned a garrotte with whatever was available. He couldn't remove it later, because he wouldn't have been able to hide the garrotte once JBR was found. I hope that makes sense!

      Delete
  68. Regarding why John hasn't offended again . . . I don't believe all offenders are repeat offenders, especially when it comes to incest. Sometimes these offenders only offend a few isolated times, especially when the opportunity presents itself. Now certainly sexual predators seek out victims and offend often, but I don't see John as a predator. Rather, I see him as an opportunist who saw the opportunity to offend in his own family, which is usually much safer because you can groom your victim and keep a close eye on them so that they don't tell. But like Doc said, we don't know much about John. He very well may have had sexual fantasies about young girls and satisfied his fantasies through other means (internet porn, magazines, etc.) while he was out of town. At home, he could act out his fantasies with his own daughter, which is much safer than targeting someone outside his family. Even if he still had the desire to act out his fantasies and offend someone now, I think he's smart enough to know that he got away with it once (with horrible consequences), and would probably not risk doing it again.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, well thought out.

      Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned: we know very little about John Ramsey -- from either before or after JonBenet's murder.

      Delete
  69. I have a question and a theory about JBR's panties. Do we know if her original panties (the ones she wore to bed) were ever found and identified?

    I was playing with my granddaughter and she wanted me to put a pair of panties onto one of her dolls, ones that didn't belong to the doll. The dolls legs didn't bend, and were slightly bowed, and even though the panties would have fit around the doll's bottom, we could not get them over the legs.

    This made me think of the size 12 panties. If John had planned on dumping JBR's body, there would have been no need for him to redress her. Perhaps when Patsy called 911, John realized that JBR would be found in the house and while staging the break-in, he may have tried to redress her, but couldn't get her size panties back on her due to rigor mortis. This may be why he put on the larger panties.

    If this has been discussed before, I apologize. If so, could you point me to the thread? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Even though rigor mortis had set in, I believe JonBenet's legs were straight, not bowed like your granddaughter's doll's. I think it would be fairly easy to pull her regular sized panties up her legs. I know when I'm dressing my granddaughters, I actually have them stand when I'm pulling their panties up. It's easier that way. In this case, JonBenet certainly wasn't standing, but her legs were straight and I suspect it would have been just as easy.

    I think it's more likely that John disposed of the original panties JonBenet was wearing, along with other evidence he needed to get rid of.

    It is odd, however, that he would redress her, even if he knew the body would be found after the 911 call was made. I can see the need to wipe down her body, but not the need to put new panties on. That certainly points to someone other than an intruder. Not only would this be something an intruder would not do, but an intruder would never have known where to find the oversized panties that were ultimately put on her. Just like the fact that JonBenet was wrapped in her blanket, I see this as a sign that someone close to her killed her ---- feeling the need to "cover her up."

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  71. Another reason John may have put the fresh panties on is that he was trying to cover up the sexual abuse. Certainly if her panties were off and missing, the police would suspect that. But maybe John actually thought that they might not discover the prior abuse, even during an autopsy, if she had fresh, clean panties on.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  72. I wasn't going to comment anymore, but I find the case irresistible. So, a few thoughts on the panties.

    First, the panties are part of what Doc calls the 'folklore". These are issues we can't fully resolve and which do not really help solve the case. There is no reason the panties should make us doubt the overall theory presented by Doc. It's JDI, with JR working alone.

    So, we at least know who redressed JBR. JR did it. JR alone. So any explanation for why she's in size 12 panties has to make some sense with respect to JR being the re-dresser. But for those who like to second guess themselves, I'll talk, very briefly about PR and BR being involved. PR wouldn't have put size 12s on JB, simple as that. PR would have used the correct size, and were she in on it "The Ramseys" would have complete freedom to dress the body as they liked, so long as they claimed that is how she was dressed when put to bed. BDI is the dumbest theory out there, even dumber than IDI. People do not run the risk of being tried for a murder they didn't commit to "save" a boy who can't be prosecuted. That's all there is to BDI. We can safely rule out BDI and therefore we know BR didn't put the panties on the body.

    So, why did JR redress her in size 12 panties?

    First, the fact that she is wearing panties tells us JR wasn't intending to stage a sex murder. Had that been the case, he'd have left her naked and out in the open, just as a real sex fiend murderer would likely do.

    Second, JR may have thought he needed to redress JBR as closely as possible to the way she was put to bed. There are two reasons, both of which kick in when and if the body is found (after being dumped outside the house) 1) PR would know what JB wore to bed if she had a hand in putting JBR to bed and therefore would know something was amiss if the body were found dressed differently. 2) Her death would be blamed on the kidnappers, so she should be dressed as she was at bedtime, which is how she'd be dressed when abducted. It would be hard to explain the kidnappers redressing JBR in other clothing, especially other clothing belonging to JBR, after the abduction, or in the home, before leaving the house.

    to be continued,
    CH

    ReplyDelete
  73. Continuing...

    As far as I can see we have two possible explanations for JR putting the size 12s on her. 1) Her original panties became contaminated and had to be replaced, JR thinking the size 12s were a reasonable substitute, or 2) she was wearing the size 12s when she was taken to the basement.

    If her original panties became semen stained and had to be disposed of, then the size 12s could be substituting for the original panties. While it makes a good deal of sense to suppose that the original (correct) size panties might have become contaminated it's hard to see why the size 12 were seen as either a reasonable or necessary substitute. The long johns cover up her nakedness, so the only thing panties contribute is to "restore" the body to the state of dress at the time of her (supposed) abduction. But if she was wearing size 6 and the 12s were meant to take their place, this raises red flags. So while it makes a good deal of sense to suppose the size 6 panties became contaminated, it's harder to see the 12s as a decent substitute. It's also hard to see them as necessary, since a molestation and the disappearance of her panties could also be blamed on the kidnappers.

    OTOH, she may have worn size 12s when she was taken to the basement. This would mean the panties she was wearing (12s) didn't become semen stained, which is consistent with digital penetration. I don't want to be too graphic in imagining what JR was doing with his other hand, but I see no reason he necessarily had to ejaculate on JBR or on her underwear, though I wouldn't rule it out.

    JBR being in size 12s is also consistent with PR's claim that 12s were available for JBR in her panty drawer, and that JBR sometimes wore size 12s. Many have supposed that PR was lying about that, but with 4 months to prepare for questioning, and with the questions submitted in writing ahead of time, she surely could have thought of a better lie, particularly as she would know whether or not size 12s had ever been in JBR's panty drawer, and therefore whether the police could even possibly have found size 12s in the drawer (which as far as we know, they did not).

