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

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

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

Monday, September 22, 2014

Premeditation Revisited

Back in July 2013, I presented a theory, prompted by some comments from someone calling himself "Pete," that John could have premeditated the murder and could therefore have prepared the "ransom" note in advance. You can find that post here. My theory prompted a lively debate in which considerable skepticism was expressed. I admitted then that I was on the fence regarding that possibility. There would certainly have been plenty of time for John to write his note after the murder. On the other hand, it did seem to have been carefully prepared, both conceptually and physically. And if, as I strongly suspect, it had been traced or copied from a computer display, that in itself would have taken considerable time and patience, not to mention a certain amount of trial and error. Not to mention, also, the possibility that his wife or son could awaken at any moment and catch him in the act.

I've been thinking a lot about such problems lately and have to say that my reservations regarding premeditation may have been premature. Initially I had ruled out that possibility because a document prepared in advance would, in all likelihood, have been printed out or typed, rather than written by hand. And why would he have wanted to use paper taken from a notepad in his own home?

However, thinking more deeply about the various possibilities has led me to realize that a printed note is not necessarily the best way to disguise one's identity. John would certainly not have wanted to use a printer from his home or office. Every print head has unique wear marks that enable forensic examiners to identify the printer used to produce any document. If the note could be traced to a printer associated with him, that would be powerful evidence indeed. And if he had made an effort to find a printer not associated directly with him, that too could have been a problem, as the owner of the printer might later have recognized the strange man with the strange request and reported the incident.

It might therefore have occurred to him that, if only he could disguise his hand convincingly enough, the best way to go would be to actually write it out the old fashioned way, with a pen. Perhaps that's when he hit on the idea of tracing (or copying) a computer font. If he did it carefully enough, then it might well fool the "experts" -- moreover, a document printed in a hand that looked so different from his would point away from him to the hand of some unknown "intruder."

There remains, of course, the question of why he'd have used paper from his own home rather than just go out and buy some. I think it likely he might not have given much thought to the possibility that the note could be traced back to Patsy's notepad. We now tend to take this discovery for granted, but in fact it was a very lucky break that one of the investigators happened to notice the match. John would have needed paper. He might not have wanted to risk buying some, since the clerk might later recognize him. The simplest thing, as far as he was concerned, might well have been to simply appropriate Patsy's pad. It was a standard notepad of a type that can be found just about anywhere.

One more question remains. I have always maintained that John could have destroyed the note before calling the police, claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned. If that had been part of his plan, however, then the simplest thing would have been to print the note rather than taking all the trouble to write it by hand. Now I believe that this might not have been John's plan after all. He might have been confident enough that the computer font he'd copied would have fooled the investigators, so handing them the note might not have been a problem for him and, if they could not figure out who wrote it, then it would be added evidence for the existence of "the intruder." (And of course his confidence was justified, since he was in fact ruled out.)

I must at this point consider the possibility that the note could have been prepared in advance, not by John, but by a real intruder. To this end, I'll simply repeat what I wrote in my earlier post:
Of course, someone close to the Ramseys could have taken the notepad with him, written the note on it, and then returned. Which sounds good at first, until one asks oneself: why? The only reason for doing that would be to make it look as though one of the Ramseys wrote it, but that would work only if the intruder actually forged John or Patsy's hand. But there is no evidence of that, and none of the document examiners on either side of the fence ever suggested the note could be a deliberate forgery. A "ransom" note written by an intruder, or one that looks like it was written by an intruder, could be seen as intruder evidence, so if the intruder were trying to set John or Patsy up, why would he leave a note in his own hand? Well, obviously, he wouldn't. So if the note was written ahead of time, it could not have been written by an intruder.
Now let's see if it's possible to recreate John's actions, assuming that he did in fact premeditate the murder and write the note in advance:

First of all, it's not likely he would have made his decision very far in advance, because JonBenet could have exposed him at any time. It's possible the decision was made as late as the day before Christmas or Christmas day. John could have spent time online researching various kidnap scenarios and kidnap notes, copying and pasting certain details, such as "Don't grow a brain" or  "any deviation of my instructions" or "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies," etc. Once the note was composed on his laptop he'd have been ready for the next step: getting it on paper. Oh, and by the way, a word processor such as MS Word will normally copy a backup of your document to your hard drive -- however, that is a feature that can be disabled, which John would probably have done. He could also have saved it and subsequently erased it in such a way as to make it unrecoverable.

It's possible that his trip to the airport on Christmas day (which seems like an odd thing to do on Christmas) could have been a cover for his going somewhere surreptitiously to pen the note. He could have taken the notepad with him to the airport or anywhere else where he could work in private. He'd have opened out his laptop, placed a sheet of paper over it and simply traced, line by line, the word processor layout, from the display. Or else just copied it, being careful to reproduce the layout as precisely as possible. For the details of how he could have done this, see this post.

When he was done, he'd have kept the three completed sheets hidden inside the pad, then returned to the house and hidden the pad in a drawer. It's also possible that, at the White's party, he could have managed to drug Patsy and Burke's drinks to make sure they'd sleep soundly.

That night, after everyone had gone to bed, he would have awakened JonBenet, distracted her with a pineapple treat, and then assaulted her. He would then have wrapped the body in the blanket and hidden it away carefully in the windowless room, in case Patsy went looking for her after finding the note. He would also have done at least some staging in the basement, including breaking the glass in the window pane. Finally, he'd have retrieved the notepad, extracted the three sheets and placed them on the staircase where he knew Patsy would later find them. This would explain why those sheets were never folded or creased. They would have been kept in pristine condition inside the pad until ready to be displayed.

By that time it would have been close to wakeup time, so he would have headed to the shower, the sound of which awakened Patsy.

I'm still not completely sure it happened that way. It's still possible the note was composed and written down after the murder. But as I now see it, the possibility of premeditation does seem more likely than before.

88 comments:

  1. Interesting theory--but wouldn't John also then create evidence of an intruder then, such as grass or dirt on the floor or steps of the basement--not enough for Patsy to necessarily notice, but enough for law enforcement to find? kp

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...I think if it was premeditated he would have also planted more intruder evidence than simply the broken window and packing peanuts. He could have also rubbed off paint chips around the window for example, implying an intruder entered that way. I read there was a lot of old paint chips that would have come loose and fallen off if an intruder went through the basement window. Doesn't appear to be premeditated very well for an intruder scenario, IMO. kp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, for one thing, John did create evidence of an intruder: by breaking the window and, as you say, strewing the peanuts on the floor, also placing the suitcase under the window. And he could easily have rubbed off the paint chips and smeared the dust and dirt on the sill while in the basement on the night of the murder, so his failure to do that has nothing to do with premeditation. Evidently he either didn't think of doing that or else he was rushed and decided to complete his staging the following night.

      As for the rest, if we assume he completed the note while (supposedly) at the airport, by the time he returned the family might have been preparing to leave for the party at the White's. Also, it would have been extremely risky for him to do any staging outside the house as a neighbor might have spotted him and reported the suspicious activity later. Also, Patsy might have wondered what he was up to. It's possible he might have been planning to do more staging the following day and/or night, but of course he never had the chance.

      Delete
    2. I do not believe he thought of proving an intruder to Patsy. I believe he thought the note would be enough to scare her out of the house with Burke. I think once his plan was foiled by Patsy's call to 911, he had to get to the basement and produce what he could of an intruder, hoping too fool the cops.

      Delete
  3. Why would he place the note on the stairs for Patsy to find if he had additional staging he was planning on completing?
    The credit you are giving John for logically planning out this murder- to then place the RN on the stairs and hop in the shower?
    No doubt he would have understood the importance- as your theory contends- to ensure that Patsy does NOT making that 911 call.
    I am sorry- but ultimately if John planned this crime, I think he would not have chosen a time when Patsy and Burke were simply sleeping. As far as the drugging, is there anything evidence to suggest this happened?/
    It seems like John is logical / methodical when it fits the theory- and Patsy is utterly clueless and easily manipulated when it fits the theory.

    Looking at the crime itself- it was not a quiet attack,that you might imagine to simply silence a potential whistle blower..it was a sexually motivated violent ordeal...
    Sorry but all I see in this presentation of premeditation is speculation and conjecture.
    OWL

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to disagree about the premeditation. First, I don't really think JonBenet was killed to silence her, at least as Doc presents it. I don't think John would resort to pre-planning her murder just to keep her quiet. Certainly he could have said or done something that would keep her from telling. At 6 years old, I don't think that would be difficult to do. After all, we all agree that John had some "hold" over Patsy and even could have used "gas lighting" to get her to back his preposterous window story, so certainly he could make sure his 6-year old daughter kept quiet. And with his money, he could bribe her with anything she wanted. Or he could have held the threat of taking her out of her pageants if she told. Or he could come up with some horrible lie that if she told, she would be taken away from both daddy and mommy. I think it would be easy to manipulate her, just as he did Patsy.

    But I do think something happened that night that caused an immediate threat for John: being CAUGHT IN THE ACT. JonBenet could have struggled with him and started running away or even crying for her mommy, which may have caused him fear of being caught that night. Being caught in the act vs. just told on are completely different. You can always just deny the allegations if you've been told on. But how could he explain to Patsy why he was up with JonBenet in the middle of the night?

    Second, if he had planned this in advance, he certainly was smart enough to come up with a better plan where he could dispose of the body FIRST. For instance, he could have taken her out for some Christmas shopping, then drove her to a remote spot, killed her and then hid her body. Then when he returned to town, he could report her missing, claiming she got lost in the shopping mall or parking lot or public bathroom. That would be a much simpler plan than a plan which involved killing her in his own home, having to stage a kidnapping, including writing a ransom note, with the great risk that someone might actually discover the body before he had a chance to remove it.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think he could take her somewhere, like shopping, or to the airport with him on X-mas day, then kill her. He could, but it would be highly suspicious. He would be the last one known to be with her. It pretty much had to be a scenario where he a Patsy wake up and find JBR gone.

      CH

      Delete
  5. We are well into speculation here, so I can't really say yeah or nay. I can say it doesn't strike me as the most likely situation.

    There might be many reasons we could think of for writing a RN by hand, but it strikes me that the very best one is that JR suddenly found himself in need of ginning up a phoney kidnapping to cover a murder and couldn't really leave the house, so he had to use what was at hand.

