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

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

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

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Open Thread

I'm continually impressed by the inordinate amount of interest this case has generated, as indicated by the continual flow of comments. Obviously I'm not the only one who's fascinated, if not obsessed. It's been a long time since I've had any new thoughts or theories to post, so I've decided to create a thread exclusively for your comments and questions (the last set has gotten so long as to be unwieldy). As I've been busy with other projects, I've decided to keep my responses to a minimum, much as I'm tempted to reply to all. I'll respond to questions related to issues that still remain open, but otherwise won't be commenting. Please feel free to discuss the case among yourselves, as in any open forum.

PS: As before, I'll ask that each comment be accompanied by some sort of identifier, either your name or a moniker of some sort. It can get confusing trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.

253 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DocG, have you read about the Mark Beckner AMA on reddit? If so, what are your thoughts on it? I find it surprising that he made comments somewhat alluding to the fact that it was very likely a family member who committed the murder, only to change course and 'regret' doing the AMA in the first place. It just seems weird to me. During the AMA he made comments claiming that the DA who exonerated the Ramseys was mistaken stating,

    "[e]xonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion".

    Furthermore he states that he wishes that the case would have gone to trial stating,

    "[w]ithout this trace DNA, I believe the prosecutors would have moved forward. It is interesting that apparently the grand jury jurors did not find the DNA reason enough not to find probable cause. Personally, I believe if the source is ever found, we will discover that there is an explanation other than belonging to the murderer. There are others, such as ex-DA Mary Lacy who believe the DNA has to be that of the murderer".

    Then he decides he regrets making the AMA stating that he didn't know it was a public forum (which I don't believe personally), and only leaves a comment stating that anything is possible and that "the location of the foreign DNA is significant. This could very likely be the person who killed JonBenet".

    Seeing as you're the only one who's made sense to me in explaining this case to, I'd like to know what you think about this too.

    Source

    http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much for the heads-up, Joseph. I'd read a bit about the Reddit interview, but wasn't able to find a link. Thanks to the link you've provided, I've been able to read the whole thing just now. Very interesting.

      What I find especially intriguing is Beckner's unwillingness to put it all together, despite his awareness of certain key bits and pieces. For example, he claims that failing to separate and interview the Ramseys at the outset was a serious mistake. This, and some of his other observations, strongly suggest that he suspects an inside job. His comments on the inconclusiveness of the DNA are especially telling in that respect -- though later he does an about-face and implies the DNA almost has to be that of the attacker. (Sounds to me like he's afraid of a lawsuit.)

      More than once he answers that, yes, there was evidence of sexual assault prior to the day of the crime. And yet not once does he suggest that John Ramsey might have been responsible.

      At one point he expresses skepticism regarding Mary Lacy's take on Patsy: "Mary Lacy, the DA who said the DNA exonerated them made up her mind years before that a mother could not do that to a child, thus the family was innocent. Even though we pointed out that it is not unheard of for mothers do such things.....and you would know that if you just watched the news."

      This is very revealing, first because it strongly implies that he suspects Patsy, second because he is clearly leaving John out of the mix, as though he can simply be ruled out. But what about the signs of prior abuse? Yes, mothers have been know to murder their children. But sexual abuse of a six year old girl by her mother? I've never heard of such a thing and I doubt he has either.

      As with so many confused and contradictory opinons, offered by even the most knowledgeable people (and Beckner is certainly knowledgeable), he seems to have been completely taken in by the decision to rule John out as writer of the note. Which then extends to John being ruled out as the murderer as well -- despite the obvious connection between John and the prior abuse.

      As I see it, the decision to rule John out was THE decisive factor in this case, and until someone in authority takes it upon himself to re-examine that decision, the case will never go anywhere.

      Delete
  3. With all due respect, I do not share your assessment of the AMA. I haven't read your blog yet but I will take a look at it. I thought Beckner came across as very credible in the AMA because he stuck to facts and did not speculate. I thought it was a very informative AMA.Regarding the sexual abuse, if you think mothers don't sexually abuse children you are misinformed. But more importantly, Beckner stated that BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, he believes what happened is that someone lashed out in anger and hit JB over the head, rendering her unconscious. She was strangled 45mins - 2 hours later and killed at that time. The note and sexual abuse evidence were used to cover up the murder. Yes, there was evidence of prior sexual abuse but the evidence from that night was staged by the murderer. Any way, based on your comment above, I think you do too much theorizing and speculating but I will still read your blog before making my final decision about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Beckner didn't speculate. But if you read between the lines, it's pretty clear what he thinks. And imo he is wrong. If Patsy had clobbered JonBenet by "accident" or in an act of rage, she would have called 911 immediately and reported an accident. First of all, the blow was not immediately fatal, so there would have been hope she could be saved. Secondly, there was no external bleeding from the blow, so it could easily have been reported as an accident.

      Why go to so much trouble, including a brutal vaginal assault on your own daughter, plus a "garotte" strangulation, to stage what? A kidnapping? (no assault necessary in that case); a pedophile intruder? (no phony ransom note necessary in that case).

      As for a mother sexually abusing a six year old daughter: we all know of the many cases where women have reported childhood sexual abuse, often years later, and invariably the perpetrator is a male. While abuse by a female may be possible, I can't recall a single such case. Thus, if, as Beckner reports, we see what appear to be clear signs of prior abuse, then the only adult male in the family HAS to, at the very least, be considered as the possible source. Yet Beckner doesn't even hint at that possibility, preferring instead to focus on Patsy. Why? No sooner was he ruled out as writer of the note, then John became the teflon suspect. Which left only Patsy -- and Patsy simply makes no sense, as I've clearly demonstrated on this blog and in my book.

      And yes, I do a lot of theorizing and speculating, but that's purely to help in understanding certain details of the case. But when it comes to deciding who killed JonBenet, my decision is not based on theory or speculation, but facts and logic. Please continue reading here and you'll see what I mean.

      Delete
    2. As to the idea of patsy sexually abusing JBR, it's even more implausible when you consider PR had ovarian cancer and through the treatment lost her sex drive. She told her housekeeper she lost her sex drive. Then you are left with JR whose wife is not interested in sex, he still has a sex drive and probably frustrated, is psychopathic and would consider what we would think to be unimaginable - using his daughter for sexual gratification.

      Delete
    3. Excellent point. Patsy's decline in sexual drive can suggest two things: that she was not the one molesting JBR and that JR needed to satisfy his sexual urges with someone else.

      Delete
  4. I just went to the Reddit AMA with Beckner using the link provided in the comments of the previous post and it appears that all Beckner's answers have been removed. WTH? I know he experienced some backlash and "remorse" about his participation, but the Q&A exchange should have stood.

    Did anyone out there get screen shots of the discussion and if so, would you be willing to share them?
    Thanks very much,
    Frustrated

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cached site of the original AMA:

      http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

      Delete
    2. NoLongerFrustratedMarch 1, 2015 at 6:57 AM

      Thanks very much, Anonymous!

      - NoLongerFrustrated :)

      Delete
  5. DocG,
    I just found this blog 2 days ago and have read most of your posts. You've brilliantly and convincingly made a case the JR acted alone in the murder and cover up of JBR. Here's my comment: It stands to reason that at some point, perhaps even years after the murder PR must have also come to the same conclusion. She probably deduced at some point there was no intruder, which would narrow the suspects to just the three of them Since she knew it wasn't herself, and she probably ruled out BR, at some point she must have eventually come to the chilling realization that it was JR.

    EJE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Patsy had had any doubts regarding John they would have been silenced by the decision to rule him out as writer of the note. NO ONE associated with the investigation and NO ONE in the media has ever even hinted that this verdict might have been mistaken. So why would she be expected to doubt it? This was THE great blunder that turned what should have been an open and shut case into the mystery of the century.

      I do think Patsy may have suspected John at first -- which would explain the lack of interaction between them noted by the police on that first day. But after the body was found, she became a basket case and was heavily medicated for some time afterward. When she finally came out of her fog, John's "experts" had decided he could not have written the note. And from that point on, Patsy would have had no choice but to assume the note must have been written by "the intruder."

      Delete
    2. You can call me "Anonymous NYC"- In any case, your theory (which I have been reading here for the past several years) is an excellent one, but one thing troubles me about John being the author of the ransom note:

      It is written in a female voice: Excessive detail, personal references, etc. Wouldn't JR simply have written one (and I understand he didn't want to use a computer as it was traceable) far more simpler? "Don't call law enforcement, we are watching you. Try it, and she dies. Get X amount of money, etc. etc."

      Having read Andrew G Hodges' book on Patsy being the semi-psychotic author of the bizarre and symbolic ransom note, it is hard to see why John would have written in such a bizarre style.

      Any thoughts on this? Thanks, and keep up your fine work!

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the encouraging words.

      I'm sorry, but I don't see anything remotely "feminine" in this particular ransom note, which reads to me like a compilation of bits and pieces from other such notes, mainly culled from movie scripts. My guess is that John compiled it from various online sources, copying and pasting it into a word processor before tracing or copying it by hand. He'd have been computer savvy enough to cover his traces so his Internet rovings couldn't be tracked.

      The idea that it somehow reflects a female psyche is to me just part of the folklore of the case, a distorted view stemming from the growing suspicion that only Patsy could have written the note. Well, if you're convinced ahead of time that Patsy wrote it, then it's going to look "feminine" to you I suppose. I don't see anything feminine about it at all. In fact it contains many terms and references that most women would be unfamiliar with.

      I think John just got carried away with the whole process of faking this note. The length, along with the attention to detail (all i's dotted, t's crossed, consistent spacing, adherence to margins, etc.), reflects his personality I would think, more than his gender. If Patsy was the extravagant personality in the family, John appears to have been the restrained, detail-oriented one. At least, that's how I see it.

      However, unlike so many others who imo have jumped to conclusions regarding the note, I don't see anything in it that explicitly tells us it was written by a male or female, or even by Patsy or John. My reasons for attributing the note to John stem from the facts and logic of the case as a whole, not analysis of the handwriting or even the content of the note per se. Though imo the writing and the content are certainly consistent with John, and moreso than with Patsy. But that's just an opinion, and my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's.

      Delete
    4. I appreciate your response. Certainly reading Hodges' book may have pre-disposed me to viewing the note as "feminine" - although it's rambling length is not typically male (I would think of short and curt writing as being more 'masterful' or 'military'). But who knows? JR may have had a few stiff drinks before he wrote it, making it "baggy" and sloppy.

      Why did law enforcement allow Ramsey to use his own experts? What did their own experts conclude?

      Once more, thank you: Your response is most appreciated and respected. (By the way, in your opinion do you think it is "too late" now for Ramsey to ever be prosecuted?)

      Delete
  6. EJE, I have thought about that, too. The stages of grief are unspeakable. It would be very difficult to imagine what she experienced. I have also given a lot of thought to her calling friends, instinctively, first thing that morning. She reached out for that kitchen phone and not only called 911, but friends who were close and could come right over. It speaks volumes, if we pay attention to the message, when a woman is frantically projecting and reaching out for assistance, with her husband being available in the same house. Whether, she felt he was inadequate to help, or she had become accustomed to him not being helpful to her, or she didn't want to be alone with him, we can't know for sure. But I think we can all agree on it being a unique circumstance to want to be surrounded by friends at 5:52 a.m. when your daughter has been kidnapped for ransom. Calling 911 would have been sufficient to alleviating the dire need and parental impulse for "getting help." Calling friends was absolutely necessary for her, in her moment of hysteria and panic, during a deeply personal, family crisis.

    She has also given contradictory statements about her knowledge of the ransom note's content, that morning. She had not read it all the way through, but she was somewhat aware of it containing the instructions not to call anybody..."or else." She even became upset when the officer showed up in a uniform with a badge and gun. She had some knowledge of the risks of not following the instructions to the letter. We can probably all empathize with taking a calculated risk to calling 911, but to risk your daughter's life to call friends over to the house and risk having the kidnapper seeing multiple, multiple people and/or cars showing up and walking in and out and all around the house, seems reckless and careless. That move alone confused a lot of people and even convinced Steve Thomas that she was the author of the ransom note, and she killed JonBenet. So, either, she did not take the ransom note dead seriously in its entirety, or she felt something that we can't understand in that moment. Maybe, she couldn't even understand what she was feeling-- fight-or-flight, survival instincts took over. Nothing can be made sense of in the logical sense, once that happens.

    Meanwhile, JR remained..."cordial."

    -H

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, H. Thanks. One of the things that has bothered me about the way people analyze this case is that just because someone did something unusual or hard to explain, that makes them suspicious. If we want to assume Patsy killed JonBenet, then we have to ask ourselves what she would have had to gain by calling her friends and inviting them over. It's been suggested that she wanted to contaminate the crime scene. But if that were the case she could easily have spooned some mud from the lawn and strewn it over the floor. If she and John were collaborating there were all sorts of things they could have done to make it look more like a break-in. No need to have your friends come over to do that. In fact having friends over would have destroyed any such "evidence" they could have planted.

      While it may be hard to explain why Patsy would ignore the threats and call 911 anyhow, and then call her friends over, I can see nothing she would have had to gain by these actions if she were involved in this crime.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I totally agree with you, Doc. The only time we see Patsy doing things not in tandem with JR is the morning of Dec. 26th. She walked down her stairs, minus JR. She picked up her kitchen phone and dialed 911. She dialed The White's, and she dialed The Fernie's. John Fernie even said when being interviewed that he thought JR must have had a heart attack, the way that PR was panicking and summonsing him over. Once those three actions were set into motion, we don't see her going off the grid, by herself, again. We do not see that same level of bold decision making from her again. We do not see her brazenly going against what she is instructed to do, after that morning. She is not without medication's influence, JR's influence and a team of legal experts after those first twelve hours, again. After that, we sort of see PR and JR in sync and working fluidly in motion together, until her death.

      I think all of the awkwardness from that first day forward and in interviews can be explained by the fact that they did not have the same information. What she had when we saw her on the television was a mental script, from high-paid lawyers, a well rehearsed legal script of what to say. She appeared free from affection and came off insincere, because of this, which I don't think she could fully understand. I also think she continued to misgauge the reality of public opinion, because she hadn't killed her daughter and John didn't do it, so she had nothing to fear. She fully respected and embraced the professional advice from the prestigious help afforded to her. PR was not a public relations idiot. She understood the importance of reputation and appearances more than anybody. It was probably very genuinely confusing to her and a source of great frustration as to how things were going so wrong.