    My guess is that she was redressed in the most literal sense, i.e. what she had on was taken off (or pulled down) for the assault and replaced after the clean-up. If that were the case, JR would not have questioned the size 12s even if he could plainly see they didn't fit. This answer, I think, works even if JBR was put to be in size 6s because again, the 12s were, per PR's statement, in the drawer and available. If that's true, as I suspect it is, then JBR could have put the 12s on herself prior to JR waking her up for the night-time "games".

    There is really no way to say exactly what happened. In any case, we still have a JDI case with JR working alone. So while the panties provide endless opportunity for speculation and discussion, they don't affect the overall logic of the case.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  74. Well, the first half of my comment didn't "take" but I don't feel like trying to replicate it. I think the substance of it is in the second half anyway.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Grace4Ayla, bb, and CH:

      Everyone makes good points. And yes the oversize panties are a bit of a mystery.

      I agree that, if John was planning on removing the body from the house the next day or night, he would probably have simply removed the semen-soaked panties and gotten rid of them. He'd have had plenty of time to do that if his plan had been working. There would have been no need to redress her, because "the kidnappers" could have assaulted her and removed her panties from the body to make sure their DNA couldn't be traced.

      All this tells me John must have changed her AFTER the police were called. Most likely while Det. Arndt was preoccupied with everyone else upstairs. She lost track of him for at least an hour as I recall and he could have done an awful lot of repair work during that time.

      Why would he have done that? Well, if his semen had gotten onto the original pair, he'd certainly have needed to get rid of them. But how? And where? My thinking is that he could have decided to just toss them in the laundry with all the other dirty clothes. But if the police discovered her without panties, and with no real evidence of an intruder anywhere in sight, they would certainly have scoured the house looking for them. To make sure they didn't, all he'd have needed to do was replace them with a fresh pair. So up he goes to her bedroom, finds a pair with the proper label, "Wednesday," and foolishly neglects to check the size. While it's true that urine stains were found on the panties, we don't know if they were actually soaked with urine or not. If not, then it's possible some traces of urine were transferred from the body to the panties.

      I find it hard to believe she was wearing the oversize pair all along. Judging from photos I've seen they would have been extremely uncomfortable and almost impossible to walk around in. And Patsy would certainly have known if she'd put her to bed in them.

      Delete
  75. Yes, PR would know if she (PR) had put JBR to bed in size 12s. Clearly that didn't happen. But again, PR had an explanation - the 12s were in the undie drawer and JBR helped herself. IMO PR would not have said that were it not true. She had 4 months to manufacture a lie if one were needed so she'd surely have come up with something better than that, if it weren't true.

    The 12s would have stayed up alright under long johns, (the LJs were correct fitting and would have held any size panties in place under them) There wouldn't have been much walking around, she was in bed after all. If PR's statement (that JBR sometimes wore size 12s) is true then this would be a good explanation for why she's in 12s. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting JBR wore the size 12s to the party)

    If her original (correct size) panties were semen stained, I don't see JR waiting to dispose of them. Why run the risk that the body would be found wearing semen stained panties ? (There was at least some small risk of PR/BR finding the body in the WC) Also why put the semen stained panties back on a clean body? (Or do you think the wiping down was also done while police were upstairs?) I think if JR got his semen on the panties, he flushed them immediately afterwards.

    I have a hard time seeing JR doing anything substantial with the body in the 7 minutes or so between the 911 call and the arrival of the first cops. I have an even harder time believing he'd be tampering with a dead body with police and friends in the house, any of whom may have walked in on him at any moment. While an hour is ample time to do lots of things, JR couldn't really count on having that hour, as someone might walk down the basement any moment.

    I don't really see him tossing semen stained panties into the dirty clothes hamper. Either LHP or PR would have removed them from the hamper. (Given that the vacation plans were obviously going to be cancelled and PR/BR only needed to be out of the house the next day there is a good chance it would be PR) In my experience women tend to handle and inspect each garment as they sort them for the wash. Semen stains obviously didn't come from a 6 year old girl. So JR would at least have had to rinse the panties, meaning they'd be in the hamper wet, and not just wet in front, as if from a "potty accident" but wet all over. That might raise a red flag too.

    Had the body been found w/o panties, I'm not sure it would have raised alarms with the police because LJs are, after all, underwear, and there is no real need for wearing both panties and LJs. I don't see why the police would immediately assume a pair of panties was missing. OTOH, PR would certainly know JBR had panties on at bedtime, so for her, this would raise questions.

    CH (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  76. (continuing)


    I can sort of see JR ignoring the size problem, but not entirely. Men's/boy's undies fit much looser than girl's, so some size abnormality would maybe go unnoticed by JR. But this is a huge abnormality. If JR were trying to put the body in clothing that matched what was worn at bedtime, he'd have had to think the size 12s would raise red flags, unless he knew she sometimes wore 12s. Even then, where did he get the 12s? If they were from her underwear drawer, then why not grab 6s? And if he simply grabbed the wrong size, that means at least one pair of 12s were in fact in the drawer, as per PR's statements. In that case, why not assume JBR put them on herself, as per PR's statements to the police? OTOH, if they came from a package still in the basement, why bother with them at all? Her nakedness is covered, there is no real need for her to be wearing 2 sets of undies, and PR certainly knows she wasn't put to bed in 12s, and if there were never 12s in the drawer, then PR certainly knows something is wrong.

    We have to bear in mind that JR is staging an intruder/kidnapping. Why would the kidnappers put size 12s on her? If it doesn't make sense in real life, it doesn't make sense as staging.

    To me the simplest explanation is that JR redressed JBR in the most literal fashion. He replaced exactly what she had on when he took her to the basement. She probably had on size 12 panties taken from her own underwear drawer. It's possible she had a slight accident and required a change, or it's possible that she simply liked to wear the size 12s, perhaps feeling more gown up or something.

    Here I am caught up in the folklore again, after trying to put this case behind me. It is addictive.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Grace4Ayla

    Two reasons to redress. 1) Psychologically, JR might simply have wanted to cover her nakedness, even though she is dead. 2) The body is likely to be found, after being dumped. While a molestation and disappearance of her clothing could be blamed on the kidnappers, if she is found wearing the same clothing she had on when put to bed it lends to the credibility of the kidnapping scenario.

    If JR had a hard time getting the correct sized panties on her, how in the world did he manage to get LJs on her?