    I like the idea that he may have realized the "experts" could be fooled with a handwritten note, copied over a computer font, but I don't see a reason to link that to premeditation. He would most likely have had his laptop with him at home anyway, so he could still trace the computer font. recognizing that it won't look like anyone's handwriting. I would also suggest that the use of the sharpie was deliberate (there must certainly have been a few ballpoints around) because the sharpie's irregular lines would make it even harder for the "experts" - unless of course there were many prior exemplars written in sharpie, which seems unlikely.

    If JR was anything like the computer people I know, he'd have been able to compose much faster on his laptop than by hand. I think even if he's pressed for time (e.g. not premeditated) it makes sense that he'd use his laptop.

    I'll repeat some of what I said way back on that thread where Pete raised the issue. The RN doesn't seem to me short enough to have gone through an editing process, which would probably happen if it were written in advance. There's an old joke about a writer handing his editor a story and saying "Sorry, I didn't have time to make it shorter". Often the process of editing gets rid of things, such as needless repetition. Some repetition of the threats is understandable, but there are more than needed. It's really hard to say whether the note would read differently if it had been gone over a few times. I understand some of the elements need to be there to give him a reason to go driving around looking for a dump site, but I still feel it didn't go through much of a revision process. Just speculation on my part.

    I might agree that he didn't think of the paper being traced, but it's really difficult to say. It certainly wouldn't have taken too much thought to realize that the paper could be traced to PR's tablet.

    The bottom line for me is that a handwritten 2 and a half page note just doesn't strike one as realistic for an actual kidnapper. It's one of the many things that make us reject the intruder theory in the first place. It strikes me more as something done because there are no other options. He needed a RN, he can't go to the all night stationary store, and he can't use his printer.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  6. It should also be noted that if it were premeditated, then more than just the RN would have been considered beforehand. Some elements of the staging were not as convincing as they could have been (suitcase vice chair, sill not disturbed even though the ledge is disturbed). There is also less room for saying that he ran out of time to do x, y, or z, as the note is done and other details have been planned.

    CH.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone makes good points, so thank you. However:

      Though, for me, the facts point very clearly to the who, I'm not at all sure about the how. And it looks like there's no easy answer. I've been bothered for some time by the length of the note and the planning that must have gone into the whole kidnap staging scenario, plus the time and effort necessary for John to have traced or copied the computer font from a computer display -- and it does seem likely that this is how he was able to disguise his hand. I'm bothered also by the quotations in the note, taken mostly, it would seem, from popular kidnapping movies. If John had planned his staging in advance he'd have had an opportunity to look for this type of material online and paste it into his note. Otherwise we have to assume he had all this in his head -- and at a time when he'd have been under tremendous stress.

      And speaking of stress, there is little sign of it in the note, which reads to me like something carefully thought through, with no grammatical errors and only two spelling mistakes, printed with consistent spacings and careful adherence to the guidelines and margins.

      So, it's not so much a matter of defending a theory, as trying to understand the evidence and how it got that way. I'm not convinced by the argument that he would not have wanted to kill her from fear of exposure and must have done it spontaneously in a situation that got out of hand. We have no way of knowing what his motive was, but it would certainly have involved fear of exposure in any case, and there is no reason to assume he would not have formulated a plan to murder her ahead of time. For some, premeditation might seem unlikely for psychological reasons, but not for me. I see no point in trying to analyze his thought process, because I simply have no means of getting into his his head. And assuming he'd have made it shorter if he'd had time to edit it doesn't work for me either -- we have no idea how long it might have been before he'd completed the final version. It could have been much longer for all we know. So I simply follow the evidence as it stands -- and the evidence does suggest premeditation as a serious possibility.

      My previous reasons for being so tentative in this regard have turned out not to be as compelling as I first thought -- and everyone can feel free to disagree. A hand printed note might have in fact been easier to disguise than a printed one. Using paper and a pen originating in the house can be explained if he assumed they couldn't be traced and were the least dangerous choice (since buying paper could have raised suspicions later).

      Also, by planning the murder in advance he would have had an opportunity to drug Patsy and Burke, which could explain why he wouldn't have been afraid of awakening them the following night.

      Whether he might have come up with a better plan is a moot point. As CH argues, just taking her to some quiet spot, killing her and claiming he lost track of her would not have been a very good plan, especially in the wake of the Susan Smith case.

      I'm tossing these ideas out for what they may be worth. I do see some problems with the theory that has him planning the staging and writing the note after the murder, while in a panic and pressed for time. But it's not at all clear that my premeditation scenario is any better. As I see it, though, it does look like real possibility that needs to be taken seriously.

      Delete
  7. I agree with OWL....if this was pre-planned then why leave the critical discovery of the note to chance? Patsy could have run screaming out the front door....it was a crazy risk to take, as history proved. She called 911.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying they must have been in it together? Or that they are both innocent and an intruder did it? I think I've offered more than enough reason for seriously doubting either of these possibilities. So if Patsy made the call, as we know she did, then John did in fact take exactly the chance that bothers you. As I see it, he'd have had no choice. Even if John had been the one to "discover" the note, there would still have been the risk that Patsy would call the police. No way he could have prevented that short of tying her up.

      Moreover, I don't see that this aspect of the crime would have been any different if it had been premeditated. In either case, he would still have hoped Patsy would be frightened enough not to make that call.

      Delete
    2. No, I was just speaking to premeditation....I think if it were premeditated he would have engineered more control over the "reveal" of the note.

      MM

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. Doc: "I do see some problems with the theory that has him planning the staging and writing the note after the murder, while in a panic and pressed for time. "

    I am not sure he is a guy who panics. While not without flaws, the plan to finish the staging after moving Patsy out of the house seems sound. The note, to me, does not seem carefully planned. It seems like a guy channeling some kind of caricature of his wife and The Perfect Crime in his head while he writes....it is a ridiculous ransom note and a Hail Mary pass all in one. But he convinced himself that the threats would scare Pasty enough to keep her quiet....not anticipating her panic. Not really knowing her at all.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
  9. If this was premeditated, we can assume John put a lot of thought and planning into it. He would have had plenty of time and, as Doc suggests, plenty of time to write that ransom note. With that much time vested into his plan, I just cannot see him allowing Patsy to make that 911 call and foil the whole thing. That would be a detail he would have rehearsed over and over in his mind because, after all, his whole plan hinged on her NOT making the call. But she did. I think she took him by surprise. He was NOT prepared for that, which tells me the plan was not well thought out.

    If, however, the murder happened spontaneously, as a result of a fit of rage, he would have only just thought of the kidnapping plan and things just wouldn't be as carefully thought out, with mistakes more likely to happen, like Patsy making that call.

    And what dressing JonBenet in the oversized panties? If this were planned in advance as a kidnapping and he truly thought he'd be able to get the body out of the house, why bother to redress her at all? And even if it were part of his plan to redress her (that certainly doesn't make sense if he wanted us to believe an intruder kidnapped her), he would have had some fresh clothes hidden away, or at least he would have known where to find the right size underwear. I have always felt that those oversized underwear were grabbed at the last minute, while he was rushing around in a panic, in the dark, finishing his staging and hiding the body. It's not something that seems planned at all.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree that the 12s seem more like something chosen out of desperation. I have always felt that the 12s were probably available in the basement and were used because he couldn't go back up to JBR's room for fear of waking PR. But it's all conjecture. In the end, I'm not sure why the size 12s were used, but it's very hard to see them as part of a well thought out plan.

      Of course, if it was premeditated, that doesn't mean it would be the perfect crime. It's still possible he'd make mistakes and not think of every detail.

      CH

      Delete
  10. If John absolutely did not want 911 called, why wouldn't that be the first sentence in the note--in bold letters. As in, Listen Carefully! Do Not Contact Law Enforcement If You Want To See Your Daughter Again.
    You are well into the strange, confusing verbiage before that is advised. That also suggests to me that the letter wasn't written ahead of time. kp

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree. If planned ahead, he would have a solid plan to keep Patsy from calling. Again, if he was such a masterful manipulator, certainly he could think of something ahead of time to absolutely convince her that calling 911 would mean she'd never see JonBenet again.

    And even though the actual preparation of the note would have taken some time, especially if done as Doc suggests by copying the text printed from a computer, I actually think he had that time that night. He could have had up to 4 hours to stage things. Moreover, it seems like the content of the note was created spontaneously. The tone of the note starts off quite differently than the ending. And as for the quotes from movies used, I don't think he would have to look those up. I think he simply remembered those lines, especially if he liked those movies. And unless he was actually trying to frame Patsy, which has crossed my mind from time to time, I can't understand why he would PLAN to use those quotes or other phrases ("good southern common sense", "fat cat") that Patsy might find suspicious if she connected them with John. These are things I think he thought up on the spur of the moment trying to make it look authentic, without realizing they might point to him. Furthermore, would he have made those crossed mistakes if he prepared this note in advance?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If planned ahead, he would have a solid plan to keep Patsy from calling."

      And what sort of plan would that have been? Sorry, but I don't see any advance planning that could have made a difference as far as Patsy's response to the note was concerned. It's already filled to the brim with warnings NOT to call the police or else. What more could he have added that would make a difference? I seems to me that John just assumed Patsy would take those threats seriously and probably didn't worry too much about the possibility of her calling 911 after all.

      In any case, I don't see any relevance to the premeditation issue. No amount of pre-planning could have guaranteed Patsy's going along with the intentions of the "kidnapper."

      I agree that there would have been enough time for him to put that note together after the murder. But the note just seems too well thought out and the writing too carefully executed to have been a rush job. It's certainly possible, though.

      Delete
    2. 2 points;
      The logic that his only option to prevent the 911 would be to tie Patsy up is poor.
      First- he could have woken her said " Try not to panic. I found a ransom note, Jonbenet is gone. We must follow directions or they will kill her."
      Never allow her to react to the note without his presence.

      Second- Supposedly Patsy foils John's plans completely by calling 911- then days later her is so certain he can 'gaslight' her into backing his window story. Another commenter point out the timeline, and how he banked on her backing his story.
      This seems a bold assumption after being unable to convince her not to call 911- which if the letter had been genuine, he WOULD have tied her up to prevent the call.

      Delete
  12. I want to echo some thoughts bb shared with us. We have evidence of a murder, but not of the motive, we can only guess at that. I have always had trouble believing that he killed her to silence her. The reason is simple, most abusers don't kill their victims. Most abusers find ways to keep the victim silent with threats, promises, shame, etc. I think if we just ask ourselves what's probable, as opposed to possible, an unplanned/unintended killing is more likely than premeditated murder. So while it could be that JBR was threatening to blab and was killed to keep her quiet, it strikes me as more probable that the events of the night went horribly out of control, resulting in her death, and necessitating an ad hoc response.