      -H

      Delete
  7. Hello DocG,

    I recently came across this blog when whispers of the old police chief commenting and answering questions about the case on Reddit surfaced on my Facebook news feed. I've always been fascinated with this case (although never looked in to it very much to be honest) and this blog has completely turned me to your theory I must say. It's quite ingenious and well thought out, I'm pretty sure your theory is the only one that accounts for pretty much everything. I'm still making my way through all your posts as I started from the first and am working forward (you are hilarious by the way!) so I don't know if you've discussed this, or if it's been brought up yet but I feel like BR's silence speaks VOLUMES to your case against JR.
    Most cases you see, especially involving family members being accused, multiple members of the family will speak out in their defense, including the kids once they're old enough. But BR is silent, never questioned and held close to the Ramsey's, my theory is this: BR knew all along about their dad molesting JBR. I think either JBR had told BR about what had been happening with their dad, or BR had caught him in the act. If we're going along with the "JBR outing dad's molesting" theory you've put forth yourself, perhaps that convo went something like:
    "Daddy, I don't like doing this... I told Burke about it and he says it's not something we should be doing..."
    Or along those lines. I think that's what caused JR to engage in an argument with JBR that resulted in her death.
    So "how does this correspond to my current theory?" is what you must be thinking, here's my thoughts:
    From the morning of the murder, very little info has risen about BR and what he heard and saw that day. But let's consider this... JR went to check on BR alone while Patsy called 911... Now I know panic could have also been a factor here, but is it strange to you that specifically a mother wouldn't go check on her own son to begin with? I think JR wanted BR alone for a moment to set some things "straight" with BR to cover his ass. It seems to me that they awoke to find the note, and as Patsy was hysterical about it, rightly so. That’s when, I suspect, she went to call 911 the first time, and as you deduced, John stopped her. At this point, is when I’m sure John said “wait a moment, let me go check on Burke first before we make any rash decisions”. In this time, I’m sure Patsy was losing her mind and decided to call anyways as her panic took over. Meanwhile, John was weaving a somewhat convincing web to Burke about how he must not bring up what Jon Benet had told him about their little rendezvous and the inappropriate touching as it was a misunderstanding and it would only get him in trouble considering the circumstances. At the time as he was young, he went along with his father’s wishes and believed him for the most part. I’m sure as more evidence has surfaced over the years, it’s become crystal clear to Burke who committed the murder, as well as it’s crystal clear to us now. I’m sure he thinks it’s just something he doesn’t want to talk or think about and has detached himself from the situation. This is the only reason I can think of to explain his apathy towards the whole event.
    I’m sure there are some holes in this theory, as there are in most, but as you have stated before, Burkes silence seems to hide a lot. And the fact that he’s remained so distant from the case never sat well with me. You’d think he’d want to find his sisters killer, unless he was already pretty sure who it was and couldn’t say.

    I’d love to hear your thoughts on this  Thanks again for the awesome blog, keep it up!

    WanderLustxx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, first of all, WanderLustxx, you are the first one to appreciate my humor, so right off the bat, I like you! I do think some of my posts are hilarious, yes, and I chuckle whenever I reread them. But everyone else just ignores them -- maybe they're embarrassed for me. My girl friend thinks I don't have a sense of humor, but her sense of humor is, imo: primitive. I can crack up certain friends all the time, but others, no. Ah sweet mystery of life!

      As for your analysis of Burke, I think you're on the right track, though it's really not possible to say with much certainly whether or not he knew what his father was up to with his sister. It's certainly possible, though. What does seem clear is that John would have had no way of knowing for sure what Burke might have seen or heard that night. You can be sure he questioned him about it, though both of them denied every discussing the case with him -- (NOT credible). I agree that John probably intimidated Burke into clamming up about anything he knew that might be relevant to the case. So Burke just detached himself from what happened and concentrated on his Nintendo game. From that day on it seems. What Beckner said about Burke was telling: NO opportunity was ever provided for the police to question him. The Ramseys were able to get away with that by invoking some sort of parental privilege, I guess. But there has to be a reason they (John) didn't want him questioned.

      And obviously he's under John's thumb even today, no doubt with the help of the legal team. I'm sure he's been told in no uncertain terms to discuss the case with no one. Ever.

      If this case ever cracks open, it may well be thanks to Burke. If he can ever be persuaded to talk.

      Delete
    2. Haha well I think they're all crazy because you're VERY funny lol I shared this blog with my sister who is also into true crime stories and she thinks you're quite amusing as well. Your gf must be crazy because I hysterically giggled to myself reading your post of John's police interview with your sarcastic comments intertwined with it, was the highlight of my evening.

      Thank you as well for your thoughts on my theories. I agree that it's merely all speculation, but I'm glad you also agree him silence is suspicious. I wish he would speak up and talk, but as you said, very unlikely, even after all this time has passed.

      This story always made me really sad, mainly because Jon Benet and I are only a year apart in age, so this story has always really stuck with me. I wish we could get her some real bonafide justice, but your wonderful blog will have to do for now.

      Thanks again for all the work you put into this ^_^

      WanderLustxx

      Delete
    3. There is no reason it couldn't have happened that way, but I have my doubts. One really good reason for BR being "apathetic" about the case is that he "knows" it was an intruder. No reason for him to cooperate with police who are trying to "railroad" his dad.

      It's hard for me to accept that someone might think PR was completely duped by JR's gas lighting and misdirection, yet think BR has put it all together, knows what happened, and has somehow been silenced. IMO, BR buys the intruder theory, hook line and sinker, just as much as PR.

      I have trouble believing that the 9 year old BR could have seen anything worth reporting and kept quiet about it. I also have trouble believing JR would let BR out of his sight if BR might reveal something that would incriminate JR. Yet, BR goes off to stay with the Whites, is questioned by the Whites, and even by police, all out of sight and hearing and "guidance" of JR. IMO BR doesn't know anything. He went to bed late and probably slept until PR started shouting about the RN.

      JMHO

      CH

      Delete
    4. @JMHO CH

      That's a thoroughly plausible possibility, it just doesn't account for BR not standing up for his parents "innocence" what so ever over the years, as I've said, most family scandals that involve families who are prominent members of the community or celebrities, the children/spouses usually speak out against their innocence.

      Also @DocG, something else I have heard you touch base on many times, but given no further thought to; the bed wetting. I just think it adds a lot to the molestation accusations of the case as children who usually have been molested have a big history of bed wetting. I find it so funny people would jump to the conclusion of PR killing her over that, when that's usually a major sign of sexual abuse.

      WanderLustxx

      Delete
  8. I have a question and its frustrating. Why John Ramsey is so protected by the police and authorities??
    I am certain that the parents ( specially John) is responsible or knows a lot more. Why is it taking so long for anyone to question John Ramsey's credibility?
    I think that's why or one of the reasons this case is so fraustrating for many of us. Because the evidence is there but no one is taking action. I wanted to know your opinion. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With John having been "exonerated" by DA Lacy, due to her (flawed) interpretation of the DNA evidence, and having been ruled out by the handwriting "experts," it would take a very brave and determined DA to go after him at this point. Another factor is his very aggressive lawyer, Lin Wood, who threatens lawsuits at the drop of a hat.

      Lots of people suspect John of some involvement in the murder and/or coverup, but everyone is waiting for that "smoking gun" to emerge -- which will never happen. As I see it, the smoking gun is his obvious lie about breaking the window the previous summer -- clearly an alibi. But that story is rarely if ever brought up. Everyone is looking around the wrong corners and ignoring the obvious. That's how I see it, anyhow.

      Delete
  9. DocG,

    I'm a first time poster and appreciate your site. It seems to me that for the folks who do not buy into the intruder theory there is a problem reconciling the notions of JonBenet being sexually abused and Patsy being the author of the phony ransom note. The handwriting analysis must be respected and John was clearly not the author. Every expert that analyzed the note could not rule out Patsy and some claimed she in fact wrote it. This is the strongest piece of probative evidence against the Ramsey's. This does not mean that John could not have been the person abusing JonBenet. If he was, then this would adequately explain the staging of the sexual assault. The superficial wounds made by the paintbrush could have been an effort to mask the more long term evidence of sexual abuse. I'm not saying they are both guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because I don't have access to all the evidence. However, a case could be made against both Ramsey's that is supported by the evidence available in the public domain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should read my blog post titled "Some Handwriting Evidence." You'll then see how unreasonable it was for these so-called "experts" to rule John out. If you try to steer your way through this case based on opinions, even by "experts," you will soon find yourself lost in a maze. And as far as the evidence is concerned, just about all of it is inconclusive -- also in many cases contradictory.

      Which is why I decided ultimately to focus on the facts -- i.e., what is known to be the case with absolute certainty. The facts point to John and John alone. If we assume Patsy wrote the note, then nothing makes sense. Same with any intruder theory. The more you read in this blog (or in my book) the more evidence you'll find that bears this out.

      Delete
    2. Are you qualified to give testimony in court regarding handwriting analysis? Why would you downgrade qualified experts as "so-called experts" and elevate your opinion above theirs? There is one truth of this crime and John being the author of the ransom note isn't part of that truth.

      You should of said, "If I assume Patsy wrote the note, then nothing makes sense." It's makes sense to me. Like I said in my original post, you don't have to pick one Ramsey to be guilty and the other innocent. Some evidence of guilt points to John, some points to Patsy, and some points to both. There is not any evidence of an intruder.

      Delete
    3. I don't elevate my opinion above others. And I have certainly never claimed I can prove John wrote the note solely on the basis of the handwriting evidence. What I do claim is that ruling John out as writer of the note makes no sense. On what basis could anyone possibly do that? Even the Ramseys' own lawyer argued that the opinions of such "experts" are unreliable, as there is no scientific basis for their findings. Of course that argument appeared in the context of defending Patsy -- but it can just as easily be applied to the decision to rule out John.

      Once it's established that John cannot be ruled out as writer of the note (and I feel sure I can find "experts" who will testify to that) then the whole tenor of the case changes, and everything comes into focus.

      I urge you to read more in the blog and you'll see how.

      Delete
  10. The broken window story is the most intriguing for me, if not for that I wouldn't give much weight to an inside job theory. But breaking a window and then not replacing it for months, including during the winter, seems very unusual to me, and it does appear consistent with a failed staging in progress. But it's also strange that Patsy backs up the story, and it's strange that the story exist at all, just tell the cops you don't know how the window broke. For all anyone cares the intruder broke the window but thought better of it and picked a different entryway. I had a break-in at my house and the intruder(s) broke a screen on one window, before ultimately lifting out and using another window altogether.

    I think it's wishful thinking to think the available evidence could convince anyone beyond reasonable doubt. There's a reason it never goes to trial.

    What I really want to see is the best DNA science available on the fingernail DNA fragments with statistical analysis. Even if it's not enough for a profile for matching to anybody, if they can say the fingernail fragments match the underwear DNA to something like 1 in 10,000 people due to common alleles or whatever, I would personally consider that case closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it would be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that John's window story is a fabrication. That's really all a prosecutor would need to do. What Patsy said is then beside the point. Once it's established that John lied, his goose is cooked.

      Now of course this doesn't in itself prove that John is the killer. But it does prove that he was involved. And at that point, if he chooses to point the finger at Patsy or at Burke, fine. Let him. And let the jury decide how credible he is.

      It's important to understand, also, that no prosecutor ever went into a case totally sure that there was no possibility of a reasonable doubt defense. Every defense lawyer brings that up. If you're afraid of reasonable doubt, you have no business being a prosecutor.

      Delete
    2. As for the fingernail DNA, that was found to match someone in the forensics lab. In other words, it was contaminated, thus useless. Also, there were no skin cells found under her nails, which means it's unlikely she was ever in a position to fight off her attacker, which means that any DNA found under the nails would probably have been there prior to the attack.

      James Kolar was in the best position to evaluate the DNA evidence and from his perspective it's basically meaningless, certainly not intruder evidence. There never will be such evidence because no intruder theory makes sense. And once we realize that John lied, there is no point anymore in even considering an intruder.

      Delete
    3. I agree, if he lied about the window, he's guilty. But there's no evidence he did except that the story is somewhat strange/unusual.

      If there was solid uncontested evidence Jonbenet was sexually abused that would again be case closed for me, but there isn't.

      These are all things you have to prove to a jury for any hope of a conviction.

      As for James Kolar, I don't trust anything from the police involved in the case. They are like the police in the David Camm or the Ryan Ferguson case and are hopelessly unable to ever look at the case with objective eyes ever again. I see you're familiar with the Amanda Knox case. Imagine if Monica Napoleon wrote a book on who really killed Meredith Kercher lol.

      Delete
    4. You forget that the prosecutor's job is to make a case, which involves persuading a jury. And I don't think it would be very difficult for a prosecutor to take the jury step by step through John's testimony and convince them that it's just not believable. The next step would be to put the housekeeper on the stand, who has always denied knowing anything about the broken window and who flatly contradicted Patsy's story about her helping to clean up the glass. Finally it would be a matter of explaining what the investigators seem to have missed: the only reason to tell such a story is because it's an alibi, a misdirection away from the obvious fact that John himself broke the window to stage a phony break-in on the night of the crime.

      Over the years I've participated in many forums on this case, and, aside from staunch Ramsey defenders, just about everyone doubts that story. So I don't think it would be difficult to persuade a jury. The problem has always been that no one's ever been able to understand John's motive for making it up, because on the surface it seems to contradict the intruder theory. It would be up to the prosecutor to explain why John felt the need to concoct that story -- because if he hadn't his window staging would have been obvious and he'd have been arrested immediately.

      Is there absolute, iron clad proof that John was lying? No. There rarely is such proof in any case. But there are certainly enough holes in his story to persuade a jury, if the prosecutor knows what he's doing.

      Same with the evidence of prior molestation. It's always possible to contest that sort of evidence and I'm sure John's lawyers will produce experts who attribute the abrasions to bubble bath or some other innocent cause. It will then be up to the prosecutor to present experts of his own who's opinion is very different. That's how trials proceed. Hardly ever is anything rock solid. Most cases are based on circumstantial evidence, and persuasion.

      As I see it, a jury made up of people capable of putting two and two together logically will be able to see through John Ramsey misdirections and his lawyers' antics, and convict.

      Delete
    5. I wrote this under an older thread, and then found this one. So, I'll repost here. I've always trusted the first instincts of the officer who was left alone with the Ramsey's, and was there when Jon Benet was found...she made a very telling comment. She said when John was in the living-room with the body, she looked him in the eye, and knew she was looking into the eyes of the killer. That type of instincts weighs heavily with me, because all our senses are on high alert, and are able to feel and see things, that maybe we wouldn't in normal circumstances. ... I know, I'll catch flax for this post. But I've been in circumstances, that made all my instincts stand on end. So I have to believe in them. And then to put all the activities that John did, said, behaved, etc... It was just icing on the cake for me.

      Delete
    6. That was Det. Linda Arndt. She never said she thought John was the killer, not in so many words. She said that when she looked into his eyes she mentally counted the bullets in her revolver. It's always been clear that she suspects John, but she's never actually come out and said that, probably because she has no proof and would be vulnerable to a lawsuit.

      Delete
    7. Thank you, Yes ! it's been many years since I've read all the information on it. I still find what she felt that day very telling.

      Delete
    8. People get similar vibes from old houses they think are haunted. Meanwhile women happily followed Ted Bundy into his death car. I take her vibes about as seriously as tea leaf readings.

      Delete
  11. After they found the note did they immediately wake up Burke? Seems like it would be one of the first things I would do if a sibling was missing. Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Burke later said he pretended to be asleep and apparently his parents left him alone -- after checking to be sure he was OK. You'd think they'd have wakened him to ask him if he heard anything, but they didn't.