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  78. I have to apologize to Doc and the readers for being so dense this morning. I realize now that I completely missed Doc's point about putting the panties in the dirty clothes (bin, hamper, whatever)

    Obviously JR wasn't going to leave them for someone to find when they decided to do a load of laundry. He was going to launder them himself, once PR/BR were off to stay with friends.

    That does make me wonder though, was this the first time for that type of "soiling" ? If not, how was it dealt with before? Normally there wouldn't be much in the way of excuse to get PR/BR out of the house so JR could do laundry.

    So, I'm clear on that now. I still think the size 12s make little sense unless she was wearing them when taken down to the basement. Had she been left undressed until the 911 call it would have been obvious that only the coroner was going to remove the LJs, and it would be equally obvious that way too big panties would tip Patsy that something was amiss - unless this was a normal thing for JBR to do.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  79. I've been giving some thought to those oversized panties. I believe it was reported that JonBenet's sheets were urine stained. What if she was the one who put those panties on after waking from wetting the bed. She may have been just too tired to wake Patsy and tell her. Maybe she just tossed the wet panties somewhere and put on the fresh, oversized ones?

    Part of what makes me think this is that I don't really believe the panties she was wearing at the time of the murder were stained with semen. There is no evidence of penetration other than with what is believed to be the paintbrush. I think the perpetrator was using the paintbrush and his finger on JonBenet and any semen would have been in his own pants. Plus, the oversized panties she was wearing were stained with a little urine and blood. If she were redressed after she was killed, how would those stains have gotten there?

    I would be very curious to know if the police found any other urine stained panties in JonBenet's room or in the laundry. I am certain there is quite a bit of evidence none of us have heard about.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, some very good points are being made. However:

      1. If JBR had wet herself in the middle of the night and removed her wet panties, I don't see any reason why she'd bother to replace them with a fresh pair. She'd just put the longjohn's back on and go back to sleep.

      2. The body was very thoroughly wiped clean. I can't see any reason for John to do that unless semen had been present. And if semen were on the body, then it's likely it was also on the panties. You can clean semen off of skin, but not cloth. Yet no semen was found on the oversize panties.

      3. As far as the police were concerned there would have been no reason to check every single pair of panties in the laundry bin for signs of semen. However, if she had been found without panties and Patsy had testified she was put to sleep in them, then chances are all the panties in the house would have been examined very carefully.

      Delete
  80. Re: point 1. If she wet herself during the night then wouldn't the LJs be wet too? If she only had a small accident, maybe not. Sometimes there's no telling what a child will do or why. Maybe very slight dampness on the LJs made it more comfortable to put panties on underneath?

    Re point 2: Wiping off blood, urine (hers) or pubic hairs would all be reasons to wipe the body. It's also possible some sort of lubricant was used, even with digital penetration, so that would have to be wiped off as well. But even is it was wiped to remove semen, why would it be likely to be on the panties? The panties had to be at least pulled down (if not removed) to facilitate digital (or any other type) penetration. While it's certainly possible that semen was on the panties, I'm not sure there is any greater probability that there was vs wasn't.

    The problem I'm having is trying to figure out why JR would replace the "original" panties (if indeed she was wearing something other than the size 12s).

    If the original panties needed to be hidden/destroyed then why replace them at all? When and if the body was found (outside the home) missing panties could be blamed on the kidnappers. Size 12s would raise questions (and suspicions for PR) if JBR had never worn size 12s. If he put them on after the 911 call, why? It should be obvious only the coroner will remove the LJs, and 12s raise as many questions as no panties at all.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  81. I'm sorry if this is the wrong spot for this question, but can anyone tell me who originally reported PR wearing the same clothes that morning as the night before? It seems like a lot of people (myself included until I started reading this blog;)) believe PR to be involved partly because she was wearing the same outfit the next day, but is it possible that she just put on something similar? I recently reorganized my closet and noticed I have several sweaters, dress pants, skirts, etc. that are very similar in color and style, and it made me think maybe PR just put on something that morning that looked like the same outfit. I know it's not really relevant compared to other facts of the case, but if someone can tell me how this information came about I would really appreciate it!
    SB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's never denied wearing the same outfit. She said she was in a hurry so she just threw on whatever was easily available. I believe her.

      How dumb would it be to stay up all night sexually assaulting and garotting your daughter's bleeding body, thoroughly wiping it down, then wrapping it in a blanket and stashing it in a filthy basement room, followed by the composition of a long ransom note, without then taking a shower and changing your clothes before calling the police on yourself, so they can see you in the same outfit you were wearing the night before?

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply, and I agree with you that PR wearing the same outfit the next morning actually points more toward her innocence rather than her guilt. The fact that she has never denied that piece of info points even more toward her innocence in my opinion. For years I had my suspicions about her and JR both being involved for several reasons, but there were so many things that made no sense about the case, particularly the 911 call with the body in the house. I started doing some research on the case after the grand jury indictment information came out, and I came across this blog. Your theory on the case is the only one I've ever read that puts everything together in a way that makes sense. Again, thanks for answering my question, it was just something I was curious about.
      SB

      Delete
  82. Doc, I didn't know JonBenet had been bleeding. I thought the only blood they found was a small drop in her panties.

    Your comment very nicely explains how ludicrous it would be for Patsy to wear the same clothes if she had just murdered her daughter. You are so right. And perhaps Patsy just really liked her outfit from the night before. Maybe she spent quite a bit of money on it and just felt she could wear it the next day too. After all, she wasn't going back to the Whites. She probably wanted to wear it for the rest of their family who they were going to visit. I don't think that's weird or unusual for a woman to do.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  83. I found an interesting article about the Ramsey case online and a few things really stood out, particularly this quote by JR; "I kicked myself for not getting more sophisticated house security. We left it off that night because it would go off like a siren and catapult us out of bed". JR also talks about how he and PR would share concerns about JBR's participation in pageants, worried she could be targeted by pedophiles. I'm wondering how in the world any parent could possibly not arm or fix their security system, especially around the holidays when burglaries are common, if THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR DAUGHTER BEING THE TARGET OF PEDOPHILES?! I wasn't aware of any security system in the Ramsey home, but most houses with alarms have a sign displayed to deter intruders. How would an intruder even know the alarm was off that night? Sure an intruder could have been watching the Ramseys, been familiar with their habits or home security system "malfunctions", or was just simply lucky, but JR can't have it both ways. He points to the pageants and his concerns about mystery pedophile intruders, but doesn't even try to arm his security system or get it fixed/upgraded around the holidays when burglaries are much more common? It makes no sense to me. I believe the alarm system being off that night was all part of JR's master plan, not just a terrible coincidence. Also in the article were quotes from a family friend, Pam Archuleta, who "saw a fatigue in JonBenet during the last months of her life. 'She had this haunted, defeated look. She looked frozen when she got that beauty queen attitude on. I think she was just plain worn out'. I can't help but wonder if JBR's haunted, defeated appearance was due to something much more sinister than being exhausted by beauty pageants. Most of the article is just more bullsh*t about how JR has been "fully exonerated", and how he is going broke, but it was an interesting read nonetheless. I'm typing on an iPad and don't know how to put up a link, but the website address is: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/10/13/finally-exonerated-in-the-murder-of-his-daughter.html
    SB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. He's "exonerated" by the presence of "foreign" DNA, but nevertheless casts suspicion on a close friend (most likely Fleet White), who was also ruled out by the same DNA evidence.