    How does everyone feel about the method of killing vis-a-vis premeditation? If it had been thought out in advance that means JR actually chose to bash her skull as his preferred method of execution. While this is certainly possible, I strikes me as more consistent with sudden rage. Either way, all we have is speculation, but I have a hard time thinking that he planned, a day or two ahead of time, to bash his daughters skull. I'd expect he'd have chosen a gentler way. But who knows?

    As for the garrotte, that could be either part of the premeditated plan, or improvised when it became clear she wasn't dead from the skull fracture. But that raises the age old question, why not just thump her again if the first blow didn't seem to kill her? After all, that was the chosen method of killing, if it was premeditated. Also, let's keep in mind that while there was no blood from the skull fracture, is this something that could have been counted on as part of the plan? Would JR have wanted a bleeding head to deal with ? It's always struck me that the garrotte was employed because of it's certainty in causing death, and it's silent bloodless nature. But then, why the skull fracture? If he needed to kill her in her own home then he needed to do it quietly, and as cleanly as possible.

    We don't know whether or not the RN had been through a process of revision, but we do know that IF JR planned to let the authorities see a handwritten RN, hoping that his tracing trick would throw off the "experts", he still would be giving them a handwritten note. Most kidnappers cut some letters out of the newspaper, or print off a note, or type it. So, from the POV of the police, this would be a RN in the kidnapper's handwriting. That would have to raise suspicions, even though it's not going to be possible to link that handwriting to any individual. So, while JR might have been able to throw off the experts with the scenario Doc suggests, he'd still be detracting from the believability of the intruder scenario. He'd still be asking the police to believe the kidnapper left them a 2.5 page sample of his hand writing.

    A second point about editing. The whole "foreign faction" angle seem not to have played much of a role in the investigation, nor in JR and LS's theories of an intruder. I've always had trouble understanding why the FF angle was included. It doesn't seem to add to the believability of the RN. As hard as it is to believe that an intruder did X, Y, and Z, it's even harder to believe it was done at the behest of a Small Foreign Faction. It's impossible to know what JR had in mind here, but given that he doesn't push this during the investigation I'd suggest it was just something half-baked thought up in an adrenalin rush, not something carefully considered, not something that would withstand the process of revision. For his purposes it doesn't really matter who the kidnappers are, and really the less said about who they are the better. But, as with all speculation, who really knows?

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm less convinced that others seem to be that if it were premeditated JR would have taken greater precaution to prevent the unexpected 911 call.

    I think he believed that PR would read the entire note start to finish. That's probably what he himself would have done, had it been real. It probably never occurred to him that someone would read far enough to just know there had been a kidnapping then call 911. I've always thought the objective of the first threat was to get the reader to read the instructions. Apparently PR skipped the instructions, or simply thought it was just bravado and that their best bet was to call the police. This would explain why she didn't caution the police to send unmarked cars, which I think she surely would have done were she in on the plot with JR.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  14. I actually think the thought of premeditation is very interesting and creates a completely different wrinkle when looking at the case.
    One thing that I didn't see above that I am curious about people's thought are, is the actual manner in which she was killed. I truly never understood why if John was killing her to shut her up, why crack her over the head with a flashlight/bat/golf club? Unless it was done out of a sudden rage, it just seems odd that he would take the risk of blood everywhere, when he could have just choked her or any other number of ways which would have been cleaner.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the head blow could have been planned and not necessarily spontaneous. For one thing, a forceful head blow, while it might seem quite violent, is in fact the most merciful way of killing someone, as the victim would feel no pain. Also, the nature of the wound strongly suggests that the maglite was used and I find the use of that particular instrument remarkably coincidental if we're talking about a spontaneous act of out-of-control rage.

      Hitting her over the head with just about anything else he might find handy would almost certainly have produced lots of blood. It seems to me the maglite could have been deliberately chosen because its hard rubber casing made it unlikely to draw blood.

      Of course, even if blood had flowed, that would not necessarily ruin his plan, since the "kidnapper" could have assaulted her in the house before taking her.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure JR knew enough about anatomy or about flashlights to feel confident that cracking her skull with a rubber covered flashlight wouldn't produce a lot of blood. I think most people would find it surprising that someone could be hit in the head that hard, with any object, without drawing blood. The question is did JR know this ahead of time? I'm skeptical.

      In response to your statement -

      "Of course, even if blood had flowed, that would not necessarily ruin his plan, since the "kidnapper" could have assaulted her in the house before taking her."

      I can't disagree, but I would note that he did clean up the bleeding caused by the SA, and that too could have been attributed to the "kidnapper". And with the body gone (if things had gone according to plan) the blood couldn't even be said to have come from SA. It would just be more blood resulting from the attack by the kidnapper. It does appear from the facts that he wanted to avoid visible blood at the scene. Evidently then it had not occurred to him to blame the blood on the kidnapper. Would he have considered that possibility had he planned it ahead of time?

      He had limited options as to method. He couldn't use a gun because of the noise. He could use a knife if he wasn't concerned with blood, but it appears that was a concern for him. We know she wasn't poisoned or drugged, so even if these were considered they were for some reason rejected. Again, I doubt he figured on cracking her skull without drawing blood. We can reasonably infer from the facts that the garrotte was applied because the blow to the head did not succeed. Would JR have considered to possibility of that method failing during his planning? It would seem to me the blow to the head is not really the best option, if he had time to consider the matter. The garrotte is silent and 100% effective. It's painful, to be sure, but it would all be over in a few minutes anyway.

      I don't find the use of the flashlight too "coincidental" for an act of rage, since he'd have been using the flashlight moving around the house.

      I would say that the level of force used on her head is consistent with premeditation just as much as in a case of rage. It wasn't an "accident", she was hit very very hard. But I do have trouble with the idea that, having given the matter some thought, he chose skull bashing as his preferred method of execution.

      CH

      Delete
    3. I can't agree, CH. "Rage killing" was ST's scenario for Patsy. In a rage over bed wetting. Quite a stretch, as I see it, and I had the impression you agreed. But premeditation or no premeditation, I can't see rage as a motive for the attack by John. As is the case with Patsy, it's really hard to see what sort of rage can cause one to bludgeon one's own daughter with a blow so powerful as to crack her skull from end to end. What could she have done or said to prompt such rage?

      I thought most here agreed with me that the motive was fear of exposure. That's been part of my theory from the start. Now suddenly everyone is seeing this as a rage killing? What prompted that? From the start I've argued that John must have lured her downstairs with the intention of murdering her, out of fear she was about to expose him. That's the only motive that makes any sense as far as I'm concerned. The murder may or may not have been premeditated the day before, but it certainly was premeditated in the sense that he would have made up his mind at some point that she had to go, even if that decision was made a few minutes before the assault.

      So I don't see "rage" as a motive regardless of whether the note was written ahead of time or not -- though of course we may never know for sure what happened.

      Delete
    4. I don't think the problem with ST's "rage" theory is the unlikeliness of it. After all, the many cases of shaken babies dying are purely rage killings brought on by crying. Becoming enraged is part of the human condition. The problem with ST's theory is that both JR and PR would have to be in on the coverup (because JR lies about the window) and we know from the logic of the 911 call they couldn't be in it together, and we know PR wouldn't call the police on herself. It's also more likely that they would have tried to explain the death as an accident. The "rage" part of his theory doesn't seem at all far fetched to me.

      What specifically caused JR's rage? How would I know? Perhaps there was oral abuse going on as well and she bit him in the nether regions? There would be few if any signs of oral abuse. (I was on a jury a couple years ago where a man was abusing his 5 year old making her service him orally, so it's quite possible) Make up any explanation. I'm not obligated to explain everything - I think we can agree that people sometimes become enraged and kill. Sometimes we know what caused the rage, sometimes not.

      What causes JR to resort to murder when most abusive fathers find a way to keep the victim quiet through manipulation? I think we are all agreed JR is a master manipulator. He commits himself on the 26th to having to manipulate PR into backing a story about an event that never happened. He certainly doesn't lack confidence. Since he was successful he certainly doesn't lack skill. So why not apply these skills, that work on a woman in her 40s, to his 6 year old daughter?

      There's nothing wrong with the theory that he killed to avoid exposure, in fact it's a pretty good theory, but it's not a given, and there are reasons to scratch our heads and wonder why he needed to go to extremes when most abusers find less severe, but very successful, methods of keeping the victim quiet.

      A severe blow to the head seems pretty consistent with an act of rage to me.

      The decision to kill her needn't have come before the blow to the head, though it certainly could have.

      "So I don't see "rage" as a motive regardless of whether the note was written ahead of time or not -- though of course we may never know for sure what happened."

      To my mind, "rage" only applies to an unplanned murder. It wouldn't apply to a premeditated murder. If the note was written prior, then we know the murder is premeditated and we know it's not an act of rage. But of course, we don't know if the note was written prior to the killing.

      CH

      Delete
  15. Going with the theory that the note was premeditated, is really poses an interesting timeline and might actually help narrow down the events of the night.

    The Ramseys get home after 9:30 according to them and Patsy doesn't wake up to find the note till roughly 5:30ish am the next morning. So, in those 8-9 hours, the murder of JBR took place. We have all written off a lot of the sloppy staging to the fact that John just wouldn't have had a whole lot of time because the 3 page ransom note would have had to take a significant amount of time to write. SO, if the note was written and completed before that night, or even if he just traced it that night, then we can now take those hours we thought he would have had to be writing the note.
    Im not saying this to dispute that the note was premeditated, because I definitely think it is possible, but it opens up a world of possibilities as to what else happened and why. Assuming he gets her out of bed, gives her pineapple (which could he have drugged her via the pineapple?) then takes her downstairs to kill her, at most that would take 2 hours. So, it just feels like there was a LOT of time to have such a sloppy staging scene. Not to mention if he drugged Patsy and BR, then why not take the body out of the house that night since there is no fear of being caught?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that this premeditation theory alters the "time" element a great deal and basically negates most of the "ran out of time" explanations for why things were not completed. Though this would not apply to the unstaging.

      He couldn't get rid of the body that night, even if PR/BR were drugged. First, a neighbor might see him leave and/or return. Second, he doesn't have the "kidnappers instructions" and can't get them until "tomorrow". Nor does he have the ransom money. So, he has no excuse to be driving around in the middle of the night.

      CH

      Delete
    2. Yes, if the note had been completed prior to the murder, John would have had a lot more time. On the other hand, if the note had been written afterward then John would have had hardly any time at all to do all that was necessary. So take your pick. To me, a scenario that would give him plenty of time makes more sense than one in which he doesn't have nearly enough.