      Delete
    2. JR of course has no incentive to "wake" BR.

      We might consider that PR would wake him to ask what he saw, but if she thought he was asleep what would be the point? If he saw a strange man come in the house and take his sister he would not have gone back to sleep. The "fact" that he's sleeping is evidence enough for PR that BR didn't see anything. Why wake him?

      CH

      Delete
  12. DocG, love the blog. Very informative. I've always been intrigued by cases like this one, which have an element of mystery. I enjoy problem-solving, so my brain just goes nuts when I'm trying to figure something out, or come up with a solution to a problem. I think you are right about Jon. In all the interviews I've read, he is the evasive one, and he gets upset when pushed about taking a lie-detector test. What's sad is that, according to Steve Thomas' book (pg. 198), the DA thought they had probable cause on Patsy, but they had become dependent on plea bargains to the point that they desperately wanted a confession to avoid a trial. How can they not see through this guy (Jon)? The answer is, they are scared of his lawyers and they are scared of the inside of a courtroom. JonBenet will not get justice, because grown men and women who have vowed to do everything in their power within the law to uphold justice for everyone under their jurisdiction don't have the courage to do just that... Fight for justice when a victim can't fight for themselves!

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting since JR was the one who went to check on him. Why would he want to ask him any questions-he already knew what happened since he did it!
    How did JR disappear in the house and who was in the house when he did this? Wouldn't it be very risky to do anything with the body with people in the same house? How does one disappear in one's one house after their daughter turns up missing? Is there a timeline of events on your blog? You have changed my mind on this who dun it mystery. It finally makes some sense. But why didn't he just molest her and put her back to bed? Why the killing? Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was able to disappear because the police left only one officer in charge and she was overwhelmed. According to her testimony, John went missing for over an hour, as I recall. This would have given him plenty of time to get rid of evidence and alter the crime scene, as part of his new plan B.

      As for the molestation, it looks like she must have threatened to expose him, which would have triggered the plan to silence her for good.

      Delete
  14. I find it unbelievable that Burke would not have either woken up on his own from hearing his parents' voices, or been woken by JR while Patsy was making the 911 call. As a parent, I would want to talk to any other person in the house to find out if they heard or saw anything that night. The Ramseys say he was sleeping through all the commotion that morning until he was finally taken from the house with friends. I just can't imagine he would do that. I think he would have come out of his room and asked what was going on. It does appear like he was told to just stay in his room and be quiet. And if he was a witness to his father's molestation of JBR, he may have immediately suspected his dad's involvement in her disappearance (and later murder when body was found). That's a lot for a 9 year old to carry and it was probably easy for him to stay quiet, knowing that if he did talk, he'd likely be sending his own father to jail.

    Maybe Burke will finally talk when JR dies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I find it strange that the same DA, Hunter, also declined to indict in the still-unsolved murder of Sid Wells, the college student who was the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter, 30+ years ago, even though they had a solid circumstantial case. People at the time and since have thought it was because of Redford's celebrity, that if he lost the case there would be so much negative publicity for him. The same could apply here in this high-profile wealthy family's case. What do you think? Janice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know anything about the Sid Wells case, but imo Hunter was wise not to attempt a prosecution in the Ramsey case. All eyes were then on Patsy, but there was never sufficient evidence against her, either for a conviction or even sufficient probable cause to indict. You can't indict someone simply because some "experts" couldn't rule her out, or because she was wearing the same outfit two days in a row -- you would need real evidence and there isn't any.

      John, then as now, was off the radar, because he HAD been "ruled out." So there was really no evidence against either that would call for an indictment. Hunter was imo far too easy on the Ramseys, and naive in his acceptance of the decision to rule John out -- but his refusal to take this case to trial was, at the time, the right decision.

      Delete
  16. I need some help with the following theory
    Patsy went to bed and chashed, John knew this and went to JB's room to do his thing, Patsy came out of her power snooze and went to check on JB's preious bed matters with the flashlight only to see her worst fears , and stuck at John's head with the flashlight only to hit JB instead.
    I actually think John got part of the blow --- Now hear is the rest, John convinces Patsy that she killed JB-- No 911 call John proves to patsy that JB is indeed dead by useing the electric train track , Patsy is now a killer and John is a molester,
    To me that fits with the indictment , One for Patsy covering for John and one for John covering for Patsy
    John is the only one to have the guts to do what was done to the body, to cover the preious assauts . and a stageing of the kiddnaping angle . Then convinced Patsy to write the note at his direction ... Convinced patsy that incest wasn't as bad as murder--- Odd that Patsy died in her fathers home in Georgia ---
    Just a note for MARK -- ITs my opinion that LE knows form which side the window was broken from,, Ill bet its from the inside--- robert

    ReplyDelete
  17. Interesting theory...could it explain the scream that a neighbor supposedly heard, assuming this happened in JBR's bedroom? One question -- if this happened in the bedroom, Burke would have heard all of it. Later, while John was staging the body and other evidence in the basement, Patsy was feeding Burke pineapple and convincing him there had been an accident with the flashlight and that he would have to remain silent else mom and dad would both go to jail. Did Patsy call 911 when she realized that John had taken the whole coverup to a level she could not deal with (including taking the body out of the house)? I will have to think on this scenario -- to see if it aligns to Patsy's behavior in the following days and months. I do think John could have gaslighted her, even in this scenario. I feel that Burke was gaslighted, too. That said, if Patsy caught her husband molesting her child, even if she accidently hit JBR, it seems like she would have admitted that. I think I would have, because I would want nothing more than for the pervert to pay for what he did, and stop him from ever doing it again to any little girl. Anonymom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your help on that-- IMO- Burke knew nothing of what happened, even to this day-- I think there may have been a scream but not from JBR-- I think she was asleep the whole time ,and never knew what hit her. Patsy had a lot to lose also if her husband was charged with incest and she being the witness -- robert

      Delete
    2. A scream heard in another house is a pretty loud scream, assuming it did happen. I don't see how Burke could have not heard it. Let's say that scream never happened. You surmise that John was molesting JBR in her sleep? She didn't wake up, Patsy proceeded to club John and missed, knocking out JBR instead? And then decided she had a lot to lose? I'm a woman and I don't know any women who would think that. If anything,I would feel so betrayed that my husband was hurting my precious little girl. No, I would lose him! He would go to jail, I would divorce him, take everything in the divorce, and put him away. If Patsy is presumed innocent in this scenario except for the accident part, then she is not going to live with a pervert for the rest of her life, just for money. He's the evil one in this scenario, not her. Anonymom

      Delete
    3. Your reply certainly has merit and does put a flaw into my theory, I wouldn't say Patsy just suddenly decided she had lots to lose, I'd say John convinced her that she was the murderer. 911 would have been Patsy's next move at that time if it wasn't for John. I need some more info. on just how much Patsy and John coexisted for the next 9 years, Odd that Patsy died in her Fathers house were she must have been living . John and Burke are close , something one would not expect if one though the other to be reponsible for the death of a Sister. John IS the evil one alright-- robert

      Delete
  18. Has anyone considered the possibility that the ransom note demanded $118, 000, because it would add credibility to the kidnapper's claims? The intent of the ransom note was to not only convince PR that JBR had been kidnapped, but that she shouldn't risk telling anyone. By including the little known fact about JR's bonus it would appear that the kidnappers were somehow capable of monitoring the Ramsey's affairs. It would make what seems to be outlandish claims of surveillance seem more believable to PR.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sex game gone bad. Slip knot used for oxygen deprivation (very little hair in slip knot). "Shaken baby syndrome" injuries from John shaking JB after she wouldn't recover. Blunt force trauma from flashlight after she goes into a convulsion. Realizing she is beyond recovery, he replaces her underwear (semen) and takes her to the basement. She moans or gasps, and he snaps the ends off a paintbrush, quickly wraps the loose rope around it (catching lots of hair in the knot), and yanks it tight.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good theory Jay. Cecil Wecht would certainly agree with you. He believes there is evidence of shaken baby syndrome and, like you, believes she was shaken to revive her after the sex game went bad and she passed out. When she didn't come to after the shaking, he hit her with the flashlight.

      This makes sense. If he was unable to revive her after depriving her oxygen too much, he would certainly feel trapped. What is he going to do? Wake up Patsy and tell her what happened?? Call 911 and then have to tell THEM what happened? No. He had to protect himself and felt no choice but to end her life and make it appear like some crazed pedophile killed her.

      The problem with this theory is that there has been an ongoing debate over which came first, the strangulation or the blow to the head. The autopsy report has made most people believe the blow came first and then, after strangulation, she died from a combination of both. But if you read Dr. Wecht's book, you'll be convinced the strangulation came first and was done as part of a sex game. I think the reason some people can't buy the sex game theory is that they envision JR garroting her during the sex game and many just can't get themselves to see any father doing such a horrific thing. I don't believe the garroting was done until after she was dead. As you have suggested, the oxygen deprivation was done before the garrote was made. So, in my mind, the garroting was actually part of the staging.

      bb

      Delete
    2. My theory is that JR was molesting her and got too rough and she screamed and tried to get to her mother for comforting, and he bashed her with the flashlight to silent her and stop her. Then he strangled her to finish her off.

      Delete
    3. There are not marks on her neck indicating that she clawed at the rope trying to prevent strangulation. This may be because her hands were tied, or because she was already unconscious. For me this is a good reason to think the blow to the head came first.

      In any case, we have conflicting expert opinion (so what's new?) and the rest of us are not experts. So what if we approach the question differently? What if we ask what purpose the blow to the head serves if she has already died of asphyxiation (whether after a sex game, or just straightforward garrotting) ?

      The blow to the head is not visible at the crime scene, so it plays no role in staging the crime scene. It is only on the autopsy table that the blow to the head becomes apparent.

      IMO the blow to the head does nothing to enhance the "kidnapping gone bad" scenario. It's enough that the sexual predator strangled her, there is no reason to add a blow to the head, particularly and invisible one.

      I doubt anyone would have considered that they could hit her that hard and not break the scalp. If she's already dead why do something potentially messy?

      IMO, the blow to the head serves no good purpose coming second. Therefore it came first.

      CH

      Delete
    4. I agree that the blow to the head came before the rope was buried in her neck with the garrote. But that's where I struggle to make sense of the whole scene, from the stand point of just whacking her on the head, molesting her, and then strangling her. Why tie her hands? Why are her hands above her head (in a restrained position)? Why break the paint brush ends off? Why wrap the rope around the paintbrush and knot it so close to her hair? The list goes on and on, rope fibers in her bed, oversized underwear in her room (dresser), the "shaken-baby" injuries (Cyril Wecht), and most of all, why intentionally kill her to begin with? I get that some people think JB was going to expose John, so he felt he had no choice, but he didn't "get violent" when Patsy said she was going to call the police. Grant it, she wasn't calling to expose him, but as much as he stood to lose by short-circuiting his plan, he could've exploded with anger (possibly force) and backed her down. I mean, he just wacked JB for doing practically the same thing (if that's what happened). I'm no expert, and I would probably make a terrible CSI, but once I read about the possible deprivation sex game, it made so much more sense as far as molesting her in her room, already having the slip knot around her neck, shaking her, replacing her underwear, and at some point banging her over the head, then carrying her downstairs and finishing her off with the garrote. IMO.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, I forgot to identify.

      Jay

      Delete
    6. I don't recall what type of bed JBR had. If it had posts or slats in the headboard, it's possible the hands were tied to the head board or posts. That would explain the arms being raised and the length of rope between the hands. However, it would also mean that she must have died in the bed, and rigor started before she was moved. Either that or JR placed the hands in that position once he placed her in the WC. The urine stain in the basement suggests that she likely died at that spot.

      CH

      Delete
  20. It all makes sense now, from the rope fibers found in JB's bed, to Patsy being right about the oversized underwear being in JB's dresser, also one end of the garrote not tied around her hair (slip knot), while the other end involves a hastily made knot around a broken paintbrush from the basement, with a lot of her hair caught in it. She was molested in bed , then carried down to the basement. John had never tried oxygen deprivation before with JB and didn't realize he went too far until it was too late.
    Also a thought on the note. Though there are signs of intentional deception (adding tails and curls on some letters after the word was written), isn't it possible that the author was scared out of their wits, and literally shaking as they begin the letter, thus the shaky writing pattern. As his nerves calm down, the writing style becomes less shaky (convincing himself "this just might work"). When he gets to the last 1/2 page, his nerves are gone and he is confident, he is now back in control. His writing is smooth and the lines are darker, and he mentions his own name three times, while also assuring himself, " it is up to you now".

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least the last few posts here have not brough Burke into to the crime. Seems like The John Did It theory is always interuped by a Burke twist to it

      Delete
  21. I'm curious as to John's timing in going to get JB's body when he did. From all I've read, there seems to be nothing pressing. As far as the police were concerned, it was a kidnapping. They might've never found the body if it wasn't for John going to get it. Any thoughts?

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was probably concerned about incriminating forensics like fingerprints on the duct tape. When he was asked to search the house, it gave him a chance to contact the body and create an innocent explanation.

      Linden

      John

      Delete
    2. Excellent point on touching the duct tape. He also stated that he tried to get the rope off her neck, so that would put his skin cells on the rope (but I'm not sure how versed he would've been in DNA, since it was sort of a new investigative tool). Still seems like he made a b-line straight to that room at an odd time.

      Delete
  22. First, thank you DocG. Your reasoning is brilliant. I clicked on this blog as I have many other sources related to this crime thinking ho hum, yes of course you solved it, whatever. And within minutes I was sold by the clear logic of your argument. It's a true relief to have read this. I didn't follow the murder closely when it happened, but I was guilty of blindly jumping to conclusions based on what I saw in the media. The evil Ramseys I assumed. Then not long ago I stumbled across the video of Patsy's interrogation and was struck by how sincere she came across. She reacted the way you would expect any innocent person to react in that situation. I couldn't get out of my head how frustrated and outraged she sounded, yet the intruder theory made no sense to me, given the probable chronic molestation. It wasn't until your blog that I realized I had made the mistake of viewing them only as a pair, not as individuals, and that of course John could have duped Patsy. Your argument made perfect sense of the evidence. The only loose thread left for me is the 911 call Patsy made. I don't understand why one, she risked making the call, and why two, he couldn't talk her out of it by simply reminding her of what the note said. I find it hard to believe that she would have called 911 without checking with him first. Even if she was hysterical, and didn't register the threat in the note that stressed what would happen if she contacted authorities, it's very hard to believe that she wouldn't at least inform John, "I'm calling the police." It's also hard to believe, given his predicament, that he wouldn't have said "we can't call the police yet. They said they would will kill her if we did." Yet she called anyway, right away, and risked that her call might result in the death of her child. In the call to 911 she never mentions the need for police to be discreet. As we all know she invites the world over to the house. Then hours later if we are to believe the policewoman on scene, she like John, let the 10am deadline pass without notice. It doesn't change my view of her innocence but it's significant I think how little stock she put into what that note said. It begs the question why. If I had to guess, I'd say she found the note confusing and didn't think too hard about it. But given the stakes I wonder if part of her was acting through her subconscious, the part that knew the truth. Who knows... As for John, he's a smooth one. It's difficult, anyway for me, to spot clues of his depravity based on how he behaves. Except for one thing. None of these guys who commit awful crimes against the women and children they are supposed to love seem able to express one iota of outrage at their death or at the fact that they are being blamed for their murder. It's a trait I've noticed in Michael Peterson, Adnan Syed, OJ Simpson, and John Ramsey.
    Again, thank you so much for your insight --and hard work on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your encouraging words. I have worked hard on this, I'm embarrassed to say. Sometimes it scares me when I think of all the time and effort I've devoted to this obsession. I do have a life, and I do have other interests, believe it or not.