      Delete
  84. Thanks for sharing this SB. Very interesting indeed.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  85. ...still cannot understand the purpose of writing the note on a comp screen to mask his writing style ect...is it not more simple to only write the RN without the computer screen ? how it can help him to change his writing style ?? don't get it :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just had a hunch he might have traced or copied a word processor text because of the way it was laid out on the page. (For example, no hyphens.) And when I tried various fonts and margin settings, I managed to find one that fit almost perfectly -- at least for the first 15 or 16 lines. That included the tab setting for the opening line, by the way. (See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html)

      It's hard to imagine such a striking correspondence occurring by coincidence, though I suppose that's possible.

      When I thought more about it, I realized that such a stratagem would be an excellent way of disguising one's hand. Theoretically, it's been assumed that people give themselves away when trying to disguise their hand because of certain things they do without being aware of it. By tracing or copying one can eliminate most of these personal ticks, and that could have been John's idea. The type of laptop he owned had a display that could open out fully so it could be flush with a table top, making it relatively easy to trace from.

      Of course, the note is far from perfectly traced, but overall the letters do conform to the general shape of the Courier New font as do the between word spacings and the line spacings. That could have been enough to fool the "experts," who were in any case most likely more experienced in detecting forgeries than deliberately disguised writing.

      Delete
  86. you sound like a self-centered douchebag who feels the need to glorify himself with assumptions, hoping("believing") he may be right for attention, rather than put the memory of a poor sweet child to rest and a monster behind bars...again, douchebag.

    that being said...

    i honestly believe the parents did it...primarily the father, and the mother who backed him because she's a useless cunt and couldn't stand the thought of losing her husband because she's a loser.

    knowing how these child pageant mothers objectify their daughters, she probably couldn't give two shits about her well-being, so long as it brought the mother herself some notoriety. the father, was in my opinion molesting her and the mother, knowing/catching or aware of this did nothing, in fear of losing her saftey-net life...the father, in jonbenet's final moment, took it too far(causing her death), and the wife stumbled upon this...with a few threats, she easily complied(possibly because of her herself abusing her poor daughter over jelousies), and helped him cover it up...it's a no brainer. they found her in the basement ffs...

    how does that happen with an abduction? the abductor(s) decided to rape and hang her so they could write an abduction letter? and then "oops", took too long to write it and she strangled?...or they wrote the letter, left it there, but she died during the process and decided to stick around(after any ruckus from her rape/death) to write a 2 page note?...like come on...

    either the father was a sick perverted fuck who was strangling her as some sort of perverse sexual act(a bdsm type thing), or the mother killed her in a fit of rage...maybe trying to pass it off as a suicide. but once after she realized how stupid that thought was, especially after evidence would surface, decided to cook up this half-assed murder scheme.

    regardless...they are both guilty.

    it's things like this that make me wish there would be a hell, because death is too mild for what these low lives deserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it really necessary to call Doc a douchebag? Are you not doing the same exact thing by offering your ideas on this case? You actually have a decent theory, and the sad thing is if you took a few minutes to look over the comments and replies on this blog you'd realize all theories are welcomed by Doc, not just ones that fit with his. Most of us read and comment here because we do care about this precious child and what happened to her! Take a deep breath and calm down. It is possible to debate theories and ideas without disrespect, and it's much easier to get your point across without starting it with such a rude statement.
      SB

      Delete
    2. "i honestly believe the parents did it...primarily the father, and the mother who backed him because she's a useless cunt and couldn't stand the thought of losing her husband because she's a loser." etc.

      Your entire post is a series of assumptions based on nothing more than your opinion. Why should we be expected to take any of that seriously?

      Delete
  87. You just called him a douchebag, YET you not only came to this site but also commented on who YOU believe did it. So, are you wanting to put her memory to rest or are you wanting to name call and then share your opinion?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  88. Doc a "douchebag" --- REALLY?? Most loyal commenters on this blog would agree that he is the farthest from that. As a commenter said above, he welcomes all theories in this case. And even though his theory does make the most sense, he has often said that he wishes he were wrong -- that John Ramsey did not murder his daughter. He has frequently said that he only wishes to see John get his day in court. He is not out to lynch John Ramsey.

    Your theory is actually somewhat interesting, although when you litter your comment with profanities, it's hard to take you serious. I'm actually surprised Doc has not deleted your comment because of that. But that's just the type of guy he is. He is open to all theories and that's because he DOES care about finding the truth that might finally bring justice for JonBenet.

    I have little patience for narrow minded people like yourself who love to throw stones.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  89. Especially after long discussions and in depth looks over everything anyone can find. Everyone has an opinion/theory, and Docg has listened and replied to almost all. Granted it gets frustrating when what you believe others don't.
    still, i don't see any need for name calling on this blog, all you have to do is voice your theory in a REASONABLE manner, and YOUR theory will be listened to.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Re: douchebag. What a bizarre comment. DocG is open to posting all theories and discusses them rationally. Read the blog before launching such a ridiculous rant.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  91. "regardless...they are both guilty."

    Obviously not. If they were both guilty they'd have worked together. Had they worked together they'd have made a plan -together- to dump the body, so the kidnapping scenario would be believable, and PR would not have made the 911 call with the body still in the basement.

    Additionally had they worked together, the body would not have been dressed in size 12 underwear.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  92. CH - nice to see you back! I'm glad you responded to this comment. It certainly appears that most people believe JR and PR were in on this together, or that at least one covered for the other. And I have to admit that it does seem somewhat plausible that JR could have threatened or intimidated PR into covering for him if she discovered what he had done, EXCEPT, as you and Doc say, they would not have made that 911 call with the body in the house and a ransom note that suggests JonBenet had been kidnapped. If they had, in fact, been trying to cover up the murder, they could have just said they found her dead in the basement and still accused an intruder of doing it. But why would they ever write a ransom note if the body was still in the house? Everything seems to hinge on that ransom note, the body and the 911 call.