      Of course, we have no way of knowing how the various elements of the note were assembled, composed and, finally written down with pen and paper. It's possible, as J suggests, that he may not have had time for this last step while "at the airport" and may have been forced to wait until after the murder to get everything down on paper. Tracing that 2 1/2 page note might well have taken a considerable amount of time in itself.

      CH still seems bothered by the window staging and why John would not have completed it by passing through the window and displacing all the dirt, dust and peeling paint. I suggested that he may have run out of time, but as CH reminded us, it would not have taken more than a minute or so. And I agree. So I don't see time as a factor in the staging, or the failure to complete the staging. I think it more likely he was just too preoccupied and stressed to pick up every single stitch. Every criminal makes a mistake, so they say. And maybe this was his mistake. Who knows? What we DO know was that John definitely broke the window that night AND that no one passed through it that night. Whatever the reason for the evidence presenting itself as it did, that's how it presented itself, so we have no choice but to accept that. I don't see much relevance as far as premeditation is concerned.

      Delete
    3. "Yes, if the note had been completed prior to the murder, John would have had a lot more time. On the other hand, if the note had been written afterward then John would have had hardly any time at all to do all that was necessary. So take your pick. To me, a scenario that would give him plenty of time makes more sense than one in which he doesn't have nearly enough."

      The note could be written afterward in either a planned or unplanned killing, but only in a planned murder could it be written before.

      I think we would all agree that if the murder were premeditated it's very likely JR would have at least composed the note ahead of time, and perhaps copied it as well.

      Maybe I'm missing something but I don't quite see why the comparison is being made, in terms of which one makes the most sense and gives JR the most time.

      J and I are both (I think) contrasting an unplanned murder with a planned one. We are both pointing out that in the planned murder there is much more time do all that needs to be done, because the note can be written in advance.

      So if your point is that in a premeditated murder it makes more sense to write the note ahead of time, I'd agree. Just as we'd expect a real kidnapper to prepare the RN ahead of time, we'd expect the same in a premeditated murder.

      But if it's not premeditated, then the note can only be written afterward. Despite giving JR less time, the scenario does not make less sense because of that fact. Having less time is in the nature of the unplanned murder.

      I can't help thinking I've misunderstood your point, but claiming one scenario makes more sense than the other isn't really making "sense" to me.

      CH




      Delete
    4. CH, I guess what bothers me most is that John would have been under tremendous stress if he had just clobbered his beloved daughter in the middle of the night -- for whatever reason, either planned or unplanned. Yet the note, and the plan behind it, shows no sign of stress. It's all very carefully thought through and very carefully executed. It would have taken hours to put it all together. Yet in the meantime his wife is sleeping upstairs and could awaken at any time to notice that he's not there sleeping beside her. Sounds almost as crazy as the intruder theory, and just think what a defense lawyer would make of it.

      Of course, the same problems would arise in an intruder scenario, so that's not really the issue. What I like about the premeditation theory is that it takes those problems off the table. So it just sounds a bit more likely to me.

      As far as a "rage" killing is concerned, what I've been reading is that rage is a far more likely motive for murder than fear of exposure, and I'm sorry but I can't buy that. I'm not saying rage is out of the question, but when you're engaged in an incestuous relationship with a six year old, exposure has to be a major concern. And when the victim of this abuse is found dead, I'd say the great majority of investigators would assume she was killed to shut her up. If you want to ignore that and come up with rage as a motive then it seems to me you need to explain how a successful businessman with everything to lose, risks it all in a fit of rage. You also have to explain how rage would result in the victim being struck precisely on top of the head with an improvised club that just happened to be made of a material unlikely to draw blood. When a parent becomes enraged with a child, what we consistently find in extreme cases is the child being beaten to a pulp -- and seriously bloodied. If those wounds result in death, then yes, it's murder. But someone in a rage doesn't strike his victim with a single head blow and leave it at that. That blow was clearly intentional, and carefully executed. So sorry, I can't see rage as a motive.

      Delete
  16. Just my 2 cents- I do believe this crime was totally premeditated. Yet the conclusion I have reached are that John and Patsy committed this premeditated crime together.
    I guess my interpretation of the evidence leads to different inferences;since deciphering evidence is at it's nature inferential.
    I think the murder was planned, the ransom note crafted, and the specific date selected- but the actual manner of executing the crime was not fully considered, just aspects.

    I think she was hit over the head because she fought- and then garroted to ensure she was dead.

    For some reason, the motive for this appalling murder- these parents decided to murder this child. I do not believe she was murdered to silence her- incest rarely results in murder. The incest was just a dynamic of this dysfunctional family. Just another another indicator that this child was a possession to be used at their discretion. John exploited her, and I think Patsy played a role in why she died. They convinced themselves that she could serve them in some capacity through her death.



    BUT some aspects of this crime, I think need to be looked at in a new fashion. Instead common sense-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above comment- OWL

      Delete
    2. If you think they were in it together you need to read the first three posts on this blog.

      Delete
  17. One last thing!
    If we believe that John premeditates the murder and staged kidnapping of his 6 year daughter to silence her out of fear of exposure.
    Then logic would follow that he would do ANYTHING (as evidenced in Jonbenet's gruesome death) to prevent exposure of the molestation. Yet he allowed the 911 call?
    If avoiding exposures was his driving motivation, why not once the note fails to prevent her from calling...just kill Patsy also. He could have simply contended that
    the same kidnapper/ intruder could 'killed Patsy before taking Jonbenet."
    With Patsy gone, he much easier could dispose of the body before alerting the cops.
    OWL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, one more time. When interviewed for the A&E documentary, Patsy said that John went to check on Burke (i.e., he went upstairs), and at that time she told him she was going to call 911, and she then ran downstairs to make the call. While this version might not be completely accurate, it does give us a picture of how easy it would have been for Patsy to fake John out to make that call. There's no way he could have hung onto her all morning. His plan was clearly to frighten her into not calling, NOT to physically restrain her all day long.

      Delete
  18. OWL raises a good point. There is another reason for needing to remove the body from the house. Of course removing it would substantiate the "kidnapping." But, also, if the body was found, it would undoubtably be examined and the prior sexual abuse would be discovered. I think this aspect of the case caused many people to pull away from the IDI theory, if they had not already done so because of no forced entry into the house. Learning that there was "chronic sexual abuse" caused many of us to turn our eyes to a family member. If John wanted to protect his reputation and hide the sexual molestation, he certainly would not want the body found when an autopsy would most certainly be done.

    I completely agree with CH's comments above about the probability vs. possibility of events that night. It is true that most sexual abusers that KNOW their victim rarely kill them. Strangers most definitely have a higher likelihood of killing their victims, for fear of being identified but also, I believe, for the thrill of the kill. But family members rarely resort to killing their victims. I agree that something happened that night and JonBenet was killed out of rage.

    Doc commented regarding the use of the MagLite:

    "I find the use of that particular instrument remarkably coincidental if we're talking about a spontaneous act of out-of-control rage."

    Let's not forget that he was probably wandering through the house with little or no lights on. It certainly would not be a coincidence if he had a flashlight in his hand if he took JonBenet down to the basement and didn't want to turn on any lights for fear of someone seeing those lights on.

    There are plenty of other ways he could have killed JonBenet if he planned to do so in advance. Who premeditates a murder of a family member in their own house while other family members are there?? It's possible, of course, but not probable. Like CH, I view this case from a "what probably happened" as opposed to "what possibly happened." If we talk about possibilities in this case, we could talk on and on and on about every single possibility. But if we limit our thoughts to what probably happened, the scenarios are fewer (and much more believable, in my opinion)

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, I don't understand what you mean by John needing to get the body out of the house. Of course he needed to do that. But if you're implying that a premeditated killing would have made it easier for him to remove the body on the night of the murder, sorry but that just doesn't add up. As CH has already pointed out, someone might have seen him driving away on the night his daughter had been kidnapped. Premeditation would not have caused his car to become invisible or silent, so I don't get the connection.

      I'm not sure why you feel so certain that someone who abuses his own daughter can never be motivated to kill her out of fear of exposure. Where is that coming from? Are you saying "that sort of thing just isn't done?" What are you, British? :-) I'm sorry but I see no reason for such an assumption. Profiling just doesn't cut it for me. We have good reason to conclude that John was abusing his daughter. And if he was then he would certainly have been fearful of exposure. And at some point that fear might have prompted him to commit murder. While there may have been some other motive, fear of exposure has to be right there at the top of the list. If you want to argue for rage then you'll need to give us some examples of what could have caused such an out of control rage? Bedwetting? Sorry, but that one's already been used. :-)

      "Who premeditates a murder of a family member in their own house while other family members are there?? It's possible, of course, but not probable."

      Well how else do you think he could have done it? He heads for the airport. He writes a ransom note. He arrives home in time to get ready for dinner at the White's. And the family gets home from the White's in time for JBR to be put to bed. How would premeditation have given him the opportunity to have done the deed in any other way or at any other time?

      Delete
    2. I realize that incest occurs at all socio-economic levels, but I agree with Doc. John Ramsey had a lot to lose by being "found out" - maybe much more than other perps of his ilk. Also, his victim was precocious. Many victims are easily manipulated but this situation was clearly getting out of control for him, so he had to act. I think having dealt with the death of one child made him see this in a different light -- he thought he would get a lot of sympathy because this was his 2nd child to die and then he would recover and get on with his life, rather than being found out, going to jail, losing his family, losing his means to support the family, etc. Oh yeah, he was motivated. Let's face it, the facts alone lead to JR as the perp. So the rest is really not relevant to me. He had the means, the motivation, the skills, the smarts to pull try and pull this off. He did make mistakes and he did get lucky. On the other hand, the rage theory as put forth by Steve Thomas for Patsy, by all comparisons, is ludicrous on every level. -Anonymom

      Delete
  19. CH: "A severe blow to the head seems pretty consistent with an act of rage to me."