      Now as for Patsy's reasons for making the 911 call, it's important that we not make the assumption that their version of what happened is factual. In fact we know it can't be, because there are two contradictory versions. Patsy may have made the call instinctively and on the spur of the moment. But it's also possible they discussed the note and what to do at some length before she made the call. It's possible she made the call because John was acting strange and she wanted others there with her as soon as possible. Or maybe she was afraid the "kidnapper" was still in the house. That would explain why she called friends, because she could not be sure if the police would arrive soon enough.

      Of course, this is all just speculation. What we do know is that she made that call, for whatever reason. And would not have made the call if she were staging a kidnapping. As to her reasons, we may never know.

      Delete
    2. I'll just add my thoughts about Patsy making that call. I am a mother and I believe I understand the panic that must have taken over Patsy the moment she realized her daughter was gone. I think I would have gone mad if I couldn't call the police. When you are in that type of panic, you only want to reach out for help. She wanted help. I'm also not sure she had read the entire note to have even known about the threats before she dialed 911. In fact, in her 911 call, she states that she hasn't read the whole note. But even if she did read it entirely and knew of the threats, I think she felt her daughter was at risk anyway --- whether or not the police were called. She knew she had to get her daughter back. We have all heard of the 48-hour window within which an abducted child should be found or their chance of being found alive diminishes.

      Having said that, here is one thing that has always bothered me. After Patsy discovered the note and yelled out to John, why wouldn't one, or both, immediately comb through the house looking for JonBenet? I would think they would be calling out her name, opening closets, turning on lights, etc. But according to their story, after discovering the note John went to check on Burke, Patsy called 911 and then John returned. Did John say he searched the house at all at THAT time? And I don't recall Patsy saying she ever searched the house either. That's a big house filled with lots of nooks and crannies and you'd think they would search everywhere in the hopes of finding her tied up (but alive) somewhere. That's what I would do anyway.

      bb

      Delete
    3. Imo one reason for writing the note (though certainly not the only reason) was to discourage Patsy from turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet. John appears to be a master of misdirection and this was one of many examples. Without a misdirection of that kind Patsy would certainly have searched the house, and found her daughter's body, which would NOT have been part of John's plan.

      Delete
    4. I agree about the purpose of the note. If you play out the scene without the note, everything changes. If JB is just missing, the police scour the house immediately, and if John is somehow able to get her body out of the house, the community would've come out in force searching for her. John would no longer be in control. He's not a chess player, strategically playing his move and waiting for his opponent's counter move. He is a controller. I have no doubt that if his plan would've worked (no police), he would've "supposedly" dropped the ransom and discovered her body (so he could contaminate it). Had Fleet found her body to begin with, he would've rushed in, ripping the duct tape from her mouth and picked her up. The only way he is "cooked" is if the Police find her first. Criminals only think they are smart, but if you let them, they'll lead you right to the truth. I have no doubt his fingerprints are on the duct tape. Why else would he pull it off? He is the one who discovered her body. He's the one mentioned over and over in the ransom note. He's the one who closed the broken window, ect. Interestingly enough, Katie Couric asked the Ramsey's why they didn't go down to the Police station on Dec. 27th, when asked to be questioned, and John's answer to her was, there were so many reporters and cameras at the house. When Katie pushed him that other people in the same situation would've done everything they could to help, including being questioned, his answer was that Patsy couldn't handle it (stressed to the point of being medicated). Why didn't he go down to be questioned by himself? Why didn't he himself volunteer to a lie-detector? It goes back to that scary word "I". He wanted no part of facing what he had done. IMO.

      Jay

      Delete
  23. DocG I am so sure you do have a life! I think what you are doing is marvelous. I believe you've said you just want to see John Ramsey have his day in court, and no doubt a fair trial. But what you are doing is meaningful and stands in its own right. The truth matters. Your steady consistent repetition of the facts (where you get the patience idk) is a tribute not only to a little girl who was horribly robbed of a full life, but it's a fine example of deductive reasoning. And we need more of that. For every person who vocally shuns logic, there are so many others who will come and go without comment, but who will have learned from this fine example.
    Bravo! (Really.)
    And yes I see your point. The stories are too compromised now to ever be able to make sense of them. Having said that it's impossible not to speculate! All those theories sound plausible. Also bb's description of the house really brought something home to me. I doubt she was afraid of him no matter how strangely he was acting that day. I think she was an equal force in that marriage and her entire focus was on getting help for her daughter. I can see her husband seething silently. He went to all that trouble to scare her from seeking help, and she acted impulsively and emotionally just like he feared she would. That note he wrote is almost darkly comical to me now in the length it goes to try to manipulate and intimidate her into doing what he wanted. But Patsy, judging by here schedule and responsibilities was a doer, and her daughter was her domain. Nothing was going to stop her in that moment. And I don't think he risked arguing with her. My instinct says he wouldn't want to go on record as the person delaying help despite the threat in the note.

    bb- I can't imagine either why they wouldn't turn the house upside down to look for her, or fail to mention doing it. Who knows, maybe their stories have been so heavily edited by their legal council that the abbreviated version no longer makes sense. It's frustrating not have the facts needed to know.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I find it very interesting that in all the interviews I've read of John and Patsy Ramsey, he just about can't use the word "I". He constantly refers to "we", in an effort to establish shared responsibility and suffering, only then can he venture ever so cautiously away from shared responsibility by using the word "I". And low and behold, how does the ransom note start? "We". The first paragraph uses the word "we" three times and "our" twice, to establish shared responsibility, only then does the author ever so cautiously venture away from shared responsibility by using the word "I" ("I will call", "I advise"), ironically in an effort to be helpful (advise to be rested, advise to not provoke the two gentlemen). Obviously nothing that could be used to convict John, but incriminating none the less.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
  25. I understand why people might think that two parents would cover up a crime that was committed by their son. It makes sense.
    But there is NO WAY that if they knew their son was a killer and they instructed him to be quiet, they would trust him to be out of their sight and send him to stay with a family friend that day. No way. They could NEVER be sure he wouldn't confess his crime and their cover up or say something incriminating. They would have to watch him like a hawk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly.

      Nor is there any way they would risk going to prison for life for a crime they didn't commit. If BR could have been prosecuted, that might make a difference, but he couldn't be.

      I have more respect for IDI than BDI.

      CH

      Delete
  26. Sorry for the double post. I agree completely about Patsy being in a panic.
    Assuming she is innocent and he is guilty: How would Jon have stopped her from calling. It's not like she couldn't call from a neighbor's home or another phone in the house. He'd have to tie her up or knock her out to stop it... Not exactly the actions of an innocent, supportive husband and father.
    The note didn't work. She called 911 anyway. It was 100% her doing and you can hear the weight of that in her voice, "Jesus help me! Jesus help me!" She sounds like a mother who just called in the police against the demands of a ransom note and her husband's attempts to persuade her not to.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Triple post! Apologies!
    Adding that it's not certain in my mind that it was an inside job yet. I've read your arguments. You are very persuasive, and I have been looking at this case from another perspective because of it.
    I can't see the spiderweb well enough myself and the window looks big enough to slip in over the ledge without disturbing much dirt. I just can't tell. It would be hard for me to convict without better video/photos I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll see very clear photos of the window sill encrusted with dirt and dust, and also an excellent photo of Lou Smit squeezing through that very tight space, heret: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-lou-smit-show.html

      No one could have climbed through that window without seriously smearing all that dirt.

      Delete
    2. Are there any photos of the dirt on the sill after Smit climbed in?

      Delete
  28. Everything I've seen recently from the authorities in Boulder indicates that they really don't give a lot of consideration to the broken window as an entry point. They honestly don't know how "the intruder" got in or out, but with the foreign DNA on JB, they can't come up with any other reasonable explanation, other than an intruder somehow got in the house and committed this crime. In essence, they dismiss all other evidence, until they can make a match with the DNA.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LE- would like to make a match, They know that without it they can not win a case. Its not a DNA case, but that roadblock favors the defense .
      As for the broken window-- IMO , even I can tale from which side a window is broken from , and I would say LE has that info. in files unreleasted to the public. robert

      Delete
    2. If it can be established that John lied to misdirect away from staging a window break-in, then ALL the so-called intruder evidence is meaningless, including the DNA. And yes, he lied, and yes, it would not be difficult to convince a jury since the lies are so blatant.

      The window could have been broken from either side. Since it opens inward, it would not have been a problem to open it, and then break it from the outer surface, so the glass would fall on the basement floor.

      Delete
    3. Its the puddy that holds the window pane in place that tells from which side the window is broken from. It was broken from the inside. And you are right , opening the window and braking it the glass would fall inside-- What is importent is that the window was suspost to have been shut , and the reason for the brake to start with for an intruder . Its clear evidence to me of staging . Opening the window braking the pane so the glass would fall inside he figured was enough , mistake was that he still broke it from the inside , and at least one shard of glass landed on the outside . Its all in the puddy-- robert

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

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. DocG, I have a question.

    You've stated that PR must be innocent, or both PR and JR would have made an effort to dispose of the body. But given that Burke was there, and leaving and returning in a car may have attracted neighbor attention, isn't it possible that they were both involved, but agreed to NOT take the risk to dispose of the body? They could still stage the scene and hope LE assumes a botched kidnapping (which they did). Burke would certainly start asking questions when he got out of bed.

    Also, weren't they supposed to travel that morning? Did they have bags packed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The purpose of the note was to delay removing the body until the following night, when John could have disposed of it in some remote place while claiming to be delivering the ransom. Meanwhile he could have arranged for Patsy and Burke to stay with friends "for their own safety," while he dealt with the "kidnappers" as they themselves had requested ("it's up to you John").

      And yes they were supposed to travel that morning, but the trip could easily have been cancelled with a phone call.

      Delete
  32. Something has been bothering me about the garotting. I don't really know how to explain, but will do my best. Here goes.
    As i understand it, this method is very close up and personal. it is a method used for control and sexual gratification. So for me, either John wanted this, knowingly planned it, and knew the ending, or it was someone else. As i see it, if it was accidental on his part, such as he went too far, he would have known before hand that going this far with his "game" would only end up with Jonbenet telling someone. As far as finishing her off after the head blow, then staging, if he hadn't planned to kill her in the way she was killed, who would think about staging such a horrific scene with you own daughter in what must have been panic, and i say this even though i know he was molesting her. Why didn't he just hit her again while she was unconcious if he thought she was still alive and leave it at that. The "kidnappers" smashed her over the head as she was running away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the object of the "garrote" was sexual gratification. This is one of the few details where I disagree with Dr. Wecht. A six year old would get no gratification from such an act, especially with a narrow cord cutting into her throat. Also tufts of her hair were entwined in the knotting, which would have made it very painful if she'd been conscious at the time. She'd have been screaming bloody murder.

      I agree that it's difficult to understand why he'd use such a device. It might have been staging, anticipating that when the police found her body they'd assume she'd been attacked by a maniac. Or he might have needed to finish her off and was reluctant to place his hands on her throat, so chose a more indirect method. Or he might simply have been angry with her for "forcing" him to do what he did, and just lashed out in the most sadistic manner he could think of. We may never know.

      Delete
    2. I meant sexual gratification for him

      Delete
  33. The following was emailed to me by someone who had trouble posting a comment here. I'm posting it at this person's request:

    For me the most obvious problem with case analysis is the debatability of so called facts.
    Specifically, in taking into account the relative state of the residence’s security posture, its far from clear how you can make the claim that IDI “is absurd”, many internet posters would not agree:



    Specific Evidence
    How Could An Intruder Enter the House?
    Ramseys "have indicated that their house was not secure during the night of December 25, 1997, and that they had not turned their security alarm on. (SMF P 127; PSMF P 127.)" (Carnes 2003:86)
    "at least seven windows and one door were found "open" on the morning of December 26, 1997. (SMF P 126; PSMF P 126.)" (Carnes 2003:86) "The term "open" was not defined. It is, therefore, not clear if the entrances were ajar or unlocked." (Carnes 2003:Note 31).
    A number of windows were accessible from the ground level, including a window-well, with removable grate, over three windows that opened into a playroom area of the basement. (SMF P 128; PSMF P 128.) This window-well is located on the back side of the house, hidden from the front of the house and from neighbors. (SMF P 130; PSMF P 130.)" (Carnes 2003:86)
    "contrary to media reports that had discredited an intruder theory, based on the lack of a "footprint in the snow," there was no snow covering the sidewalks and walkways to defendants' home on the morning of December 26, 1996. (SMF P 139; PSMF P 139.) Hence, a person walking along these paths would have left no footprints." (Carnes 2003:90).


    “Two windows were open slightly, allowing electrical cords for the outside Christmas lights to pass through." (Glick et al. 1998).”

    Further, as far as evidence of John being any kind of sexual pervert, Ive not yet read this anywhere, He doesn’t fit the criminal profile !

    To my mind, IDI seems a yet plausible theory, we aren’t after the “most likely” culprit here, we are only after the truth, right ?


    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you do a search on the terms you've used, you should find explanations for all your objections on this blog. (See search mechanism on the upper right.)

      Everything you've noted is based on false information or misunderstanding.

      For example:

      John himself reported that all doors leading to the outside were locked. A policeman double checked and confirmed this.

      The "seven open doors and windows" or "open windows and door," whatever, is a blatant deception as you will learn by searching this site.

      The window under the window well bore no indications that anyone had disturbed the thick layer of dirt and grime on the sill. No footprints were found, not only in the snow but also in the layer of frost covering the entire lawn, including the area around the window well in question.

      The window with electric cords passing through was barred. There was only one, not two. Another window was thoroughly checked and it was determined that it hadn't been opened. Even Lou Smit agreed that no one passed through it.

      That doesn't rule out an intruder with a key, of course. But if you read the first two posts carefully, you'll see that there was no reason for any intruder to do all that was done, and if you do a search under "intruder" you'll find more reasons to discard that theory.

      Delete
    2. Well stated, Doc, as always.

      As to the garrote discussion above, my partner agrees with you in that using the garrote for a sexual game makes no sense because the sexual gratification is intended for the person being choked and certainly JonBenet wasn't playing that game, but I have always said that the person doing the choking could very well get sexual gratification himself. Sadistic gratification. So I would have to agree with Dr .Wecht on that one.