    Glad to see you back!

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  93. Everyone is forgetting a major clue to this case. Burke's knife. His knife was found close to the body. If Patsy or John killed JonBenet or covered for one another or Burke, why would they leave his knife close to the body? The killer managed to dispose of the remaining duct tape and nylon cord. Why not dispose of the knife or at least put it back where they found it? No one knew where that knife was except for the Ramseys and Linda Hoffman-Pugh. This murder was not motivated by money or sexual gratification. This murder was about destroying the All-American family that the killer painfully endured and coveted. The killer's intention was to frame the Ramseys and tear their lives apart.

    BRbc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke's knife was found on a counter in the basement, down the hall from the windowless room in which JonBenet's body was found. If someone was using it to frame him, or any of the Ramseys, he would have left it next to the body, not down the hall. Also, Linda hid the knife from Burke shortly after Thanksgiving, which would have given him plenty of time to figure out where it was hidden, and retrieve it. We really don't know anything about the history of that knife from the time it was hidden and the time it, apparently, was used to cut the cord that was found on JonBenet's body. If Burke did in fact find it after it had been hidden, he could have left it anywhere in the house, where anyone might have seen it.

      Bottom line: if the intention was to frame the Ramseys, then the person who wrote the note would have made it look like John or Patsy's writing. Yet a team of 6 forensic document examiners ruled John out and found it "unlikely" that Patsy wrote it. While several "experts" saw similarities with certain of Patsy's exemplars, anyone comparing the note to Patsy's handwriting would see right away that there had been no attempt at forgery. The overall look of Patsy's writing is completely different from that of the note.

      Delete
  94. The only two people i have ever suspected of this crime is JR and LHP & someone close to her that has not been identified.While my personality does not want to believe a parent could be capable of such a crime, there is some strange behaviour by JR and the silly story of the window.Why was the alarm switched off that night. But on the whole, i find the LHP theory to be equally likely. There is strong motive, keys to the house,moreso, the fact she denied ever going in the basement and then we find that she had been down there before.The first passages of a book she was going to write show almost hatred towards Jonbenet. So do we say John is guilty for making up a story about the window, but we can forget Linda's lie about ever going down there.? Perhaps her limited education allowed her to think that she had done enough to shift the blame to the Ramsey's without forging the handwriting, after all most people still believe one the other or both the Ramsey's are to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not completely sure, but as I recall LHP stated that she'd been unaware of the windowless room for a long time, despite being the housekeeper, thus making the point that a stranger would not have been likely to be aware of it either. My take is that she was indeed unaware of it until that Xmas, when she and her husband had been tasked with storing some items there. I see no reason for her to lie about that, since Patsy would certainly have known she'd been down there and would have called her on it. Her point was not that she'd never been there, but that she'd been working in the house for so long without being aware the room existed.

      As far as LHP being involved, there is in fact NO intruder theory that makes any sense at all, as I've been at pains to demonstrate. And I'm certainly not alone in asserting that. While it's true Linda had a key, there are lots of other people who also had keys. Doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter that everyone with a key was investigated and cleared -- because the police could have been mistaken. What matters is the fact that no intruder theory makes sense. A kidnapper would have brought a note with him and would actually have kidnapped. A pedophile would have sexually assaulted and not left a note. Someone "out to get" John or Patsy would have forged their hand on the note or not left a note at all.

      Delete
    2. Doc. I respectfully disagree. The note was a clear attempt to forge not only Patsy's handwriting but also her vocabulary and speech patterns (Fat cat, southern common sense, acronyms). Linda took the notepad home and spent a lot of time crafting it based on films she had seen.

      BRbc

      Delete
    3. There have been many attempts to associate Patsy with the note and all have failed. If you do a search here on the phrase "the experts see Patsy" you'll learn why I'm not buying any of it. Also if you check out my post on Patsy's London Letter (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-london-letter-revisited.html) you'll be able to compare for yourself. While some have attempted to make a big deal about Patsy's use of "manuscript a," and some other letter by letter similarities, it's clear that the note could not have been intended as a forgery of Patsy's hand. The direct comparison I've made between specific words in both documents should make that clear.

      As far as vocabulary and speech patterns, again that's a myth. I can't recall Patsy ever using "fat cat." She'd have been a fool to include "southern common sense" if that was actually a phrase she often used. And as for acronyms, all sorts of people use acronyms. The famous "and hence" comes from a Xmas message that both John and Patsy wrote together. There's no evidence she ever used that phrase in any of her own writings or statements, anywhere. John used it, however, and it's more in line with his style than hers, which is always very informal.

      Delete
  95. you can read what she started here. someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.com/.../death-of-innocent.ht.

    ReplyDelete
  96. sorry, the above blog is not the one i reffered to. I can't find it at the moment, but will post here when i do.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I've been away from this blog for a couple months. However, I think I found the website that "Anonymous" mentioned on September 25th, saying they had found a site that posted the ransom note without the disguise elements.

    I'd be interested in hearing what people think about this.

    http://www.experthandwritinganalysis.com/2013/07/19/unmasking-the-ramsey-ransom-note/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been to that site, and if you read the comments you'll find one by me that sums up my opinion in a nutshell. I find the analysis impressive in many ways, but I very much doubt that one can reveal the identity of the author simply by removing what seem to be deliberate distortions. It's an interesting concept, though.

      Delete
  98. First off, anybody who posts on here, I highly recommend listening to the podcast "Serial." Its not about this case, but a really good listen!

    Doc, I havent posted on here in a while, but I had a few questions, so I thought I would post again.

    The purpose of the RN according to your theory is that John needed a way to get the body out of the house because obviously a dead body in the house = arrest and jail. So, John writes a ridiculously long note that comes off as more of a novella than a note, but the note goes to great lengths to list the danger that the Ramseys would put JBR in by them contacting ANYBODY. But, when re reading the note, this is the part that perplexes me. The note says to go to the bank with the attache FIRST and then wait instructions. In order for JR to be able to get the body out, PR and BR would HAVE to be out of the house, but the note says to go to the bank first, so I dont see any way possible for him to get PR and BR out. Also, if the note is to be believed, wouldn't PR and BR leaving the house be seen as a bad thing by the kidnappers according to the note?