    I defy you to name a single case in which a child was simply clubbed over the head by a parent in an out of control rage, with no other serious wounds, and no blood. Not to mention a followup involving the construction of an intricate device designed to strangle the victim after the beating.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don’t want to rule out premeditation as all along I have felt that JR is by no means a criminal mastermind, so regardless of planning ahead, the plan could still go awry. But, there is a scenario that I think is plausible that could also explain a few things. Lets say JR gets her out of bed, gives her the pineapple and lets JBR know they are going to play there little game or whatever sick thing he called it. Anyways, JBR knows whats coming and tries to get away from him by running downstairs. The only exit would be through the window, so she gets the suitcase to get herself up, breaks the window in a panic stat and this is when we hear the scream heard by the neighbor. At this point, JR clubs her over the head. I am not sure JR ever intended to have that basement window be an entry point as there would have been ample time to stage the outside at any point leading up to the crime. Nothing would look suspicious about a home owner shoveling, doing yard work, etc. I just think that IF he did premeditate this, then there is no way he wouldn’t have at least thought through an entry point for an intruder. He would not pre-write a note and then leave every other detail up to staging it the next day. All of this is why the scenario I laid out could explain how his plan might have gone awry.

    Again, the above is speculation, but so much about the downstairs window just doesn’t add up for me and never has. This scenario provides the reason that it was such a sloppy scene and the staging job was so poor. The RN and plan could have all been premeditated, but it doesn’t mean it always goes according to plan. I am not even sure that John wanted the body in the basement, but her running down there might have forced his hand.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  21. J - we don't know for a fact that she was killed in the basement, right? JR could have carried her down there to hide her body until he could get her out of the house. And, even if he had a another plan for the entry for the "intruder" he still had time to execute that plan. Or, if the window got broken some other way, he could still complete the staging of said window. So I'm not really following you at all. If my child was running away from someone in our house, they would run directly to me, the parent. Or maybe out the front door if really frightened and couldn't get to me. But never would they run to our basement, which is a lot more kid-friendly than the Ramsey's basement. - Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymom – correct, we don’t know for certain where she was murdered, so being killed in the basement is just as likely as anywhere else. Not sure what you aren’t following. In the scenario I presented, JBR would be running from John, her Dad to escape what he was about to do to her. It would explain the scream, possibly the broken window, why the suitcase was there, as she surely would have needed a boost to get through the window.

    I can go along with the premediation theory, because Doc makes some compelling points in reference to the note itself. The part that I struggle with is the downstairs window being pre-planned, as it just seems like it had to be thrown together on the fly. The scream that the neighbor heard may not be anything, but if it is, then it might explain why the staging wasn’t completed. If JBR screams, then JR must have gotten spooked that the scream could have woken up PR or BR and immediately place the pre-written note on the stair and then head up to bed.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  23. Like I said, I can't buy that a 6 yr old would run to the basement. Even if she did, he could have easily caught up with her before she broke the window, assuming a 6 year old would even think to break a window in the basement. That is the LAST thing any kid of mine would do! I don't think we need to get that creative to understand that the breaking of the window by John was not a completed task. There are a lot of things that could have diverted John that night and it looks like he intended to do more staging. I guess we can speculate and conjure up all kinds of scenarios, but just sticking to the facts -- John lied about the window. It also appears that he cleaned up the glass at some point. He had some sort of plan that he wasn't able to entirely carry out, and I think we need to leave it at that. We don't know if the window plan was on the fly or not, you are just assuming that it was done on the fly. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  24. If this was a fear of exposure case- I would expect Jonbenet would have had an 'accident' . Working in the health field, I can attest that a child's body is challenging to determine prior sexual abuse many times. That explains why one doctor (Patsy's GP) did not report finding signs of abuse, and another physician did. To be honest, doctors- like all professions have varying levels of proficiency.

    My point being, a child who drowns, get runs over, or a skiing accident can have signs abuse that are NEVER detected until numerous physicians are consulted.

    So the plan to 'silence your 6 yrs is to bash her over the head, garrote her, assault her AGAIN- adding further trauma- all while your 'drugged wife and son' sleep Christmas night.
    Then leave a ransom note that 'scares' your wife into not calling 911.
    That seems like a HUGE jump in Mode of operation...

    If fear of exposure was the motive then Patsy, perhaps even Burke would have fallen prey to the same "intruder" before he ever would have let any chance of that call being made or body being found.
    OWL

    ReplyDelete
  25. Doc responded to my post:

    "First of all, I don't understand what you mean by John needing to get the body out of the house. Of course he needed to do that. But if you're implying that a premeditated killing would have made it easier for him to remove the body on the night of the murder, sorry but that just doesn't add up."

    No, what I'm saying is IF it were premeditated, he would have come up with another plan that did not involve killing her in the house that night and would also allow him a chance to dispose of the body. Everyone agrees that having that body in the house was a real problem for John, and if he planned this murder in advance, I think he was smart enough to realize that and come up with another plan where he would murder and dispose of the body somewhere else, most probably in a remote area outside of town. For instance, he could have planned to take her to some public place (a shopping mall comes to mind) where he knew they'd be seen together and then he could drive her to a wooded area, kill her and hide her body. Then he would return to the same public place and report her missing, saying something like "she was just here and then she went over there to look at the toys and now I can't find her . . . she was only gone for a minute!" Children and teens are taken from public places often, but not so much from their own home, especially when other people are in the home. I really don't think his plan would involve killing her in his own home because then he'd have to incorporate into his plan a way to get the body out of the house, as you've theorized. Certainly he would have known he'd be taking a HUGE risk in both killing her in the house and then leaving her body there until such a time when he could get everyone out of the house so that he could remove the body.

    "While there may have been some other motive, fear of exposure has to be right there at the top of the list. If you want to argue for rage then you'll need to give us some examples of what could have caused such an out of control rage? Bedwetting? Sorry, but that one's already been used."

    I absolutely DO think he killed her out of fear of exposure . . . AND rage. Don't worry . . . I'm not suggesting the rage was from bedwetting (that is definitely absurd). But, what if she started to scream during the assault, or started crying, or started to run away saying she was going to tell mommy. How would he explain that to Patsy? Essentially, he'd be caught in the act. I think he clubbed her over the head when she created that fear of exposure, that night. A sudden and spontaneous fear of exposure, if you will, coupled with rage at her for defying him.

    When looking at the facts of this crime (you've taught me well, Doc), I see a 6-year old who has been sexually abused both before and during that night, staging that is incomplete, a kidnapping story that is far fetched, a HANDWRITTEN ransom note and a body in the house. If this was premeditated, he did a terrible job of planning.

    And, no, I'm not British, but I'd love to visit the UK! ;-)

    bb


    ReplyDelete
  26. bb: "When looking at the facts of this crime (you've taught me well, Doc), I see a 6-year old who has been sexually abused both before and during that night, staging that is incomplete, a kidnapping story that is far fetched, a HANDWRITTEN ransom note and a body in the house. If this was premeditated, he did a terrible job of planning."

    Exactly. This whole topic is absurd and has started me wondering more absurdities such as: perhaps DocG is JR in disguise, and he is covering for and protecting his son after all these years. Taking the fall for him, out of love. Tossing out the occasional red herring, stirring up the debate that always always centers around JDI. Never any other possibility. If the crowd starts to wander, then it winds back around to JDI alone -- but now perhaps pre-meditated JDI....and we're off following that trail!

    But that would be silly sentimental imaginings on my part, as much as it would make a lovely story. As you always say, Doc, stick with the facts. And the facts lead us to believe this was a crime of passion and impulse that was subsequently covered up in an incomplete and sloppy manner. If JR really wanted to murder his daughter, he should have put her on a plane to Michigan and taken her for a winter walk on the pier in Charlevoix. MM

    http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/33/68/f7/3368f76ce4daa73336fb4b2790864ebe.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  27. "No, what I'm saying is IF it were premeditated, he would have come up with another plan that did not involve killing her in the house that night and would also allow him a chance to dispose of the body."

    etc.

    Interesting. This is starting to feel like a chess game. Or, actually, more like a simultaneous chess tournament, in which I'm pitted against a host of geniuses trying their hardest to beat me at my own game. Well, my computer regularly beats me at chess -- no matter what clever moves I make it's always one step ahead of me. More like a dozen steps, actually. What ARE they teaching computers these days?

    But you guys aren't computers (thank God) so I still think I just might have an edge. We'll see.

    Anyhow, back to the drawing board -- (or should I say Chess board?):

    "I absolutely DO think he killed her out of fear of exposure . . . AND rage."

    No not rage. (See what I've written on that above.) But panic, yes, panic is a possibility. He's arranged to be with her that night, as before, and they are doing the usual thing. And then out of the blue she says something that leads him to believe she's about to spill the beans. At that point he realizes he has no choice but to get rid of her. And so he grabs that maglite and coldly clobbers her over the head. And when he realizes she's still alive, he strangles her. Then, after pulling himself together, he begins to formulate his plan. Possible, yes.

    But I'm still bothered by several problems. For one thing, they are due for an early flight to Charleroi and will need to get up around 5:30. They've just been through a long Christmas day, with all its excitement and activities. JonBenet is fast asleep -- in Patsy's words, "zonked." And John must be exhausted as well. So: is this really the time for a sexual encounter? And wouldn't it be enormously risky to try that with Patsy and Burke in the house? There would surely have been many opportunities for him to be alone with JonBenet, with no danger of anyone catching them in the act. So why take such a risk? And on that particular night, when they would both need all the sleep they could get?

    And of course that's only one more problem with the prevailing theory (admittedly the theory I myself cooked up). I've already listed the others. So, on balance, both the spur of the moment theory and the premeditation theory seem to have problems, which tells us what we already know: this was NOT the perfect crime. John got lucky.

    Would premeditation have led to a safer strategy? Could he have simply pushed her off a cliff while no one was watching? Or "lost" her at the shopping mall? These are possibilities, yes. But in the wake of the Susan Smith case, I really doubt he'd have wanted to try anything like that. The whole world knew what this lady had done to her little boys, so claiming he'd just lost track of her, or that someone grabbed her out of the blue was NOT going to fly.

    continued on next comment . . .

    ReplyDelete
  28. Another thing to consider is the timing. If the murder had been premeditated a week in advance, then maybe there would have been time to concoct something simpler and safer. I can't imagine what it could have been, but you never know, he might have come up with something better than what he actually tried.

    But if his decision had been made only a day in advance, as I suspect, then his options would have been very limited. I do have a feeling he could have worked on the note while (supposedly) at the airport, which might have been his only opportunity to get away from the family and be alone. If so, then by the time he got back, they'd be getting ready for dinner at the White's, so even if he might have considered some other plan, there would have been no time to execute it.

    And actually, his kidnap staging was imo a very good plan that could certainly have worked. He'd have had no way of knowing Patsy would have called 911 in spite of all those warnings. If it were my kid I'd have taken those warnings very seriously and would probably have tried to go along with the "kidnapper's" demands -- especially if the ransom was something I could afford. So I feel sure Patsy's call must have taken John by complete surprise. Which would explain why he didn't try to prevent her from making it. He probably never had a chance. She caught him off guard.