      Delete
  34. The wrists restraints are interesting. If you look at the photos, they are nooses. What kind of a perp binds their victim with a noose on each wrist with 15" inches of slack in between? All the victim has to do is slip a finger from one hand inside the noose on the other hand and pull it loose. I admit it could be staging, but again, who would stage it that way? Wouldn't it make more sense to put the hands together? IMO, it seems more in line with "playful sexual restraining", rather than, "forceful abduction, absolute restraint". It's also interesting that the knot on the noose around her neck is in the back, indicating she was garroted from behind or face down. One last thing, there are rope marks around the bottom of her neck, that appear to be a separate location of another rope or the same rope used in the garrote, but a separate tightening. The mark must've been made prior to the final garroting, because the noose would not travel from the bottom of her neck to the middle, just by tightening, unless she was sitting and the perp was standing and pulling up while tightening the noose. In that case, instead of a clear ring around the bottom of her neck, there would be rope burn all the way up her neck. This could've been the location of the noose when used for oxygen deprivation while molesting her. The perp then relocated the noose to the middle of her neck after the blunt force trauma to her head, and cinched it tight, killing her.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good analysis, Jay. I'm going to have to look at the photos again.

      The bottom line, imo, is that this garroting was too complicated and time consuming to have been done by an intruder, even an intruder known by the family. And so that leaves just the 3 people in the house that night. The person who did this had the knowledge of constructing a garrote and also felt comfortable enough in the house to take the time to construct it and use it on JonBenet. It's pretty obvious to me who the person is.

      Delete
    2. This whole case is fascinating. I find myself flipping between photos of the house and the body, the rope/garrote, the transcripts of interviews, ect. in my free time. It's a puzzle, and I enjoy discovering pieces that fit together or lead to other pieces. When I saw the wrists restraints, I could make out that they weren't simple knots. I took a cord and began to mimmick the knot, and it turned out to be a noose, but what's even more interesting, is that it isn't a square knot with the other end of the rope fed through like most people would make it. In fact, I've looked all over the internet at photos of nooses and have only seen one photo, other than JB's wrist restraints, of that particular noose. It's not a complicated noose, but it's obviously not very common.
      Another thing I thought was interesting was the knot on the wood handle of the garrote. There is single-loop noose on each wrist and around her neck, but on the wooden handle, the rope is wound many, many times, before being tied off. Why not make the same noose as the other three? You could cinch it tight around the stick and have the same force of cinching the noose around her neck, when pulled tight. I have a thought, but I'm gonna have to mull it over before I throw it out there.
      Keep the interests alive, fellow investigators, problem-solvers, and theorists. JB's life is worth it.

      Jay

      Delete
    3. Jay, yours is the kind of analysis that may someday uncover some little, overlooked detail that might actually incriminate the killer. You say the noose on her wrist restraints are not very common. If that's true, then finding that same type of noose in the killer's garage, let's say, would make the DA's look harder at that particular person. Something like that could finally be the tip the detectives need. Unless, of course, someone confesses first.

      Delete
    4. Got to looking at autopsy photos of the noose that was around JB's neck, and it is different than the nooses around her wrist(s). There aren't very many good photos, but I could tell it wasn't the same, so I started messing around with a rope trying to make the characteristics of the knot match, and many failed attempts, I finally came up with it. Whoever made these nooses, must've been experienced with making knots, and comfortable in their abilities. They all start out with a loose square knot around the wrist or neck like tying a shoe. But, instead of taking the simplest route of tying a square knot around the loose end of the rope, on the wrists, the perp wraps the rope around the loose end and back through to form half of a butterfly. With the neck noose, instead of wrapping around the loose end, the perp wraps the rope one time around the the left side of the loop and back up through the knot to form a figure 8. When tightened it collapses in on itself and forms a reinforced square knot noose. Fascinating.

      Jay

      Delete
  35. I think PR and JR's medical records deserve some discussion, if for no other reason than they got very tense and defensive about them. I think it was in the Perfect Murder Perfect Town book where I read the Ramsey's get very agitated when LE wanted their medical records. They spoke of an "island of privacy." This makes me very suspicious that there could be something incriminating in them. I have a theory, but I'll wait to hear others. Do we know if they ever did release their medical records to LE?

    ReplyDelete
  36. It was only Burke who had the Island of privacy as far as I know

    ReplyDelete
  37. It's clear that either John Ramsey or the Hoffman-Pughs were the killer. In regards to the broken basement window, Linda Hoffman-Pugh said that she never saw it broken. Either she's lying or the Ramseys are lying. Simple as that.

    BG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda was simply a witness. She never wove any tall tales that made no sense, as John did. Under the nefarious influence of her "mentor" Darnay Hoffman, she said some nasty things about Patsy that always struck me as exaggerations. And she became convinced of Patsy's guilt -- just as millions of others have.

      If you read John's testimony regarding his window break-in story, you'll see how full of holes it is. He did more than just exaggerate, he out and out lied. Linda was thoroughly investigated and cleared. John remained under the "umbrella" for years until Mary Lacy decided to clear him for no good reason.

      BIG difference.

      Delete
    2. I do agree that John being the killer makes more sense by far, although, I don't think we should make the same mistake most experts made when they ruled John out as the author of the ransom note. In other words, let's not rule out the Hoffmans. Would you agree that if John is not the killer then it most likely is one of the Hoffmans or both? I can't see it being anyone else. Also, would you be willing to open another thread based on what it would have taken for Patsy, Linda, Mervin, Bill McReynolds, or any other popular suspect, to commit the crime? I think it would be beneficial for your readers to see exactly what the evidence would resemble if one of those suspects had actually committed the murder instead of John. Thank you for your tireless effort on this case.

      BG

      Delete
    3. I have always been on the fence of the killer being either john or the Hoffman's involvement. If they did, I would imagine Linda only giving directions/ access, possibly info for the ransome note, and the killer being some close friend or relative that was never questioned. I believe they had good motive, But then I question why no DNA match has been found for future or previous acts. Unless of course it was as we suspect innocently transferred.

      Delete
    4. That's just it, it would be normal to find traces of Linda and Mervin in the house so DNA really doesn't come into play. Even if their DNA was found on JonBenet's body it could innocently be explained. So can we rule them out? Absolutely not. So if the Hoffmans are guilty, something had to have gone wrong. Perhaps Mervin and his cohort had additional plans involving sexual abuse that Linda knew nothing about. Linda's idea could've been soley to receive money for JonBenet. Why would Mervin leave the ransom note you ask? Because he's not very intelligent or just didn't care since the note wasn't written in his handwriting.

      BG

      Delete
    5. If you reread the first two posts in this blog you will learn why I can't accept ANY intruder theory, and that, of course, includes Linda. If she were involved in a kidnapping plot she would have arranged to have the note written ahead of time. And if the the motive were to frame one of the Ramseys, she'd have had someone forge the handwriting. Since none of the many professionals who've examined the note have ever even suggested the possibility of a forgery, that can safely be ruled out. When you add the fact that JBR was never actually kidnapped, then any financial motive can also be ruled out.

      When we add John's obvious lies to the mix, it becomes clear that no intruder was present that night.

      Delete
    6. I don't think we can rule out forgery based on the "professionals" never having mentioned the possibility. After all, Hoffman's "experts" were paid to find that PR was the author and none of the other "experts" was engaged in anything like a bona fide science.

      I'm not advocating any forgery theory, just pointing out that we can't dismiss their decision to rule out JR then turn around and rely on their expertise to rule out forgery.

      But we don't need the "experts" to help us with the forgery issue. The RN does not fully and uniformly resemble either PR's or JR's writing, as you've so clearly demonstrated on this blog. If it were a competent forgery it would resemble somone's writing throughout. If it's an incompetent forgery how could we ever tell it was meant as a forgery? This much we can figure out with out help from the "experts" in the field.

      Splitting hairs, I know.

      CH

      Delete
    7. Spotting forgeries is what most document examiners routinely do. Compared with identifying a writer who obviously went out of his way to disguise his hand, it's a snap. I have no idea how they could possibly have ruled out John (or anyone else) on the basis of that note, but I would assume any experienced doc. examiner would have no difficulty spotting a forgery attempt. NO ONE of the many who examined that note even suggested the possibility of forgery.

      Another thing to consider: the discovery that that the note was written on paper from Patsy's pad was NOT a foregone conclusion by any means. Someone was clever enough to check and it must have taken a lot of hard work and time to find that match. If the match hadn't been found then there would have been no connection with the Ramseys at all. So you have someone out to frame John who doesn't bother to forge his writing AND is counting on some inspired individual in forensics to spot a match that could only be seen with a magnifying glass or maybe even a microscope?

      Delete
    8. I'm just amused at dismissing their "expertise" in ruling out JR but relying on their "expertise" at finding forgeries. Essentially you are arguing that if there were an attempt at forgery the "experts" would have spotted it, and would have said so.

      Hoffman's team would have no reason to mention forgery, as they were hired to find that PR wrote the RN. Any deviation from "PR wrote the RN" hurts Hoffman's objective. A suggestion of forgery casts doubt on the conclusion that PR wrote the note.

      JR's experts had no reason to mention forgery either, as even the suggestion leads the investigators to consider similarities in JR's writing and the RN. A poor forgery is only a hair's width from JR disguising his own handwriting. Which is it? JR's "experts" don't want the investigators going down that path.

      The remaining reasonably objective "experts" (in a completely non-scientific enterprise) didn't mention forgery because the overall appearance of the RN doesn't really strongly resemble either PR or JR. Hence, no forgery attempt. We can all see that for ourselves.

      My point isn't that there may have been a forgery attempt, clearly there wasn't. My point is simply we don't need to rely on the "experts". The fact that none of them mentions forgery isn't what tells us there was no forgery. Common sense and our own eyes suffice.


      I think it's obvious no "intruder" tried to frame either of the Rs by forgery. It would take an expert forger to do a 2.5 page RN in someone else's hand. What are the odds that someone with a grudge against JR (or PR) just happened to be an expert forger?

      As an aside, I've become reasonably proficient at forging my wife's signature (just for the fun of it) but there is no way I could do 2.5 pages of her handwriting.

      What if the Abe Lincoln letter that I just bought for $100K is said to be a phoney ? Isn't that essentially the same as "ruling out" Honest Abe as the letter's author? (or at least extremely extremely low probability?) But what if Abe disguised his writing and didn't use his signature? In what sense does forgery even come into it? How can anyone say someone attempted to forge Lincoln's writing in such a way that it didn't look much like Abe's writing? IOWs, spotting a forgery is mostly a matter of spotting small details in writing that looks quite authentic on the whole. That's not what we have with the RN, it doesn't strongly resemble the writing of either PR or JR. No one mentions forgery because it's not really a possibility.

      CH

      Delete
  38. One may question why JR has close relations with Burke from the time of the murder til present day-- Yet ties wiith JAR and the other daugther don't seem to exist. Just something I noticed in following Johns activity from then until now.--Does anyone know of a family function that included them. --robert

    ReplyDelete
  39. Doc, can you tell us for sure whether or not John's shirt fibers were found in JonBenet's panties? I've heard it was only a rumor.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the testimony of one of John's interviewers, fibers consistent with his very unusual (made in Israel) shirt were found inside JBR's panties. When this issue was raised, both John and his lawyer hit the ceiling. Later his lawyer claimed this was a fabrication, but that's very unlikely. The accusation has never been officially retracted and we have no reason to believe the interviewer lied.

      Delete
    2. With regard to ruling out an intruder, the point is made more completely in my book:

      Since the note was written on a pad from the house, we can infer either that it was penned while the “intruder” was inside the house or the pad had been previously taken from the house and then returned. Since it makes no sense to assume that any kidnapper would wait until inside the house to write his ransom note, the first possibility can easily be ruled out . Clearly anyone entering a house with the intent to kidnap would bring an already prepared note. And someone who decided at the last minute to kidnap his victim would not have taken the time to write such a long, detailed note while inside the house, dotting every i and crossing every t.

      On the other hand, if the note had been prepared prior to the entry of the “intruder,” we can only infer that the writing pad must have been removed from the house ahead of time. And we must of course ask why a potential kidnapper would go out of his way to pen his note on a pad from the house of his victim and then bring the pad back with him to replace it where he originally found it. Clearly, in such a case the objective could only have been to make it look as though the note had been written by someone living inside the house to stage a phoney kidnapping. Such a plan could work, however, only if the writer deliberately forged either John or Patsy’s handwriting . However, there is no sign of that. John was, in fact, “ruled out” by a team of “experts,” and the same team found it “unlikely” that Patsy had written it. While other “experts” have concluded otherwise, largely on the basis of letter by letter comparisons, none ever asserted that the overall look of Patsy’s writing resembles that of the note. It is in fact completely different, as I will subsequently demonstrate. There are, of course, a great many other reasons for discounting an intruder, as will be presented in Chapter Four, but the logic presented above, based on the fact that the note was written on a pad from the house, should already in itself be sufficient. Since a real kidnapper would have written his note ahead of time, and someone intent on framing the Ramseys would have forged their handwriting , there is simply no reason for any would-be kidnapper, or any other intruder for that matter, to have written such a note using materials from the house.

      Delete
    3. Doc, do you know how the interviewer obtained those facts about the shirt and can it be researched and found in the case files?

      Gumshoe

      Delete
    4. The interviewer would have obtained the results from the forensics lab. I imagine the report would be somewhere in the case files, but I don't know whether it's ever been made public. In any case, the presence of any fibers belonging to any of the Ramseys anywhere on the crime scene cannot be regarded as incriminating per se, since they were all in close contact with the victim on the previous day and evening. JBR could have touched his shirt and the fibers could have been transferred via her fingers. What makes this suspicious to me is not the fibers themselves, but the extreme reaction of John and his lawyer. Instead of attempting to explain the fibers, they over-reacted, and accused the interviewer of lying.

      Delete
  40. If JR is innocent, this is a double tragedy, you have to live your life as the prime suspect in the murder of your little girl...how horrible, don't you think?
    Will we ever know the truth about this case? who knows...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The JonBenet Ramsey case is a multiple tragedy, as it's affected the lives of many innocent people and created serious problems for most of them. I feel especially badly about what Patsy Ramsey had to go through as I'm convinced of her innocence. Also Burke Ramsey, who is still the number one suspect for a great many, and unjustly so, imo. Also all the many others who remain under suspicion for no good reason.

      As for John, if he is innocent, which I seriously doubt, he is still responsible for what's happened to him, as it was he who stonewalled the police from the beginning, tried to skip town after his daughter's body had been found, misled the authorities on many issues (such as the "seven unlocked windows and doors" nonsense, the closing of the basement window without telling anyone, etc.) and it is impossible for me to believe his story about breaking that window the previous summer. So even if he happens to be innocent he still has a LOT to answer for. No tears for John Ramsey, sorry.

      Delete
  41. Doc, Kolar seems to be convinced that Burke's train set tracks are responsible for the two matching abrasions on JonBenet's neck. I'm curious, if that were true, how could two ends of a connecting train track laying on a flat surface possible leave such marks on JonBenet?