    The other issue has been gone over at nauseum on this site and we don't need to go over it again, but I struggle with PR not only calling 911, but calling 911 when she did. Even if John wanted the plan to go perfectly by letting PR find the note when coming down the stairs, it left WAY too much up to chance. The more logical plan would have been for John to be up first, asking PR if he knew where JBR was, and the together finding the note so that JR could control the situation. Way too much was left up to chance that morning and it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever for JR to not be up and taking control of the situation.

    After writing what I just did, I don't ultimately know what Im getting at, other than to say that so many things that occurred that morning just doesn't add up on any level. The ridiculous window story is why I believe JR without question played a part in the crime, but I just don't know that he was solely responsible.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've raised some valid issues for sure. That's helpful because it forces us to try to think more clearly about the various possibilities.

      As I see it, the note makes sense ONLY if the intention of the author is to discourage Patsy from calling the police, thus clearing the way for him to dump the body while claiming to be delivering the ransom. The details of how he was planning to carry out his plan are not so clear. And as you've pointed out, there do seem to be some inconsistencies.

      I agree that getting Patsy and Burke out of the house was very likely part of the plan. But as you've noticed, the note very specifically warns against discussing the kidnapping with anyone and claims that the house is being "monitored." So how to get them out without the "kidnappers" noticing?

      Now one thing you are perhaps forgetting: there WAS no real kidnapper, and thus no one was actually monitoring the house. Only one person would have been in complete control of the situation. And that person was the author of the note: i.e., John Ramsey. So from his perspective there was clearly nothing to worry about when ordering Burke and Patsy to go off with friends. And if Patsy objected, John could have said: "I'm sorry but the safety of my wife and child are more important than anything else. The kidnappers might return and place you both in danger. For all we know they could come back for Burke as well. I have to be here to take the kidnapper's call, but there's no reason for the two of you to hang around. We can just sneak you out through the back alley and they probably won't notice."

      Of course, that still leaves us with the problem of why John would have made the point about "monitoring" the house in the first place if he were planning on getting Patsy and Burke out. That might have been an oversight. He might simply have failed to think things through completely enough.

      OR:

      It's possible that I was wrong, and getting Patsy and Burke out was not part of the plan. John might have already placed the body in the trunk of his car before Patsy woke up, so there would have been no need to sneak it out of the basement later that day. After Patsy called 911, he would have had plenty of opportunity to sneak it out of the trunk and place it in the basement room. That would be consistent with Fleet White's opening that door early on and seeing nothing unusual.

      The only other problem would have been the "kidnapper's" phone call. Possibly John was planning on having one of the "kidnappers" call the house from a phone booth shortly after he'd picked up the ransom from the bank. He could have disguised his voice, claiming to be one of the kidnappers. That would have been very risky for sure, but the whole plan was an act of desperation from the start, with all sorts of built-in risks.

      I'm not sure either of these explanations will satisfy you. All I can say is that John would have been under a lot of stress and his plan might well have had some serious inconsistencies and flaws from the start.

      Delete
    2. As for the 911 call, there were phones on every floor of the house, so there would have been no point in John guarding any of them. There was no way he could have prevented Patsy from calling 911 if she were determined to do so, aside from tying her up.

      Delete
  99. I've been reading this blog for a few months and while I now believe JR is solely responsible, I struggled with why an innocent PR called 911 and summoned police without at least trying to explain the threats in the ransom note. For a long time I thought PR either knew JB was dead in the basement, made the call without reading the whole note, didn't care about the threats to her daughter, or was just plain dumb but then this happened: Three days ago my neighbor pounded on my door in a panic because she had just found her 10 year old son in his bedroom not breathing and blue in the face (he'd had a seizure and is fine now). We ran back to her house and I asked her if she had called 911. Her response was, "No, I'm about to but you need to help him NOW!" (I used to work as a med. assistant) She did call 911 while I started checking for a pulse, breathing, etc., and began CPR. He started to breathe a few minutes later, before the paramedics showed up. As far as the JBR case my point is this; When she called 911, PR sounded to me like a panicked mom who needed help immediately, and didn't even take the time to think clearly about the consequences of that phone call. There was no one there who could provide quicker help to her, so calling 911 was her immediate instinctual reaction. For this reason, the 911 call does not fit with a carefully planned kidnap staging conspiracy between JR and PR at all. I now think that if PR and JR were both in on the intruder staging, and for some insane reason planned on having a hysterical PR make that call with the body in the house, PR would've at least explained some of the RN threats to police, making sure the "kidnappers" watching wouldn't know they had called for help. Not only does the call being made with the body in the house not fit with the JR/PR combo scenario, the contents of the 911 call do not fit either, and I truly believe she was just a terrified mother who needed someone in law enforcement to help her that very instant. I also think if they were both involved and decided to call police JR would have called 911 himself or at least coached PR on what to tell the cops regarding the threats in the RN. It sounds to me like she called without thinking of anything but getting help for JB right away, which in my opinion points more toward her innocence. BTW, great job on this blog DocG!

    Daisy

    ReplyDelete
  100. I totally agree Daisy. Unless you've lost a child yourself, it may be hard to understand the state of mind that Patsy was in that morning when she discovered her daughter missing. As Daisy states it was her "instinctual reaction" to get help immediately, regardless of the threats in the note. I actually don't think Patsy read the note entirely before making that call. Her daughter was missing. Someone had taken her. She had to summons help. I lost my 3-years son once in the park and without even thinking I ran up onto a stage where a band was playing, grabbed the mic and announced to everyone that my son was lost. Thankfully, someone did find him and brought him back to me. I was in a total state of panic and I knew only one thing: I needed help to find him. And Patsy did too. JR didn't count on his wife's maternal instinct going into action that morning.

    Having said that, I have been puzzled at why JR didn't try to prevent the call. Why didn't he hang around the phone to make sure she didn't pick it up and call? The only explanation I can come up with is that Patsy may have asked him to check on Burke (and I think he states he did exactly that) and during those seconds he was gone, she picked up that phone. By the time he realized she was on the phone talking to the 911 dispatcher, it was too late. Aborting the call at that time would still have alerted the authorities and foiled his plan.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  101. The fact that JR allowed that call has always bothered me too, bb. What you said makes a lot of sense, PR probably made the call after JR left the room, and once he realized she was calling 911 it was too late. I also think maybe JR was scared of appearing too suspicious later to police and family members by not allowing PR to summon help. The crazy thing is everything seemed to fall into place for JR, his own mistakes worked to his advantage as far as not ever being prosecuted for the death of JonBenet. I totally agree that PR most likely did not read every word of the ransom note, and JR never anticipated PR's maternal instincts going into overdrive. No offense to men or fathers, but women can become almost super-human when they know their kids are in danger. Despite Patsy's hysterical tone on the call, she got the intended result, help for her child's dangerous situation, ASAP.