    So, as I see it, premeditation cannot and should not be taken off the table. Imo it's as reasonable a theory as any other JDI theory, and as far as I'm concerned does seem a better fit when we consider all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Doc..other then the 3 window panel in the basement, was there also another window where a chair was found underneath it? There is a picture showing another window propped open with the chair right underneath it..just curious

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that photo was the source of much confusion at first. Turns out it wasn't a window, but the entry to a crawl space in the basement. I don't think anything suspicious was found there.

      Delete
  30. Doc, you are being a really good sport; especially after someone facetiously remarked about you being JR in disguise, which would have really hurt my feelings, even if said in jest. A chess game is exactly what this line of conversation has been like! I'll admit that because I'm no real genius and certainly not a super-sleuth, I can't make total sense out of some of the ideas put forward recently. It seems that some of the speculation is based on assumptions about what a person would do if they were planning a murder. And that presents a problem for me, because as we know there aren't a whole lot of perfect murder plots. There are people who get away with murder, for sure -- due to luck, bad police work, failures by prosecutors, inability to find bodies, and even due to juries (thinking of the Casey Anthony trial, where the jury wanted nothing short of a smoking gun to convict her). I really do think John hatched a fairly quick plot; it was not perfect but he is arrogant enough to think that he had it pretty well thought out. I do think something happened within the prior week or so that made him realize he was about to be exposed, and it may not have been something JB said. For instance: Linda Hoffmann Pugh said that Patsy had been moody and easily agitated prior to Christmas. I don't think her meds or illness were the reason for this -- anyone who has ever been sick like her can tell you that chemo doesn't make you behave that way; plus I believe she was in remission at the time. It could have been the stress of the Christmas season, yes. She did have a lot going on socially and may not have been up to it all. But...what if Patsy had been worried about the many doctor visits needed for JB? What if she made a remark to John about JB's medical visits? What if she said "you know John, I can't figure out why JonBenet keeps having these yeast infections and vaginal problems. It is so odd for a child this age! I need to get to the bottom of this -- maybe see another doctor or get some tests run. She is constantly complaining about the itching and discomfort and now she won't wipe herself and calls me to do it. She's even picky about what she wears because of the discomfort of certain clothing and I have to fight with her to dress appropriately for the weather!" Wow - he realizes that someone is going to start examining JB more closely and questions will be asked. He believes she will make this appointment for as soon they get back from their trip, and he's got to do something quickly. He also has to be worried that these constant requests to be wiped will continue over the holidays and will cause a conversation between Patsy and JB that will reveal the incest. I think this is the most likely scenario to me. I tend to look at all of this from the angle of what dynamics typically happen in a family. I know a bit about incest because my paternal grandfather, who on the surface was an upstanding person and loving parent/grandparent, was accused by female cousins of committing incest. The accusations came out after he died, and most of the family believe these cousins are being truthful. I believe them, too. Yet he never touched me or made advances toward me. I do not know why but I think it is because he knew I was an outspoken child who was not afraid to speak out, and that my parents were very attentive and protective. My point is, incest is very secretive and John probably thought he could stop this before it got too dangerous for him, but then JB started having the infections. He didn't want to kill, wished he'd never gotten himself into this mess, but he was not willing to go to prison for incest. He probably realized this was going to come out eventually and that he had already ruined/scarred JB for life, so he justified that this course of action was the best action. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Anonymom. Your ideas make a lot of sense. Another aspect that should be kept in mind is the upcoming trip to Charleroi, where JonBenet would have had an opportunity to confide in her half-sister Melinda, with whom she might find it easier to discuss such matters than her mother. The trip, on which they were due to embark the following morning, may have forced his hand, since once they were traveling with family it would be much harder to pull off such a plan or anything like it.

      Delete
    2. Yw, Doc. Yes, I agree that with all the issues going on with JB and her bedwetting, asking for help when using the toilet, going to the doctor, it was definitely going to come up. Maybe they planned for Melinda and JB to share a cabin on the Big Red Boat, with Burke, John Andrew, possibly Melinda's boyfriend in another cabin, and parents in a 3rd cabin. JR had to have realized that with JB and Melinda together in that cabin, Melinda would catch on to the toileting issues, and being a nurse herself, might have noticed something, asked JB about it, and Melinda would bust him. The fear of his adult child being the one to bust him would have been horrifying, too. - Anonymom

      Delete
    3. " . . . he realizes that someone is going to start examining JB more closely and questions will be asked. He believes she will make this appointment for as soon they get back from their trip, and he's got to do something quickly."

      But killing her would not eliminate someone examining her. She was still examined, just dead when they did it. And, in fact, they did see evidence of prior sexual abuse. How prior is uncertain. Dr. Wecht says the "chronic" abuse meant that it could have happened days or possibly a few weeks before she was killed. But there was evidence that she had been abused before the night she was killed. So . . . the only way John could prevent anyone from finding this out would be to dispose of the body.

      bb

      Delete
    4. Well, first of all John might have been planning on burying the body so it would never be found.

      But also it looks like the digital penetration that produced the acute injury and drew blood could have been done to give the impression that her hymen was damaged by the "intruder." He could have hoped this would have masked the evidence of earlier, more gentle penetrations. He probably had no way of knowing that the ME would spot signs of "chronic" inflammation.

      Delete
  31. I know that most on this site just go with the long term sexual abuse as being fact, but it isn't. Wecht concluded it to be the case, but on other sites I have read that other experts said it either wasn't conclusive or they didn't believe it to be the case. That specific night I believe it to be factual that she was molested, but the long term abuse isn't. Which is why I still don't believe John killed he to silence her. Even if she was being molested over a period of time, the guy traveled all the time, and probably didn't go with her to all of her pageants, dr visits, etc. In your scenario Anonymom, why not silence PR?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  32. J - you can manipulate young children for quite some time, but after they start school and start learning about inappropriate touching, or become old enough to have a voice of their own, that's when a perp has to start fearing exposure. And JB was just getting to that age, plus she had all those issues. So what if he wasn't with her all time? What is your point? That he had to be physically present in the house to keep her from talking? She could talk at school, at church, at the neighbors, or on play dates in other homes. Does he silence all of those people? I think this had just gotten to the point where he realized that any day now she could talk. Assuming he did abuse her before, we don't know how often he did it. He may have done it so infrequently that he hoped she would forget about it, not realizing that it was wrong. But something either let him know that she now knew it was wrong and could tell someone, or something in Patsy's concerns or remarks about medical tests, scared him into taking action. I don't put much stock in any experts who were not directly involved in the case. Those who were said they found signs of irritation that would not be located there unless there was some sort of penetration. Linda Arndt attended the autopsy and what she saw with her own eyes had a big impact on her. One example I can think of where JB might develop a new awareness is that she had been asking various adults to help her in the bathroom. At some point, either those adults or even Patsy might have admonished her that its not appropriate to have male adults wipe you, that she should wipe herself or only ask for mommy to help with that. I know you enjoy this point-countpoint type of discussion, but you really need to play out your theories further. Are you saying JR should have killed PR to silence her? He already had a good idea that ovarian cancer was going to take care of that. Everyone knows most people don't survive ovarian cancer. Would he then have to silence Grandma, Melinda, babysitters, housekeepers, etc? On that note, I wonder why LHP was let go. I'll bet John complained to Patsy that she wasn't doing a good job and told her to get someone else. He might have realized she saw too much and was too close to JB for his liking. -Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymom - A few posts above I laid out a theory of JBR running from JR and trying to escape via the window and who was the first person to disagree with that theory? That would be you. The point-counterpoint discussion isn't something I just like to do, that would be everybody that posts on this site. Im not trying to argue with you specifically, but a while back I had the very same discussion with Doc. The "silencing" her motive is just not something that I personally believe to be the case. IF JR was molesting her over a period of time, he apparently wasn't too concerned with traveling and being out of the house as much as he was. But then randomly he decides that JBR is becoming a liability so he offs her with a flashlight to shut her up. Listen, it very well have been the motive, but your theory, my theory, Doc's theory is purely speculative. Its all well and good to stick to the facts, but even after the facts, here is what has been answered:

    WHO - No idea...most likely John, Patsy, Burke
    WHERE -Ramsey house
    HOW - hit over head with object, then strangled
    WHY - No clue! There is absolutely no way to definitively know the motive
    WHEN -Sometime between 10pm and 5:30 am

    So, Im not trying to argue with you, but if we are sticking to just "facts" then I will give you one. The BPD has CLEARED John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey of any wrongdoing in this case. That is a FACT, but it doesn't mean its right. I enjoy your post's as much as anybody else's and look forward to the next

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J - I think you're wrong about that last fact. The BPD has not cleared anyone. The investigators (or at least some of them), ruled out John as as the writer of the ransom note but did not out and out clear anyone. They said the Ramsey's remained under an umbrella of suspicion. We now know that the jury voted to indict both Ramsey parents. Alex Hunter chose not to prosecute, presumably on the basis that you had to have more than just "one of them did it" to carry a case forward. Not prosecuting is not the same as clearing them. Burke was not named in the indictment. Mary Lacy, the DA who came in after Alex Hunter, gave a statement about the Ramsey's being cleared, but everyone knows that statement held no sway with the BPD, and we all know she was wrong in her naive interpretation of DNA analysis. The new DA, Stan Garrett, reopened the case in 2009 and turned it back over to the BPD. As far as I know the case is now open but inactive.

      You don't believe JR was motivated to silence JBR...you totally discount the point that with a young child you can get by with this behavior until they reach a certain age and understand more about why private parts are "private" and learn that being touched there is inappropriate? No one is suggesting that John made a "random" decision...the theories on motivation all assume that events, developments, behaviors led John to do what he did. I would suggest you read the stories of many people who were abused as children to understand how it all started off in their cases.