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those marks could have been caused by any number of things. What makes those train tracks interesting is that they were actually found at the crime scene. Unlike the "stun gun" which is pure fantasy.

      Kolar's point is that you don't have to dream up a stun gun to account for those marks. But there's no way to know what caused them, and if it weren't for Lou Smit's nutty theory, no one would be interested.

      Delete
    2. I never bought the stun gun theory from the beginning. From what I've seen, stun guns are used to subdue a person, not knock them out, so subduing JB momentarily doesn't do the perp any good, because once the electric shock stops, she's gonna scream bloody murder. Ironically, she was knocked out... but with a blunt object, not a stun gun. And it wouldn't make sense to stun gun her first, then knock her out, when you could just knock her out to begin with. Disappointing, with 30 yrs. of homicide experience, and this is what he comes up with.

      Jay

      Delete
    3. At that point, Lou was functioning as a Ramsey advocate. The "stun gun" makes no sense, but could be effective as reasonable doubt fodder in a trial.

      Delete
  42. IMO-- There is a way and reason for the marks on JB to match the electric train tracks-- John either used the section connected to the power unit pluged in as in the pictures of the crime scene in the basement playroom to poke JB with to show Patsy that JB was indeed dead ., or to try to shock JB back to life. I choose the 1st. John would be the only one who would have the where with all to think like that. Or be able to rig it up. Thing is ,is that in reality it wouldn't work either way, but John could easily convince Patsy it worked and proved to Patsy JB was dead. robert

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doc, if Kolar's theory is that Burke is the killer, how exactly does he think the details of the crime played out? Does he believe that Burke sexual abused JonBenet or does he think John or Patsy did it for staging purposes?

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kolar never actually spells out his theory, he just implies it. Probably to forestall a lawsuit. Since he includes references to various studies demonstrating that 9 year olds are capable of being sexually active, he definitely gives the impression that, in his opinion, Burke was responsible for the sexual assault (along with the chronic injuries). He sees both Patsy and John as good Christians, only trying to protect their son, so I get the impression he doesn't see the sexual assault as staging, because that's not something "good Christians" would do, is it? I haven't looked at his book in a while so I might be getting that wrong, but that's the impression I was left with.

      Delete
  44. I was reading the transcript of Mark Beckner's question and answer for Reddit (I believe), and a poster mentioned this blog and the reasoning behind JR being the sole perpetrator. MB dismissed it as one of the many interesting theories people have come up with after studying the ransom note, then he mentions Okkim's Razor theory (might be misspelled). Just thought his response was interesting, (my interpretation, "ehhhhh").

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I spotted that too. I can't say I blame him, because there are so many people with theories, some of them really out there. I wrote to Beckner about the blog, but I doubt he ever bothered to check.

      But as far as Occam's Razor is concerned, imo my theory is the simplest by far, and as I understand it (from Darnay Hoffmann, who spoke with people at the DA's office about the case), the notion that John did it and Patsy was in the dark was the original theory before the "experts" decided to rule John out.

      So all we need to do to restore the original theory is rule John back IN. What could be simpler than that?

      Delete
  45. Have you guys seen this?! Up to 2 hours lapsed between her getting hit on the head and being strangled!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcNj3sjA2hg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This video is complete BS. First of all, the timing of the strangulation in relation to the head blow has been widely discussed for years. It is NOT a new revelation. And there are different interpretations of the autopsy report in that respect. According to Dr. Wecht, the strangulation came first. Imo Wecht is wrong and in fact, as I understand it, most of the consulted specialists agree that it came later. As for the timing, 45 minutes to 2 hours does seem reasonable based on the autopsy results, but again this is nothing new.

      Especially annoying is the insistence that "the Ramseys" have been cleared. Obviously Beckner doesn't see them as cleared, especially when we read his comments on the DNA evidence (though later he recanted, interestingly enough). Such statements in the media either reflect bad reporting or, more likely, fear of a lawsuit.

      Delete
    2. Bombshell Tonight!March 20, 2015 at 1:54 PM

      If it was two hours, what could have taken place during that time, and why?

      Delete
    3. He was probably composing his "ransom" note. Or else tracing it from his pre-composed computer text. When he'd finished, he may have noticed she was still breathing. Or else he could have decided to stage the "garotte" to make it look like the work of a sadistic "kidnapper."

      Delete
    4. I thought the same thing. The act of smashing JB on her head with a blunt object with such force is a point of no return, and IMO, with the victim unconscious and severely wounded, possibly even dead as far as they know, the perp takes a moment to gather his thoughts. No doubt, a cocktail of emotions are swirling in his head, and his nerves are shot due to overwhelming fear. Ultimately he decides there is no turning back, and proceeds to stage a kidnapping, one in which JB will not return alive. He begins by crafting a ransom note specifically designed to eliminate JR as a suspect, and ultimately making him the hero by "following their instructions to the letter", "getting the money early", "going through an exhausting ransom drop with very little rest", and going it alone to assure a 100% chance of getting JB back safely. Once done crafting his "well thought out" note, he returned to the basement and discovered she was not dead, but by this point, he had already decided she was not going to "return" alive, so with her face down (so he doesn't have to face her), he tightens the noose around her neck, burying the rope deep in her skin, and kills her. Time elapsed, 45 min.'s to 2 hrs.

      Jay

      Delete
    5. Bombshell Tonight!March 22, 2015 at 4:57 AM

      "Or else tracing it from his pre-composed computer text. "

      Was there a text found? Anything on the computer at all?

      Delete
    6. See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html

      Delete
  46. Jay-- That makes John Ramsey the one and only murderer no matter how JB became unconscious. Motive is number one in LE-- Looks like a chain of motives here-- Here is a child in need of medical attention, can't do that - got to clean her up first, but she appears dead, do the train track test, autopsy going to show the abuse he knows all about, fixs that with the paint brush, possibly after she IS dead. The rest could very well be just as you have stated. robert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never thought about the note solely from a motive of exonerating JR before last night, and how LE would/should see that. Ironically enough, JR tried to distance himself from the note as soon as possible with hiring writing experts to dismiss him as the author, but LE should have, could have, and still could arrest him based solely on content (it's written as an alibi), coupled with JB's dead body in the house, no forced entry, and JB's vaginal opening being twice the size of a normal six year old girl. Everything else is "noise", meant to drown out the truth.

      Jay

      Delete
  47. Doc, you mentioned that while constructing the ransom note, John might've traced a document on his computer screen. I find that highly unlikely since the police found an earlier draft of the ransom note still on the pad. I'm sure John would've torn that page from the pad before he started writing.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No earlier draft of the note was found.

      Delete
    2. Bombshell Tonight!March 22, 2015 at 4:59 AM

      "No earlier draft of the note was found. "

      Wasn't there something on the pad?

      Plus, on the video I linked to did you see the smug smile on JR's face and how he stumbled for words when asked to say what he thinks Jonbenet would be doing today if alive?

      Delete
  48. I think there is quite a bit of confusion concerning "the draft" of the ransom note. It does appear that the perp started the ransom note with "Mr. and Mrs. I", only to abandon that draft, and begin again with "Mr. Ramsey", followed by what we now know as the ransom note. So in essence it is a draft, but it confuses people into thinking there was a full draft left behind.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
  49. By starting a new note , With Mr. Ramsey and droping the Mrs. it further pinpoints to anyone reading the note that John is a target for this group, and that John is a stand alone 100% not to be concidered the killer--robert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. JR implicated himself twice, once by dropping the "Mrs.", and the other by singling himself out in the note as the sole target, and the sole party responsible for JB's safe return. He alone stood to gain an alibi with the note. IMO, he was so sure his ransom note would work, that he proclaimed "victory" at the end of it. The author of the note is the one who stood to gain the most from the note, JR.
      On a separate note, we see the difference, between someone responding with true emotion and behavior to the note, in Patsy, vrs. the dillusional, disconnected-from-reality, dishonest author of the note, in JR. He expected the reader to get all the way through the note before responding logically with "not calling the police". According to interviews, Patsy read the note up to "at this time, we have your daughter" (and maybe a line or two more), before running upstairs to JB's room, and then screaming for JR when she didn't find JB. The threats in the ransom note don't begin until the second page. She didn't get past the 5th or 6th line.

      Jay

      Delete
  50. Doc, I understand that there wasn't a full previous draft of the ransom note but there was the beginning of one. My point is that if John started writing the first draft with the page attached to the pad, it stands to reason that he wasn't tracing text off a computer screen. He would've simply torn the page off the pad if he was going to trace it. John wasn't overly concerned about his handwriting disguise because he never intended for anyone other than Patsy to see it. He never conceived that the handwriting would ever be analyzed but he was fortunate to find "experts" who would rule him out as the author. Nor was he concerned that anyone would discover that the ransom note paper came from the notepad in the house (which is highly suspicious).

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, now I see your point, and it's a good one. On the other hand, if you'll take a good look at the image I produced, where we see a line by line comparison using the Courier New font, you'll see why I suspect the note was in fact traced or copied from a computer display. The correspondences are too close to be ignored, imo.

      The so-called "practice note" simply says "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. It's never been made public and may in fact have been penned in all innocence by Patsy and could have nothing to do with the "ransom note." If it is in fact a first draft of that note, it's hard to see why it would have been left in the pad.

      The similarities with the Courier New font, and especially the spacing of the word processed format, could be a coincidence, of course. At this point we can't be sure.

      Delete
  51. Doc, I have a theory about the lengthy spaces between words. I'll do my best to explain it clearly. When left handed people write, they typically position their hand above the line they are writing on (horizontally) so they can be sure to space each word appropriately; not too close together and not too far apart. But when right handed people try to write with their left hand they often make the mistake of positioning their left hand as they would their right hand; vertically on the paper instead of horizontally over the top of the line they are writing on. This creates a problem for the writer because he or she cannot judge accurately how far apart the words are as the hand slides to the right. My theory is that John tried to disguise his handwriting by using his left hand instead of his dominant right hand. He might have gotten this idea from Patsy since she was ambidextrous and her handwriting looked different when she switched hands. I think John, as most right handers mistakenly do, positioned his left hand vertically and blocked himself from judging the distance between words. In this case, John's hand slid farther between words; more so than he intended.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting theory. But it doesn't account for the close alignment of the spacings with the spacings produced by the word processor. If John were right handed and used his left hand to write the note I'd think it would be much more messy and irregular than it is.

      Delete
    2. Doc, I think that it's more likely there was no word processor involved with this ransom note. If that's the case, then the similarities with the spacing is coincidental and therefore irrelevant. Not only that but the spacing on the ransom note is inconsistent in a lot of areas with the word processor. In regards to the handwriting not being sloppy enough to be John's non dominant hand, I disagree. I always thought the handwriting was sloppy and unnatural looking. It's not a stretch to believe John hadn't previously tried writing with his non dominant hand in the past. We all have. Having a wife that is capable of using both hands to write makes it all the more likely that John was encouraged by Patsy to practice it. The misspellings of "possession" and "business" could also be attributed to the position and awkwardness of his left hand. Another reason for John to keep his hand vertical would be to keep it from smearing the ink on the page.

      Gumshoe

      Delete
    3. You make some interesting points, Gumshoe. I'm not sure what to think. The deposition we have from John, by the way, is pretty consistently back slanted, which is usually associated with left-handedness. If it was in fact written with the left hand, then John is probably the ambidextrous member of the family. In their book, as I recall, he says he's right handed, implying that he's not ambidextrous. I'd love to see some other examples of John's writing, to get a better handle on this. It's possible that most if not all of his correspondence was written either by a secretary or on a computer, so there might not be many useful hand written exemplars.

      Also I don't think we can assume the ransom note was written with the left hand just because it contains back slanted letters. It also contains right slanted letters. Obviously there was an effort being made to produce an irregular effect, as part of the deception.

      In her left handed sample, it looks to me as though Patsy is really struggling and the results are very sloppy looking, much moreso than what we see in the note. Which makes me wonder whether she was really ambidextrous as so often claimed.

      Delete
  52. There should be lots of hand writeing samples from JR over the last 20 years to have experts look at. I was of the opinion that John forces Patsy into writeing the RN. What samples are availible that are suspose to be John's ,are forums and recites that could have been filled out by Patsy and they look like that of the RN.
    So I guess the question is ,Did Patsy fill these out for John and they became samples atributed to John.? robert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of the examples John provided to the authorities have ever been made public. All we have is the one legal document that was made public by a tabloid. We know Patsy didn't write that for him since it bears no resemblance at all to her hand. Neither does the ransom note, by the way, that's a myth.

      No one in a position to know has ever challenged the authenticity of John's court document, by the way. I even wrote to his attorney about that -- twice -- and never got a response. I also showed it to Aunt Pam, Patsy's sister, who immediately identified it as "John's chicken scratch."

      Delete
  53. Well-- I must say, after all these years Patsy writing the note seems to be the theme of forums I have read. I started reading here went I saw we were on the same page as John being the Murderer, and definetly the one doing all the stageing.

    ReplyDelete
  54. my post above-- robert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Literally everyone who sees "the Ramseys" as involved assumes Patsy wrote the note. That's a recurrent theme on the forums and from my experience it's literally impossible to convince anyone otherwise, it's become a fixed idea in so many minds. Which is why I've gone to so much trouble to refute that theory, on this blog and in my book.

      Delete
    2. I should correct that to read: "Just about everyone posting on the forums, who sees "the Ramseys" as involved, assumes Patsy wrote the note." Obviously many posting here see things differently, for which I am most grateful.

      Delete
  55. Doc, I took the time to once again examine your exemplary diagram comparing a sample of John's handwriting to the ransom note. After our discussion and perhaps revelation that John attempted to disguise his handwriting by using his left hand, a couple of things struck me. First, the obvious forward slant of the "w" from the ransom note when straightened is almost precisely the same as John's right handed "w". Also, John uses the capital "A" even in short form in his writing sample. If I was going to disguise my writing one of the first things I'd do is change the way I print the letter "A" because there are more variations of that letter. Coincidentally, that just happens to be the sloppiest written letter in the ransom note, imo, as the writer attempts to add a downward hook over the top just like this: "a" but it often slants upward instead of downward. This tells me that perhaps the writer was uncomfortable forming that letter in such a manner because his lack of experience doing so. In the ransom note there are words and sections that have different slants and more neatness. For example, look at the second page. The word "daughter" is slanted forward in one section and straightened in the other. I think it's highly probable in an attempt to add yet more confusion, John used both hands when he wrote the note. When you look at the note as a whole, it looks extremely sloppy and that's mainly because of the changing slant direction throughout. When each word is examined independently, it looks much neater to the eye. Imo, John assumed this deception would be enough to fool Patsy. She was the only one he needed to deceive before his plan fell apart.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too have often thought he used both hands. It does look that way, yes. And if the plan was to destroy the note before the police could get hold of it, by claiming the "kidnappers" insisted on him returning it, then you're right, he would only have needed to fool Patsy -- and maybe a few friends he'd want to show it to so they could be witnesses to its contents. He may never have anticipated it would be examined by "experts." So he really got lucky when the "experts" ruled him out. My guess is that he made sure to provide exemplars that would confuse them. I'd love to have a look at what he showed them that got them so far off track.