    Daisy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This business about JR not stopping the 911 call keeps coming up. I think Daisy answered it well, but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents, though it's somewhat redundant.

      First, as has been pointed out countless times, if PR was in on the crime (to some degree) why would she call 911 with the body in the basement? The body destroys the credibility of the kidnapping scenario. "The Ramseys" didn't concoct a phoney kidnapping scenario then call the police and invite them to find the body thus proving there was never any kidnapping.

      One could argue that they staged a "kidnapping gone wrong", and therefore could allow the body to be discovered in the house, but IMO this is unlikely. I think they'd have staged, clearly, either a kidnapping, or a sex murder. And really there is nothing visible that the police would find that would indicate a sex murder. Any sexual activity (digital penetration) would not become known until the autopsy. So really, as far as the police are concerned, there is a dead body (with no indication of sexual abuse) and a RN. Essentially, calling the police with the body in the basement shows the cops there was never a kidnapping. Once the coroner finds evidence of abuse there is no reason to suddenly start thinking it must have been some intruder, rather than one of the people in the house that night. It short, you don't stage a phoney kidnapping then show the body.

      Still, some want to salvage the idea that PR was in on it by claiming The Ramseys were criminal masterminds who knew how to confuse the police. But they always remained under the "umbrella of suspicion" and the GJ wanted them both indicted, so that doesn't really seem to have fooled anyone.

      So, if PR was in on it, to any extent, there is no reason for her to call with the body in the house. It really is that simple, yet very very powerful. This alone should trump any reservations about JR not preventing the 911 call.

      Next, as Doc has pointed out, there were phones on every floor of the house. JR couldn't keep within arm's length of PR at all times. Short of tying her to a chair how would he do this?

      Another problem is the way PR makes the call. She fails to tell the police about all the dire warnings in the note. Surely if she were party to t he crime she'd have pretended to take the warnings seriously, telling police that her daughter would be beheaded and that the kidnappers were monitoring the house. She relates none of that to the police and is not the least bit concerned that the police show up in regular patrol cars.

      If you look at the larger context the notion that JR could have/would have prevented the 911 call becomes unimportant. If PR were in on the crime, to any degree, she'd never have made the 911 call when she did. Simple and powerful.

      CH

      Delete
  102. I continue to wonder why if the sole purpose of the ransom note was to discourage calling law enforcement, why did John not exactly write that in the first or second sentence, rather than wait until the middle of page 2 to mention not calling the police. As in, "Listen carefully! DO NOT CALL POLICE!" And then continue with the note. Any explanation for that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would be an alternate reason for the RN?

      Discouraging PR from calling the police wasn't the sole purpose anyway. The RN also provided JR time to send PR/BR to stay with friends, and an excuse to go out driving around in the boonies to deliver the ransom, and of course in reality disposing of the body.

      CH

      Delete
  103. Since JonBenet's body was placed near the Christmas tree, is it possible those unidentified fibers came from whoever handled the tree prior to the Ramseys buying it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Various unsourced fibers were found. I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. Many people had been in and out of the Ramsey home that month. They had party there, workmen were there, and as I recall they could have been part of a house tour at some point, not sure though. And yes, unidentified fibers could have already been on that tree. Including unsourced "touch" DNA as well.

      Delete
  104. Hello DocG,
    I have previously commented on various posts, and I have read your ebook. You explanation is the only one that makes sense to me. I was so relieved when I found this blog, and I have a hard time understanding why some people discount your theory. I also completely agree with your assessment on the Amanda Knox case.

    That brings me to something off topic. I am really interested to know if you have a theory on what happened to Madeline McCann? I have struggled with that case for several years, trying to have a reasonable explanation in my head, and so far I haven't found one that I trust. I struggled with the Ramsey case until I found your explanation and now I agree with your assessment. So if you have a theory on the McCanns I would love to hear it. I have read many blogs and other sites but I am not sure what is true facts and what is not. Lots of the documents are not in English so that is another problem I have. So many people present contradicting "facts" that I don't know what to believe. In several ways the McCann case has many similarities with the powerful parents, intruder theory, staged break-in, etc so I am really intrigued by it, and even if the case is never "solved" meaning someone convicted for it, I would love to be able to settle up a theory that makes sense and is a reasonable explanation. So if you have spent any time on it and would like to share your observations and express your common sense theory, I would love to hear it.

    Thank You
    GSW

    ReplyDelete
  105. Thanks for your interest in my opinion. I got interested in the Ramsey case initially because the parents were refusing to be interviewed by the police, which struck me as outrageous. And I got interested in the Amanda Knox case because it seemed such an obvious injustice. But ordinarily I don't follow such cases and Madeline McCann is no exception.

    From what little I've read it seems very different from the JonBenet case or the Amanda Knox case because there is so little evidence to go by. And if I've learned anything from the cases I have followed, it's important not to jump to conclusions until you've studied all aspects very thoroughly. So I'm sorry but I have nothing to offer regarding Madeline McCann other than the hope that she was simply abducted and not murdered, and that she could still be alive.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Doc, I am responding to your above post that responded to my questions here. First off as always I appreciate your thought out responses to everybody's questions, that has to take a lot of patience.

    One thing that you brought up is something that I would love to discuss further. Was the purpose of the RN to get PR/BR out of the house or was the purpose of the note to allow John to leave the house alone to have the opportunity to dispose of the body? The note talks specifically about going to the bank with an appropriate attache, so maybe John's intention was to allow him to get out of the house with the body in the trunk as you mentioned. Once the body is in the trunk, JR could have disposed of it and come home with the money awaiting the phone call from the "kidnappers."

    On this site there has been a TON of discussion about the “staged” window scene in the basement and rightfully so. Doc’s theory is that John didn’t tell anybody about the open window because he wasn’t able to finish his staging and therefore knew it would look suspicious. So, what I think is a more likely scenario is that the window in the basement was always meant to be an exit point for JBR’s body. Clearly JR couldn’t have risked walking through the house with her body, so his only chance to get it out would have been via the basement window with the body in a bag OR a suitcase. It just makes sense because John could have gone outside, and loaded a suitcase in the trunk without any real suspicion.