      As far as your posts, I don't get what your theory is, so I can't agree or disagree with you, all I can do is comment on what seems far-fetched. What I said is that I could not imagine my children running down to our basement (at age 6), getting a suitcase, and knocking out a window to run from somebody. They would come running straight to me, or maybe out the regular door they used if they felt they had to get outside because they couldn't get to me. So that was given as an opinion based on my experience with 6 year olds. I also said JR would have caught up with her before she could break the window. Do you disagree with that? Also, I'm not clear what this running from John attempts to explain -- just the reason for the broken window? So you think JR chased JB and scared her enough for her to have enough adrenalin to break a basement window and climb out, but that is not the behavior of an ogre-daddy who could kill? Ie. what was she so afraid of that she would do what you suggest? And in that scenario do you think he would or would not hit her to stop her? I'm just not clear on what the chasing of JB out the window is attempting to explain. Of course there is a lot of speculation going on, but some of it jibes with human behavior that makes sense, some of it does not. -Anonymom

      Delete
  34. Quickly, it was the DA, not the BPD so my apologies, but they were cleared by DNA. Obviously I think one of them is guilty

    Anonymom - I said in my previous post about theory that I was speculating, so I want that to be clear. The "JBR running from John and trying to escape out the window" theory would explain why A) the window was broken and B) why the neighbor possibly heard a scream. I am not asking you to agree or disagree with me, it was just a scenario.
    I will say what I have been saying again, but the "silencing" motive just does not work for me because there would have been SO many other times for JBR to talk and apparently she didn't. IF JBR did talk, it would have been to Patsy or the doctor and we most likely would have heard about that. People keep saying she was going to talk, but she hadn't, so why would John just figure he must bludgeon her over the head? In your theory you present an idea that PR wanted to get to the bottom of itching or a yeast infection...which is interesting. BUT then out of nowhere, JBR is found dead by John in the basement of their house. Patsy must have really been the dumbest person alive if she couldn't put that together.
    -J

    ReplyDelete
  35. I actually re-read your post about JBR running downstairs and breaking the window…….you make a good point about her probably running upstairs to Patsy, I didn’t really think about that. I do think a neighbor potentially heard a scream that night because I don’t know how you would mistakenly hear something like that. In order for that scream to have been heard though, the window would have had to be broken, which is why I came up with the scenario I did.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even while standing on the suitcase JonBenet would not have been tall enough to reach that upper pane on the window that was broken. And there would have been no need to break the window in any case, because it was latched from the inside. All she'd have needed to do was unlatch it and open it.

      Delete
  36. unfortunately the handwriting and linguistics experts have eliminated both Ramseys as authors.

    as for a theory as to who killed Jonbenet
    http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. I've already read similar posts regarding Mr. Cruel, and assume they were also yours.

      Very sadly there are a great many psychopaths out there who prey on young girls and in many cases the girls are abducted. So you'll need some really compelling evidence if you want to link this particular individual with the Ramsey case.

      This is especially true since the MO appears to be so different. In fact, JonBenet was NOT abducted, but killed in her own home. Also a ransom note was left, but I don't see any copies of any ransom note on your website, so I'm assuming Mr. Cruel never left one. Also, Mr. Cruel's crimes were committed in Australia, making it difficult to associate him with a crime committed in the USA. And if there were any evidence of his presence in the USA I'm sure you'd have included it.

      Finally, there was no evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey home that night and no reason for any intruder to have done all that was done, including leaving a note written on paper from the home and hiding the body in the basement.

      So I'm sorry but I can't take this theory very seriously. However, if you can find any samples of Mr. Cruel's handwriting I'd be interested in taking a look.

      Delete
  37. First : you try to convince us by saying that an intruder would never write a letter by hand in advance without being certain the hand writing look alike at least one of the Ramsey's writing style...i agree ! but elsewhere last year you try to convince us that the writing is much more like john instead of Patsy , and with some arguments you cleared Patsy for the letter...so YES the intruder did his job very well here , what experts can say about the fact that the writing style not belong to them...experts opinions is zero because this intruder was very convincing in this letter , good enough to convincing medias and 99.999 non experts in the world 2:writing a note out of the house , in airport or anywhere else is much more dangerous for him to be seen , it's not every day you will see a 40+ y.o guy writing a note on a laptop in public place , airports are full of camera so he would need to hid himself for at least couple of hours ! it's much less dangerous to buy paper in store !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, good. Excellent! You're very perceptive. These objections do make a lot of sense, for sure. Here are my responses:

      1. Yes, imo there are some remarkable similarities between certain aspects of John's writing and the note, and as I'm sure you've seen, I've put together two sets of comparisons to illustrate this. You will also recall, however, that I did NOT claim that my comparisons proved John wrote the note -- only that he should not have been ruled out. And don't forget that very similar sets of comparisons have been made between Patsy's writing and that on the note. In both cases the comparisons were made on the basis of selecting certain very suggestive similarities, and ignoring all the many differences. Cherry picking. That's what was done with Patsy -- and I've admitted that this is what I did when I compared the note with John's writing. I looked for similarities and ignored differences. My case against John does not depend on such similarities but on the facts of the case as a whole.

      The identification of certain similarities does NOT tell us the note was forged. At best it tells us that at certain points the writer may have gotten careless and allowed his own writing style to manifest itself, from time to time. If the note had been an attempt at forgery, the "experts" would certainly have noticed that, especially because forgery is usually what they are hired to detect. This is, in fact, where their expertise really lies.

      A true forgery would have looked so much like John's hand that he could not possibly have been ruled out -- the experts would have noted the similarity to John's hand and concluded that either he wrote it or that someone tried to make it look that way. Same if there had been an attempt to forge Patsy's hand.

      We must consider also the very strong possibility that the note was traced or copied from a word processor, as I demonstrated in my post entitled "Courier New." If someone were attempting to forge someone else's hand, they would certainly not go to all the trouble of copying a computer font. They would simply try to make the note look like the writing of the person they are trying to frame. So, while I do see some very suspicious similarities between certain exemplars from the note and certain of John's exemplars, I do not see any evidence of forgery. On the contrary, the effort to copy the computer font tells us that the writer was simply trying to disguise his own hand.

      2. Yes, John could have been taking a significant risk of being observed while copying the note on his computer. However: 1. we don't know the exact circumstances. He might have gone to his office rather than to the airport. It was Christmas day so no one else would have been there. He might have known about a private place at the airport where he could safely work. Again, on Christmas day very few people would have been there. Finally, if he couldn't find a completely private place to work during the day, then he might have composed the note on his computer during that time, but waited until after dark in his own home to trace or copy the computer display.

      As far as buying paper in a store is concerned, don't forget this was Christmas day, so most stores would have been closed. If he conceived his plan that day or the day before, as I suspect, he may not have had an opportunity to buy any paper. Using paper from Patsy's notepad might have been the simplest and most convenient thing for him to do. And he might not have realized that these sheets of paper could be matched to the notepad. That possibility might not have entered his mind.

      On the other hand, the note might have been conceived and composed after the murder, when he would have had no choice. We have no way of knowing for sure.

      Delete
    2. Tx very much for this long and good explanations ! ...i will surprise you , but i still prefer to think he somehow J.R have found a way to write all this after the killing , i still believe you were right about almost anything in your very strong theory...for me writing the letter before weakens a very solid theory by opening the door ;-) for a possible intruder in the scenario

      Delete
    3. Yes, my premeditation theory might possibly open the door for an intruder scenario -- I've considered that. But I believe it's important to consider all possibilities, regardless of whether they support my theory or not. In fact, nothing would please me more than to learn that John is innocent and JonBenet was murdered by an intruder and not her father.

      Unfortunately for John, however, the premeditation theory cannot be used to support an intruder theory because, as I've already point out, someone who wrote the note on paper stolen from the Ramsey home would only have done that if his intention was to frame either Patsy or John. But someone with such an intention would have forged Patsy or John's writing. And we see no sign of that. Also there would be no reason for that person to go to all the trouble of tracing a computer font instead of forging the hand of one of the Ramseys.

      Finally, we know from John and Patsy's testimony regarding the window break-in that John's story is an obvious lie. That, coupled with all the many other reasons to suspect John, makes it really impossible to consider any intruder theory.

      Delete
  38. in my last 2 posts , i have to admit NOW (after thinking about your last mail here) that you may be right again !! premeditation can explain the DNA Under pants and Jonbenet fingers and also THE air in the towel ...so if i think the way you are in this case (facts only !) J.R could have planned all this with the letter ! so he wrote and prepare the DNA samples and the air (easy to see in a white towel !!) only to protect himself in case police find the body somewhere in the woods or anywhere else...BUT the last minutes set up is telling me that he didn't planned at all not being able to get out the dead body...with a letter like that i woudn't be surprise to see that some DNA and hair remains to a co-worker at J.R working place !!! thanks to re-interresting me with this interresting case and sorry for my poor English i try to be as clear as possible with my poin t ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no reason to believe John planted the DNA, even if the murder was premeditated. Only fragmentary bits of DNA were found mixed with her blood, at first. (The DNA under her fingernails was from lab workers.) And it was only years later that very tiny bits of "touch DNA" were also found. If John had planted DNA it would have been much more obvious. And I'm not sure what you mean by a "white towel." What towel? Also what do you mean by "the air"?

      Delete
  39. sorry that was HAIR in the towel ...

    ReplyDelete
  40. I've read your blog and most posts. I'm not convinced at all (0%) by your theory. With minimal circumstantial evidence, you immediately derail. You conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, no intruder. With the no intruder theory, you then point finger at JR and concoct a grandiose fantasy of what JR did. Any and all of your alleged JR actions COULD have easily been done by PR, since she was also there. Why not PR the perp and JR sleeping? You cannot prove or disprove that either way without an eye witness and/or forensic evidence of either, which does not exist. Burke was 9 for crying out loud and showed no previous violent or behavioral issues that I've ever heard.
    If an intruder is going in, what do you think they're doing? Making a whole bunch of noise and touching and disturbing everything they see? Quite the opposite. With use of something called GLOVES, FLASHLIGHT, and common sense, you could easily STOP, spot spider webs and things to avoid, and proceed. Plus if I'm sneaking through a basement window, I'm not touching the sill where all the dust and dirt is (TO NOT LEAVE TRACES). I'm using gloves to touch the glass only and gently push forward. Snow did not exist on the grass by the window. One could EASILY be in or out in about 10 seconds or less.
    JR was well known in the area. Boulder is liberal and therefore, anti-success and anti-wealth. JBR was also known, to some degree. It was known, yet not widely reported, a high concentration of pedophiles living in the Boulder area at the time of incident. A crime of opportunity existed for most likely one or two individuals, liberal, anti-success/wealth, most likely a pedophile, and definitely grossly violent, most likely a murderer who has already gotten away with it.
    This was a small faction, however not foreign as noted in RN, whose intention was a kidnapping for ransom. It's not a ruse at all. Take it at face value instead of trying to disprove everything.
    They went in, got the girl. One of the kidnappers is most likely to have known JB personally to get her out of her bedroom. Friend or acquaintance of the family. They get her to the kitchen, she says she's hungry. OK, give her some pineapple. Kidnapper drops the note. They coax her to the basement, and which point one of the kidnappers makes clear she's leaving the house with them. The girl suddenly gets extremely scared since she doesn't want to leave her family/house, panics, and starts screaming. One of the kidnappers covers her mouth and JB starts kicking and is in tremendous fear. Due to her small and light stature, she gets hit on the head by one of the kidnappers to shut her up, or her neck gets twisted. As soon as she's injured, the gig is up. She can no longer be returned unharmed as planned in the RN. One or more of the kidnappers get violent, both because of their own devious, out of control, violent nature and the fact they're not getting any money. The kidnappers fearing someone may have awoken in the house, decide not to go back and retrieve the note and get the hell out of there. Could have been one individual, or two at the most in my opinion. A getaway car was probably a block or so away and they were gone, probably forever.
    Even though I know you're only trying to solve the case and get input from others, your blog is very disrespectful to the family. They've been exonerated, I believe since 2008 by the state of Colorado and issued a formal apology. Do you think they seriously would have done this if there was any smallest of small trace it could have been JR? You really believe a switch was flicked and suddenly JR goes ape s*it violent? I do believe it's a possibility she was being abused, but not by an immediate family member. I'm sorry, but your assessment just holds zero weight, and the State of Colorado clearly agrees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My thinking on this case is based on facts, not simply circumstantial evidence (though there's a lot of that too). If you read the first two posts you'll see how the facts point us in only one direction. No intruder theory makes sense because no kidnapper would enter the home without a note prepared in advance, a pedophile or burglar would not bother to write a ransom note and someone wanting to frame John would have forged his hand. It's really that simple.