      Delete
  56. Cont. - I forgot to add this: This is also consistent with the disparity of letter thickness on the third page of the ransom note. I'm sure John applies a different amount of pressure with each hand when he writes.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
  57. I don't understand how someone could be ruled out as the author of the ransom note when there is so much deception in the way it is written. For that matter, all of Boulder should've been included in the group of potential suspects/authors, because once there is deception, no one can be ruled out. Writing experts are trained to spot deception, and the second you look at the ransom note, the "a"'s jump out as being changed after they were written initially. In fact, there are so many inconsistencies in the way certain letters are written, it is impossible to identify the author from the formation of the letters alone. At the same time, it is impossible to rule any one particular person out, with the exception of those that couldn't have written a similar letter to begin with (young kids, adults who can't read, ect.).
    I'm puzzled at how LE considers that Patsy disguised her writing in the note, but it never dawns on them that it ould've been JR that disguised his writing instead. The RN is meant to draw attention away from JR, but for me, it does the opposite. IMO, the note basically says "JB is dead, but JR didn't do it". That gives me probable cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. When you see that it's addressed to "Mr. Ramsey," and you see "It's up to you, John," then it looks to me as though it was written by someone overly eager to direct suspicion 180 degrees away from himself. When you consider also that nothing used in the crime is associated with John, but only with either Patsy or Burke, that's another example of essentially the same strategy at work.

      And they fell for it, so I guess he knew what he was doing.

      Delete
    2. No, it doesn't make any sense that anyone was ruled out. Perhaps just as interesting is that Cina Wong is 100% certain it was PR. How could anyone be 100% certain? Especially with the differences that Doc has pointed out on this blog?

      CH

      Delete
  58. He was fortunate to have a DA who wanted a confession and not a trial, and a Police dept. that can't see "probable cause", when it's staring them in the face. Just because you "lawyer up" doesn't mean they can't arrest you, if they have probable cause. A deceptive 3 page ransom note, that creates an alibi for JR and only JR, no forced entry, JB's body found in the house (by JR of all people), no evidence of an intruder, and JB's vagina opening twice the size of a normal 6 yr. old girl. He should have been arrested almost immediately (within a day of the autopsy).
    The police would have been able to question him immediately, and they would've been able to question Patsy immediately, without John filling her head. The sad part is that the same probable cause is still there today. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is for a jury to decide. Hopefully one day, they'll get that opportunity.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
  59. I got to looking again at the wrists restraints from the autopsy photos, and at first I thought they had the same type noose on both wrists. In one photo taken of the whole device, the noose that was found around JB's rights wrist is a half-buttetfly (as I've posted before). The other noose appears to have two loops, but I dismissed it as a sloppy photo with the pathologist not taking time to straighten out the slack between the nooses, thus forming what appears to be another loop (double loop) on the one side. I decided to reread the autopsy report to see how they described the restraints, and low and behold, it mentions a double loop on one side, so I got my rope out again and tried to mimmick the knot with two loops. It took over an hour, and a lot of failed attempts, but I finally came up with it. It turns out to be a double-noose, or two nooses in series. They are designed to tighten the one (smaller tear drop loop) and then the other (round loop similar to the right wrist loop), by pulling the rope in between the wrists.
    The question then begs, if the round loop was tightened around her left wrist, what was the tear drop loop tightened around? If you'll recall, this is the restraint that JR admittedly took off her wrist when he found her. This is more than just staging. No one is going to make a double noose just to make a double noose. Also, this now makes four completely different knots (right wrist, left wrist, neck, and wood handle). Someone knew what they were doing when comes to a rope.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I spent some time last night trying to come up with a reason for the double noose opposite of the noose on JB's right wrist. The problem I was having, was I assumed the round loop was for her left hand, which put the tear drop loop on the outside of her wrist, which didn't make sense. In order for the noose not be taken apart when removed from whatever object it was secured to, the object would have to be open on one side, or be taken apart (bed post, door knob, ect.). This would eliminate piping in the basement, JB's headboard, ect. But it still didn't make sense with all the slack in between the nooses. If the left wrist is slid toward the right wrist, it loosens the noose. Whatever the object was, in order for the restraint to work properly, it would have to be very large, pushing her hands together. Then it dawned on me, if you put her left wrist in the tear drop loop, the round noose ends up in between her wrists. If you were to position her hands behind her back, the round noose, with the slack between her hands, would be long enough and big enough to go around her ankles, if the body is arched backwards (hogtied). I took the rope I made up to mimic the wrists restraints and put them on my hands with my hands behind my back, and it sent chills down my back. With the tension from the arched position and the ankles together noosed with each wrist noosed, it would be completely immobilizing. It's terrifying how effective it would be. To add an even more terrifying element, the noose around the neck is designed to grip tight. Due to the knot located in the midline of the back of JB's neck, it very well could have been attached to the ankle restraint, causing a potentially dangerous bondage position used in sexual dominence/submission. Not saying it's a definite, but it all lines up, IMO.

      Jay

      Delete
    2. Jay, interesting work you've been doing on the rope.

      Years ago I tied the noose with 1/4" nylon line. I found it slipped only in the direction of tightening, but wouldn't let loose w/o some help.

      It is of course impossible to say exactly what went on, but your scenario is possible.

      CH

      Delete
  60. Hello DocG,
    Your theory is very good . Is logical, it is one of the best theory i heard about this case.
    But, i am sorry, you are wrong!! Your theory is wrong!
    JR is innocent and Patsy is also innocent. (and Burke too!)
    Your mistake is, you are conviced that no intruder could be in the house in this night. But your are wrong, there was a possiblity to enter the house! Lou Smith have proved this. (see the video below)
    Also JonBanet was strangulated with the garrote first and then hit on the had and died immedetly afterwards.
    If she was hit on the had first,there would be a lot of blood all over. But there was no blood.
    She must have been slowly strangulated. very brutaly! she must have fight for her live, she must have screemed (a neighbour heard a child screeming)

    No parents, no father, no mother can kill there child in such a brutal way. Impossible!

    And on JR's personality i can not see the slightest sighn of aggression..

    There are DNA found from an unknown person also!


    I know, it is hard for you to doubt your own theory, which your probably spent a lot of time on it. But think about it. Becouse you accuse an innocent man.

    John Ramsay is innocent! I am absolutly convicend he is a kind, friendly man and would never do anyone any harm.

    Sorry for my English. :-)
    Greetings from Germany!


    I send you a Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOa4b8lp-J





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The video you linked me to does not exist, according to youtube. But if you are referring to the famous video made by Lou Smit, I am certainly aware of that. And Smit's presentation is extremely misleading. There is no evidence anyone passed through the basement window. Many other assertions made by Smit are also misleading or else just wrong. I've covered all that in a blog post called "The Lou Smit Show" -- you can find it by doing a search on this website -- see upper right corner of this page.

      You are basing your conclusions on assumptions, not facts. The head blow produced no blood because the scalp was not broken. She was probably struck with a Maglite, which has a hard rubber tip. Most forensic pathologists who examined the autopsy believe the head blow came first -- although Cyril Wecht believes she was first strangled as part of a "sex game" gone wrong. In either case there is no reason to rule out John Ramsey. Also there were signs of chronic damage to the inside of her vagina, which were most likely produced by sexual abuse at an earlier date. The most likely person to have abused her prior to the day of the murder was John Ramsey.

      The DNA evidence means little. According to James Kolar, who was the lead investigator at one point, there were traces of DNA from six different unknown sources found at the murder scene. Most likely all were due to indirect transfer from some innocent source.

      The bottom line is that there was no reason for any intruder to do what was done that night -- including the writing of a long ransom note while in the house; hiding the body in the basement; changing the victim's panties, etc. If you read the first two posts on this blog you'll see that the intruder theory makes no sense. If that isn't enough for you, then I'll refer you to the following blog post where I go over the intruder theory in detail: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/that-elusive-intruder.html

      Delete
  61. Just announced on reddit that James Kolar is doing an AMA. Also Doc this blog is incredible. I never thought I would know what happened to Jonbenet but after reading everything thoroughly on this blog the pieces have finally come together. I wish the truth didn't have to be so horrific. I don't know if I would have believed it was possible that her father could do those things until learning of some molestation in my own family. An upstanding family man can be capable of horrible things. I wish that wasn't the case but I now believe that wolves can wear sheep clothing and fool even bright people.
    Keep up the good work and I hope people will start to see the truth.
    -SM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lakeofshiningwatersMarch 26, 2015 at 5:10 PM

      I was just coming here to tell Doc about the AMA, too. Please join in!
      https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/2z3312/ama_announcement_chief_of_police_and_former/

      I just posted some links to your blog here:
      https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30aaaw/patsy_ramseys_phone_call/

      I think your theories are very well-thought out and interesting. They bring together a lot of the pieces that don't make sense individually.

      Delete
    2. Thanks to both of your for the heads-up on the Kolar AMA. I just registered and posted a question under the moniker doktorgosh. (By the way, docG was already taken -- wonder who that could be.) I'll be following this with great interest.

      Delete
  62. I often wonder about the relationship John had with his daughter, Elizabeth, who died in a car accident in 1992. John reportedly had a close relationship with her and had a much harder time getting over her death than did his ex wife. Could it be that Elizabeth was his favorite child because he had an incestuous relationship with her? Perhaps all of John's sexual advances were directed toward his oldest child, Elizabeth, instead of the younger, unaware daughter, Melinda. John Andrew was only two when John separated from Lucinda. Melinda was seven and Elizabeth was nine. It's interesting that John and Lucinda were experiencing marital problems while their two daughters were very close to JonBenet's age. So it's possible that after the divorce, John wasn't tempted to molest again until JonBenet was old enough to be sexualized in the pageant world and Patsy was battling cancer and as a result was not sexually active. These ideas are conjecture of course, but I find it hard to believe that JonBenet was John's only victim of sexual abuse when he had other opportunities to commit this crime when he was younger - meaning his libido was at a higher and more uncontrollable level.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
  63. Just got through reading the letter Fleet and Priscilla White sent to the people of Colorado in April of 1998 (might be off on the month). Boy, they just ripped Hunter (DA), Team Ramsey, political advisors (other DA's), state legislators, and the governor of Colorado for stalling the investigation, failing to convene a grand jury before new laws manipulating grand juries could be passed, using the grand jury to conceal testimony and suppress evidence, refusing to appoint a special prosecutor, and ultimately not turning the case over to the Attorney General in an effort to remove all the politics, delays, leaks, biases, lack of cooperation between services, and career saving measures, but they saved the best for last. They ended the letter by calling out the #1 obstacle for police trying to find JB's killer and get justice for her... JR and PR. Heartbreaking.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that as well! Super eye opening and in my opinion speaks volumes about the Ramsey's in how they treated their friends.
      -SM

      Delete
  64. Here's a comment from "Patrick," who was unable to post it here and asked me to do it for him:

    I think your theory is the most reasonable, based on the facts. However, there is one thing that is bothering me: How is it possible John allowed his wife to call 911?

    That, after all, is the key to your entire theory, in my opinion. She called 911 and screwed up his plans. Now he had no time to properly stage the break in, no time to dispose of the body, etc. And this was a guy that could think quickly on his feet! He brilliantly changed his story, realizing the broken window now made no sense, no doubt under intense pressure. He manipulated his wife to support his lies (lost keys, broken window, etc.). He seems like a diabolical genius, a master manipulator.

    And yet it was obvious to him he had to keep his wife from panicking and calling the police, once she learned of the “kidnapping." That would screw everything up. How is is possible he just let her do it? He could have scared her into not calling: “They will kill our daughter!” The key was to stay between her and a phone until she calmed down and accepted his strategy of trying to appease the kidnapper. And yet he apparently didn’t bother thinking this through, allowed her to call, completely screwing everything up.

    You can say that he forced her to hang up the first time, as there is evidence the first 911 call was somehow disconnected. And then he realised it was too late, the police would call back, or they were already on their way. But why did he let her get anywhere near a phone in the first place, until they both agreed to wait 24 hours???

    —Patrick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the 911 "hangup" call apparently was made at an earlier date, so I think I originally got that wrong.

      You're certainly not the only one to wonder why John allowed Patsy to make that call. The bottom line is that we just don't know what went on between them that morning. The account(s) they've offered are contradictory and, given their status as suspects, unreliable.

      As I see it, John's whole plan depended on the assumption that once Patsy read those dire warnings, she would go along and not call the cops. Obviously his assumption was wrong. It's possible she waited until he let his guard down and then made the call. It's possible she just spontaneously made it after reading just a few lines of the note, before he was able to react. There is no way he could have hovered over her all morning to prevent her from calling -- and if he tried doing that it would certainly have looked very suspicious. There was a phone on every floor, so if you think about it, there's no way he could have stopped her if she was determined to call, outside of literally tying her up.

      I think he just counted on the note scaring her into submission and when it didn't he must have been caught off guard.

      Delete
    2. And if I may reply to my own thread to expand a bit (perhaps this will work and it will show up this time)....

      I think you have answered elsewhere that the letter itself, with its clear warnings not to call the police, should have been enough. That JR was not expecting his wife to call when the repercussions were so severe. I still don't think a master manipulator would leave the "reveal" to chance. Think about it, her reaction could have been a number of things. She could have passed out, perhaps severely injuring herself in the process. That would complicate things... She could have screamed and became hysterical, alerting the neighbours, etc., etc. I just can't understand why JR would risk that in any way.

      Also, why did PR call the police? Have you examined that in any detail? You have said many times that this was completely unexpected, and the catalyst for all that followed. I agree. And so with her daughter's life on the line, why did she simply ignore the warnings and call the police? And not just the police, but 911? I can see calling a friend or acquaintance who is a policeman to get advise, but broadcasting it all on 911? Without even discussing with her husband, if your theory is to be believed! How could she make a decision like that - one that could have meant life or death for her daughter - without at least discussing it with her husband?

      Did anyone ever ask her why she called the police, completely ignoring the dire warnings in the RN?

      Delete
    3. She was never allowed to answer. John answered for her. Don't forget, it was John who claimed he was the one who decided that his wife should make the call. (Which in itself is odd -- why couldn't he have done it?) And his answer was that he felt he had no choice, that he would have gone out of his mind, or something like that, if he had to just sit and wait.

      Fact is. The call WAS made. Fact is: Patsy is the one who made it. If it were me, I would have used my cell phone to call my lawyer or the FBI and would NOT have invited uniformed police to come immediately to my home. And if John really wanted help from the authorities that's certainly what he would have done.

      So why did Patsy call 911? I'm sure it was her idea, not his. She even claimed as much when interviewed for the A&E documentary of the case. My best guess (and that's all it is) is that she wanted help on the scene as soon as possible. Either because she was afraid the "kidnappers" were still in the house, or because John was acting strange and, at that point, she might have suspected him or at least feared him. That could also be why she called her friends, to just get someone there on the scene as soon as possible.