    Alright, so what I believe is that after the murder takes place, John has the body in the suitcase or a bag ready to transport out of the house AFTER Patsy reads the note. But, what JR clearly didn’t expect was for PR to dial 911 and dial it so quickly after reading the note. John then disappears downstairs and has to take the body out of the suitcase because that clearly would have been bad for him. John then stashes the body in the windowless room to await his next move. The reason for not telling the police about the window is because an “entry” point of an intruder probably wasn’t something he was considering since he was going with the “person who broke into the house must have had a KEY” story. The body in the suitcase may have even been in the window grate the whole night as the grates would have hidden what lye below.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  107. I think JR planned on taking the body out of the house via the garage, after he got Patsy and Burke out of the house. Taking it through the garage and putting it in the trunk of the car would be something he could do without any risk of being seen. I think it would be too great a risk to push a suitcase up through the window and then go outside and grab the suitcase and take it into the garage. If a neighbor witnessed that, it'd be all over for him.

    I believe the purpose of the note was to afford him more time to complete his staging and to get rid of the body. Getting Patsy and Burke out of the house would allow him to do both of these things. So the RN had both purposes you ask about: getting Patsy and Burke out of the house AND disposing of the body.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, bb, I agree. That's more or less how I see it.

      Delete
  108. Hi everyone, please forgive me for "derailing" the discussion. I have some questions I was hoping you could address Doc.

    1. First, is there ANY documentation beyond what is already known from Thomas/Kolar regarding Fleet White and his wife? Have you ever reached out to them? (I'm not suggesting you should, just curious).

    2. Do you have any additional information beyond what is on the blog already regarding the other friends within the Fleet White circle of friends? I know it's speculation (and we try to avoid that here) but any thoughts on WHY the White's have done nothing to speak out? I would imagine that they strongly hope for justice and know that speaking out could damage a prosecution, but man, I would love to know what they know. What I am specifically getting to on the inner circle of friends is, are there other known close friends who also "turned" on the Ramseys or had strong suspicious too? Obviously, many believed that Patsy did it, but I am SO curious about John's male friends and their take on his behavior after the body was discovered.

    3. I have been devouring this blog, I've probably gone through about 85 to 90%. Is there an area of the blog where you "flesh out" the CIRCUMSTANTIAL case exclusively on it's own, and have a post devoted solely to that part of the case? I totally realize that soooo much of what everyone is gabbing about does indeed get into that (which then devolves into too much speculation), but I don't recall perhaps a separate posting that is just devoted to that? I would love to read a building of the circumstantial prosecution (while temporarily ignoring the FACTS). Just so that I could truly weigh how strong the circumstantial case is as it compares to the facts...I would love posts devoted to White and Ardnt too.

    Mugise

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as Fleet White and the other friends are concerned, there is all sorts of "information" out there, some accurate, some dubious, but all very interesting and complicated. I recommend the book "Perfect Murder Perfect Town," which contains a lot of that sort of info. Also the Ramsey Case Encyclopedia and ACandyRose, two very informative web sites. It's very easy to get distracted by all the truly amazing details regarding some of the various players in this case. You really do need an Encyclopedia to get through it all.

      Now as far as making the case against John, yes, there's a blog post where I summarize that case (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-case-against-john-ramsey.html) -- also a chapter in the book.

      Delete
  109. 4. How about updates on Linda Arndt? I read that 2006 newspaper interview of her....where's her book? Have you ever tried reaching out to her? (Again, I'm sure she wants to be left alone but I would give a million bucks to have her explain Patsy's last visit with her and explain that newspaper interview too). And on the Linda Ardnt interview.....did you interpret her comments to mean that she had CHANGED her viewpoint on who the killer really is? I wasn't quite certain and that fascinates me too. Obviously, she can be influenced just like Thomas or Kolar, so I'm not putting stock into her theory, I just wonder about where she stands today on the identity of the real killer.

    DocG, you have without question solved this case, at least for me. We can all quibble about the details regarding the events, motive, and try to fit every tiny piece of this puzzle together, but the truth is, the entire puzzle will never be complete even IF they prosecuted him. Those questions we all have about how, why, when, how many times did he molest her, what happened that night, those will remain unanswered. I will say this though, and I apologize if I'm repeating, but wouldn't the most likely scenario be he molested her first (not in her bed, urine soaked), "rewarded" her with a snack, and then maybe her vaginal area was hurting a great deal, and she either started crying (or didn't) and just showed that she was really really upset and said, "I want mommy". I mean, this entire murder could have occurred because an injured child said those three words. His fear of being discovered would have been that strong that her even uttering those words could have been enough for him to do the unthinkable rather than be called a molester and lose everything. I don't know, and we'll never know. DocG and everyone else, I thank all of you for engaging in thoughtful, energetic discussion. Even when I strongly disagree, I appreciate the group efforts and comments. Last but not least, WHY oh why don't I see evidence of more of us reviewing Doc on Amazon??? The best way to get this case attention is via Amazon, social media and emailing producers for 48 hours imo. Let's at least get on Amazon people! ;-)

    MugSie, sorry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda Arndt is another one of those very strange personalities involved in this case. It's clear from the interview that she suspected John, but she was always very careful not to spell that out -- probably on the advice of a lawyer. Interesting that she attempted to bond with Patsy, which suggests that her view of the case may not be that different from mine. I'd love to have a talk with her or correspond with her about this case, but I have a feeling she no longer has any desire to deal with it.

      Imo she got a raw deal and lost her job as a result of other people's incompetence. Did she ever publish a book? If so, I'd love to read it, but I've never found any reference to one.

      As for the murder itself, I've been torn for some time between two scenarios. One in which the murder is preplanned, out of concern that she might say something during their upcoming trip -- the other in which it plays out more or less as you've suggested, a more spontaneous, last minute decision.

      Thanks for urging more people to review the book at Amazon. That would be helpful, yes. The book got around 12 or 13 reviews fairly early on but that seems to have been it for some time now.

      Delete
  110. Doc, thanks so much for the reply! I read Thomas over the summer, am finishing Kolar now, and also purchased PMPT. I apologize for some of my questions, even after I sent it I found some of the answers to my questions on other forums. The amount of documentation on this case that is available on the web is absolutely staggering.

    I just wanted you to know that I was on several forums and saw where you were banned LOLOL! It's amazing how threatened people are by the idea that Patsey didn't write the note. And it is equally amazing that no one is willing to second guess the original "expert" opinions on the note, particularly because the handwriting was disguised!!!

    That's it, thank you for an amazing blog and book, I am thoroughly the reading.....

    Mugsie

    ReplyDelete