      If Patsy were involved, she would not have called 911 knowing JBR's body was still in the house. Leaving only: John Ramsey. Again, it's pretty simple when you follow the facts and refuse to allow yourself to get carried away by fantasies.

      Delete
    2. This blog is total amateur hour. Your "theory" is all hypotheticals...If this and If that. Then you take it a step further and make conclusions based on false assumptions.
      "A burglar would not bother to write a RANSOM note during a kidnapping?" Ok.......
      JB was initially hit on the head and nearly dead at that point. The perp or perps finished the job and left her there. It was pointless driving her around in their get-away vehicle dead. Pretty easy to identify them at point, especially since its easy getting pulled over at 3am with nobody on the road.
      Your deranged fantasy of JR is simply laughable. And Patsy is excluded because she "called 911"????
      Why wouldn't Patsy call 911 if she was involved? Of course she would!! To deflect suspicion obviously. However, that's not how it went down. When you are so pigeon holed on one person and one theory, you let the real perp or perps slip away.

      Delete
    3. "No intruder theory makes sense." A true investigator or crime solver would never, ever say this. Everything/all scenarios are always on the table, until they can be iron clad dis-proven by FACTS only, NOT "well this couldn't have happened because blah blah blah (circumstantial/conjecture)." Unfortunately yours is not based on facts at all, and your blog is a blatant witch hunt against the Ramsey family. Beyond sad.

      Delete
    4. Take a deep breath and try to settle down. Getting emotional is NOT the way to deal with any criminal case. The evidence must be considered dispassionately.

      Now, for one thing, I'm far from being the only one who's convinced there was no intruder. Almost everyone who's written on this case rejects the intruder theory. From the reading I've done I get the impression that almost everyone in law enforcement rejects it. The world's leading forensic pathologist, Cyril Wecht certainly rejects it. The lead investigator under DA Lacy rejected it. And as we now know, the Grand Jury, which saw all the evidence and deliberated for a very long time, also rejected it.

      So get off your high dudgeon and try to see this case objectively. There are a great many very good reasons for rejecting the intruder theory. I've mentioned the ones that have impressed me the most but if you read through this blog you'll find a whole lot more.

      Delete
    5. "Everything/all scenarios are always on the table, until they can be iron clad dis-proven by FACTS only . . . "

      No. It's not necessary to disprove every single possible scenario, that's ridiculous, because there are literally an infinite number of them. I've demonstrated the extreme unlikelihood of any intruder's presence, and also, that no intruder scenario makes sense. In a trial, it would be up to a jury to decide whether or not to accept such evidence and such reasoning.

      Nevertheless, since you mentioned facts, here are some facts:

      FACT: There was no sign of entry or exit at the basement window. The police reported no sign of forced entry anywhere.

      FACT: All the doors were initially reported as locked by John, though he later backtracked on that. No matter, since a policeman double checked.

      FACT: No footprints were found by police in the layer of frost and snow on the lawn. Lou Smit's attempt to disprove this report by means of a photograph taken later the same day means nothing because the layer of frost would most likely have melted by then and in any case would not have been visible on the photo even if it were still there. The patches of snow are irrelevant because the police described a pervasive layer of FROST as well as patches of snow.

      Could an intruder have managed to avoid the lawn and use a key to enter via one of the doors? Yes, that's a possibility. But everyone with access to a key was investigated and their DNA was taken. No match of either handwriting or DNA was found. And if the attacker was a total stranger who managed to get hold of a key, how did he persuade his victim to eat pineapple after removing her from her bedroom? How did he know about the windowless room and how to latch it? How did he know that Patsy would walk down that spiral staircase first thing in the morning?

      FACT: someone who attacked JonBenet with bare hands would have left his DNA all over her body and her clothing, not to mention the "garotte." Not to mention his fingerprints. And someone with gloves on would have left no touch DNA at all.

      FACT: The body was found in a windowless room in the basement and redressed in panties several sizes too large. What motive would a kidnapper have to hide the body and redress it? How could anyone not in the family know where the panties were kept? And why would any intruder bother to redress his victim?

      You insisted on facts, so now you have some. There are many more but I don't have all night.

      Delete
  41. Also, your most absurd assessment of all is the RN is traced from a computer monitor by some type of font?? Are you serious? It's sloppy handwriting, a computer font? It's purposely disguised written left handed by a righty. It's as easy to tell as the sky is blue. The lines aren't straight, the words aren't even written straight. Words at the beginning of a new line (almost every single one) are slanted up, common tendency of writing with opposite hand. As the line progresses, it slopes down, another common tendency of opposite hand writer. To say this was traced is the absolute furthest thing from the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The writing on the note contains both right and left slanted letters, suggesting the writer was ambidextrous and using both hands alternately. (The sample we have from John is back slanted, by the way.) Neatness was not an issue and the tracing or copying was probably done in haste. However, if you look carefully you'll see that the left margin is carefully observed on almost every line, the between word spacing is uniform and all i's are dotted and t's crossed. Also the layout of the first 15 lines conforms precisely to the layout of a typical word processed text, as I've demonstrated. (Do a search on "Courier New")

      Delete
    2. Absolutely not. There is zero evidence they "alternated" hands. The writing is far too uniform and consistent. It was definitely not an ambidextrous person, or it would have been much neater. Geez, no wonder why this case hasn't been solved with cracker barrel conclusions like this.

      Delete
    3. You're the one offering conclusions regarding the handwriting, not me. I'm simply suggesting some possibilities. What makes you the expert on handwriting, may I ask?

      Delete
  42. First, odd things the Ramsey have said in interviews that lead me to my theory-

    1.JR said "I know JB was asleep because I struggled with her getting her out of the car and I almost dropped her."

    2. PR said, "John carried JB upstairs and I ran after him, or in front of him."

    3. PR said, I couldn't find any pajamas for her so I put her in long johns." I never before saw the underwear she was found in." (Not true, Patsy bought the teenager size underwear JB was found in, she later admitted she bought them for someone else, but JB wanted them.)

    4. JR said, I put JB on the bed and undressed the top half of her and let Patsy, you know, do the rest. I went to help Burke with a toy and put him to bed"

    The following is my theory:

    The Ramsey's arrive home after attending a party and dropping off presents. I believe, JB naturally struggled and fought JR carrying her and he ended up dropping her, explaining the scream heard by a neighbor, and JB's smashed skull. She probably screamed and cried after hitting her head hard on the front stairs into the house. This would also explain the scrapes on her check and shoulder.
    Patsy takes JB to the kitchen to ice her bumps and put a tea bag on her eyes. (There was a tea bag in a glass of water found on the table with the pineapple.) She feeds JB some pineapple and puts her to bed. Perhaps not realizing how bad her head injury is-JB is already dying.
    JR sometime before midnight creeps into JBs room, the molestation gets a bit rough, she starts to cry or scream and he strangles her.

    JR now needs to cover not only a murder but ongoing molestation.
    He takes JB to the basement, sits over her and fixes a garrote, getting her hair caught in the twine, he sees she is bleeding in the crotch area while changing her underwear, to a pair she never wears because they are too big. and wipes it with a rag (proven at autopsy), his mind is racing, he's thought of a kidnapping scenario before, or fantasized it, now he will put it into play, he needs time though and the family is leaving town in a matter of hours.
    He knows Patsy will be up first, in his mind he needs a "ransom note" long enough to be left on the stairs and catch Patsy's attention before she heads off to awaken the children, one of which, is not in her bed. It would have been smarter to leave a scrawled short note on JB's bed, simply saying "we have your daughter", but he knows how to appeal to Patsy's love of mystery novels. I believe he wrote the note, right that moment- the note starts off shaky then, gets better near the end. He did not use a laptop, did not trace a font, if anything, he tried to make it look like Patsy's writing. It is just simple fantasy writing, he disguised his writing, making long "F's", different "a's" switching "d's, giving "w's a flair- only enough to fool Patsy, and to scare her away from calling the police. She did, however call 911 and you can hear JR's angry voice in the background. He has to let it play out, no choice. He was lucky enough to make sure HE found JB, but the police were negligent in asking him to search alone, and that opportunity paid off for JR. Once he contaminated the crime scene and body, he was home free. Speculation would forever rein- the perfect crime, or dumb luck????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry but it's hard to swallow a theory that involves two different assaults by two different people for reasons that are unrelated. As for the rest, I don't have time to deal with all the details, but your theory is based on a great many assumptions that can't easily be substantiated.

      Delete
  43. It was also proven in a video I recently watched, that nobody came through the basement window because there is a visible, undisturbed cob web covering the opening. Burke is too small and frail to have committed this crime, although some say SBTC means Save Burke Through Christ. SBTC probably means nothing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Just a thought. It is known that sexually abused children, mostly boys, will often sexually abuse another child. In this day and age, puberty is occurring at a much younger age than in the past.

    ReplyDelete