      Of course, now that Patsy's gone we'll probably never know what was on her mind at that moment. But she DID make the call, that's a fact. And if she were staging a phony kidnapping she would not have made it.

      Delete
    4. I'll add one more thing. It's easy to ask one's self "what would I do under the same circumstances?" But, first of all, this didn't happen to you and someone else might react differently. And secondly, we have no way of knowing what the circumstances were when that call was made -- so we can't really know how we'd react.

      Delete
  65. I wonder if it ever crossed the Detectives' mind, that maybe the reason why the "kidnapper" never called was because he was still in the house? I'm sure someone will say that "tomorrow"was meaning the 27th, but according to interview transcripts and timelines, John was securing the ransom at 7:30am on the 26th, supposedly in anticipation of an 8am phone call.

    Jay

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm guessing Patsy read part of the first page and frantically ran upstairs to find John. After she informs him, John follows her downstairs to examine the note, as if he'd never seen it before. While he's pretending to read it, Patsy grabs the nearest phone and quickly dials 911 as John turns around in complete shock. I'm sure he instinctively cried out to stop her but it was too late and he knew it. After Patsy completed her call I'm guessing she blindly tries to hang up the phone and starts pleading to Jesus for help. John is freaking out. He notices Burke standing close by for the first time. Burke is asking questions but John is too furious to tell him what's really going on. John looks back at Patsy as she prays and notices the phone isn't completely hung up so he races to it and slams the receiver on its cradle. John finally erupts. He shows Patsy the section of the note that clearly states not to get anyone else involved. Patsy insists that she never got that far reading the note. John is pacing around the room muttering. He's incredulous that she didn't read the entire note. He's furious. Yelling. Burke continues to ask questions like any curious child. John orders him back to his room (This could be why the Ramseys lied about Burke being asleep the whole time to protect themselves from Burke telling investigators about what the argument was about). Patsy is frightened. She's never seen John this upset. He storms off to the basement. Patsy then calls her friends because she doesn't want to be alone with John. This explains why they were in separate rooms the rest of the day.

    Gumshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not bad. That would explain certain things, yes.

      Delete
    2. Very plausible. But again, if keeping her from calling the police was key to his entire plan, why did he pen a rambling, long ransom note that takes forever to get to the key point: don't involve the police! And look at how he makes that point: "She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter." This is just too vague. "If you want her to see 1997"??? Later, much later, he adds this: "Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. " Again, this verbiage makes little sense if the entire point of the RN is to both create a kidnapping scenario AND keep Patsy from calling the police. Much better is a 5 sentence RN in which the opening is this: "We have your daughter. Do not call the police or she dies. We will return her unharmed if you follow our instructions carefully. etc., etc." If he felt the need to ramble on for another 2 pages, fine. But he had to be clear and direct up front, otherwise he faced the risk of losing control of the situation with a hysterical wife/mother. Which he apparently did. But this should have been fairly obvious.

      All of this is of course incredibly speculative. Perhaps JR was a criminal genius who realized his best defense was creating a completely incoherent crime scene right from the beginning. With so many contradictions it would be hard for any prosecutor to create a sensible story as to what happened in that house. The more contradictions, the more possibilities to sow doubt in a jury's mind.

      Delete
    3. In my experience it's a lot easier to ramble on than to write something short and succinct. I've written many academic papers, and the biggest challenge has always been the abstract, which I usually need to revise several times before getting it right. The note had several functions to perform. Not only to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, but also to suggest a disgruntled former associate or employee; establish the terms of the ransom and the conditions for its delivery; establish the time the "kidnappers" were going to call; make it clear that it was up to HIM and no one else to deal with the "kidnappers"; include the sort of language one usually expects to find in a real ransom note. When we add to this the fact that John would have been extremely stressed at the time, I see no reason to be puzzled over the length and complexity of the note. What puzzles me more is how coherent it is, and how carefully it is crafted.

      Delete
    4. And then after this frecking out of John's -- He answers the door to Linda Arndt -- CORDIALY robert

      Delete
  67. I have a theory that might explain Patsy's behavior. I'm entirely speculating , so it's just a theory.

    I think patsy had caught JR miolesting JBR in the past. Maybe she walked in him, or more likely JBR told her or she saw evidence of it on JBRs body. She confronts John on it. John, ever the psychopath and ever the manipulator convinces patsy not to call LE and to carry on life as if it didn't happen. The key here is Patsy's cancer. He could remind her that she licked cancer with the best treatment money could by. If she turns him in, he'll spend every penny he has on his defense and there will be nothing left for her in a divorce, and thus no money for treatment if her cancer returns. She can go on Medicaid or something. This would scare the hell out of her. Being a cancer survivor changed her psychology and priorities .

    John could have also convinced her the molestation was an isolated incident, brought on by her being away for treatment and him feeling lonely and depressed. And now that she's back to good health he will never do it again.

    Patsy was probably then sure the abuse was over and life went on.

    So when she saw that RN that morning, she probably suspected john because of her knowledge of johns past pedophilia. She was scared that morning of John and didn't want to confront him and didn't want to be alone with him hence she called 911 and friends.

    Her behavior the rest of the morning was congruent with her suspecting john. They didn't talk and were usually in separate rooms.

    Following that day, John could have used Patsy's past knowledge of his abuse as the leverage he needed to get her to lie. He could have convinced her there was an intruder, but if LE asks too many questions , they'll find out that I (JR) abused JBR and you (PR) covered it up for greedy reasons. So patsy, I (JR) am a lot smarter than you, just go along with what I say and answer these questions like thus. This is to protect both of us.

    He also had their doctor drug the hell out of patsy so she'd be more compliant and wouldn't think too logically of why she had to lie about certain questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could have happened that way, but it's awfully speculative. I prefer to keep things simple.

      Delete
    2. The problem is that it's all speculation now, including your theory. Which is why I believe there is less than a 1% change JR will be prosecuted for this. Only a new statement from Burke could possibly change anything.

      I accept your version is the most plausible. But that is just not enough to prosecute JR for this terrible crime. Major issues: the crime scene was contaminated, the police were incompetent, one of the key witnesses is now dead, and the evidence is just too conflicting. A well paid defence attorney would have little problem sowing seeds of doubt. The sad truth is that nobody will ever be punished for this crime, even though it's likely the perpetrator is alive and well, having gotten away with murder.

      We are left with speculation. I do think your analysis of the window break-in is devastating. And that coupled with the ransom note, the fact that everything related to this murder originated from within their home, certainly indicates the guilty party was a family member.

      But I doubt a good defence lawyer would even concede that, saying police incompetence could not rule out an intruder, pointing to all of the conflicting DNA noise (which you can explain, but which still lends credence to the intruder theory, etc.). And even if you could convince a jury that the guilty party was a family member, how do you go from there to JR? He was just one of three that could have done it, and any combination thereof. You will never get past that.

      I do accept the facts favour your theory. But if I was on the jury, I'm not sure I would even vote to convict JR, to be honest, if this is all we have. It looks very bad for him, I grant you that. Is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Hmmmmmm...... That's a very difficult call.

      Delete
    3. My theory necessarily includes many speculative elements, agreed. Any theory of the case would have to, since there were no eye witnesses, no surveillance cameras, and few obvious clues. We will probably never know the truth about many elements of this case, though we can certainly speculate meaningfully about what happened and why, which is what I think I've done.

      But the heart of my theory, the part that points to John and only John is NOT speculative. As I believe I've demonstrated, it is based on facts, and clear logical inferences based on those facts.

      As far as a trial is concerned, there is more than enough probable cause to put John Ramsey on trial for the murder of his daughter. Whether the defense can convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt is another matter. A lot would depend on how the case is presented and how aggressive the prosecution is. However, my principal goal has always been to give John his day in court, NOT necessarily to see him rot in jail. If he can present a coherent, meaningful defense that takes into account all the many elements of this case pointing to him, then I'd be willing to accept his innocence in spite of everything. I feel sure he'd be unable to do that, but one never knows.

      It would first be necessary to explode the absurd notion that he couldn't have written the ransom note. All that would take would be some expert testimony from established forensic handwriting professionals testifying that there are in fact no scientific guidelines for arriving at such a conclusion where deliberate deception is involved. Next, it would be necessary to explode the DNA evidence that "exonerated" him in the eyes of DA Mary Lacy. That too would be a matter of expert testimony.

      The next step would be to expose John's many deceptions and outright lies, culminating in the obvious fabrication of his window break-in story. Once those lies are exposed, then it's just a hop skip and jump to the realization that he attempted to stage a break in at the basement window. Once that's established, any possible intruder theory crumbles into dust. To make sure, however, the prosecutor could then go over all the absurdities of that theory, as I've outlined them here.

      So by then we have established beyond reasonable doubt that there was no intruder, that John was involved, and that John must, in fact, know the truth about his daughter's murder, regardless of who actually killed her. If he is at that point willing to take the stand and convince the jury that Patsy or Burke did it and that he was only aiding and abetting, then let him give it a try. Once we reach that point, however, it would be crystal clear that John is a liar and therefore an unreliable witness and the jury would have no reason to believe him. And if he doesn't take the stand, then it would be up to his lawyers to point the finger at either Patsy or Burke, which would be awfully difficult for them to do, since their only source of information on that score would be John himself -- whose version of what happened is clearly unreliable.

      Realistically I doubt that the defense would even attempt to point the finger at Patsy or Burke, because that would wreck the defendant's credibility. They would be forced to insist on an intruder in spite of everything. And since it's possible to prove (see above) beyond reasonable doubt that there was no intruder -- and that John lied -- and since even suggesting that Patsy or Burke did it would wreck any credibility the defense might have -- I would think there's be a very good chance of conviction.

      But, as with any case, one never knows. As far as I'm concerned he's innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Let the trial begin.

      Delete
    4. I know team Ramsey has stated that they don't know how the intruder got in and out of the house, probably due to the weakness of the broken window, and the open-ended possibility of someone with a key, seeing that numerous people had keys to their house. The problem with their defense is the improbability of a stranger with a key. The defense's insistance on the foreign DNA being the killer's DNA, creates a double-sided trap for them. If they are hesitant about the broken window (one foot on either side of the fence), that shows doubt. If they commit adamently to the broken window, they are super vulnerable to the prosecution cutting off their only way of escape. On the other side, if they abandon the broken window, they are left with two options, excluding the fire place that was used the night before by Santa Clause (sorry, had to throw that in there with the mythical intruder idea). Either they argue the intruder had a key (highly unlikely, seeing that anyone close to the family had their DNA tested), or they argue that they have no idea how the intruder got in, but they did somehow (which is the safest route, though least effective in establishing reasonable doubt). Point of entry and exit, or lack there of, hurts the defense, so I don't think they'd spend a lot of time or effort on it, but that's the quagmire. They are forced to rely on foreign DNA as their best chance at reasonable doubt, however, no reasonable point of entry or exit means they are either dealing with a phantom or foreign DNA got in the house without the "intruder" being present. It would be awesome if the prosecutor, knowing he could paint the defense in this corner, would be prepared by having a "foreign DNA" count taken from their own home and present it to the jury (including on clothing). At that point, the defense would be desperate to plea, to avoid Murder 1. IMO.

      Jay

      Delete
    5. Anonymous who started this thread--Very good deduction , and its not to speculative-- My biggest question is . What would cause a mother or Father not to call 911 as soon as the child needed medical attention? It has to be a two sided reason , and your deduction has merit, I maintain John convenced Patsy that she would be charged with murder and that John would be charged with the incest. and a pack was made , to cover things up-- I think that your deduction and mine are somewhere along those lines . Maybe a little sway from that, but there just has to be something that would incrimiate both-- robert

      Delete
    6. Agree that a trial is key, to weigh the evidence, and provide some semblance of justice. Fair point. But without additional evidence, I just can't see how a jury can reach any other conclusion than not guilty. I do think your theory is most likely correct, but you are overestimating how speculative it will sound to a jury. You have lived it for a while and hence see things more clearly. A jury will not have that luxury.

      You think you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the perpetrator came from inside that house. I disagree. Police incompetence (did they really check every entrance?), general availability of spare keys, and DNA "noise" will sow the seeds of doubt. It only takes one juror, after all! Perhaps I'm underestimating people, but "DNA" has taken on such a magical quality vis-a-vis criminal investigations that it will be hard to say the foreign DNA is meaningless.

      As to the RN, you can probably show it could have been written by JR. But by that logic it could have been written by anybody. Yes, I know it makes the most sense if JR wrote it, but that is speculation.

      And even if you can convince the entire jury that someone in that house wrote the RN and committed the crime, how do you get from there to JR? Your logic makes by far the most sense, but few jurors will think it sufficient to put away a man for life. Just because you can show he is a liar doesn't mean he's a murderer. Perhaps he was covering for his wife? He doesn't need to blame her during his defense, that would be a terrible strategy. He just needs to show they cannot rule her out as the perpetrator. He is just one of 3 people in that house, what is the smoking gun that ties him to the murder? You don't have it. So we are back to circumstantial evidence and speculation. Sure, it's usually the father that abuses the daughter. But not always. The defense team will bombard the jurors with multiple possibilities, they will overwhelm them with possible scenarios that don't involve JR.

      Your approach could have worked if it was followed properly from the beginning, with JR as their prime suspect. But now it's just too late, let's be reasonable. The kid is the only hope for ever providing some closure to this case. Without new evidence from him, we are stuck.

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

      Delete
    8. Robert: "I maintain John convenced Patsy that she would be charged with murder and that John would be charged with the incest. and a pack was made , to cover things up-- I think that your deduction and mine are somewhere along those lines ."

      Sorry, but this makes no sense. You are introducing unnecessary noise. Parents don't make pacts like that: "Let's stick together, I won't tell them about how you sexually abused our daughter for months, you will keep quiet about how I just murdered her...." This is insane.

      If JR saw his wife kill their daughter, he would have called the police. And vice versa. Who wants to live in the same house with a psychotic monster that molests and strangles children? What mother makes a pact to hide sexual abuse of her daughter? Seriously, collusion makes zero sense.

      I agree they covered for each other a bit later on, especially PR covering for JR with white lies to align their stories. But this can be easily explained as a wife who trusted her husband and realised quickly that any inconsistency, however small, would be used against them both. And besides, it's normal that memories are a bit tricky after such a traumatic event.

      I agree with the author of this blog that it's very likely the murderer was a member of the family, the intruder theory is supported by zero evidence. And the overwhelming evidence that we have, even though it's mainly circumstantial, points to JR.

      Talk of family collusion in killing or covering up this crime is just ridiculous. I'm not sure why people continue to believe this when it's so illogical.

      Delete
    9. "But without additional evidence, I just can't see how a jury can reach any other conclusion than not guilty."

      As I see it, there are two compelling arguments that could or should convince any open-minded jury:

      1. The absurdity of any possible intruder theory, as outlined in the first two posts of this blog and the Introduction to my book.

      2. The fact that John lied about breaking the window earlier. The only reason for such a lie would have been to deflect attention from his obvious staging at the basement window on the night of the crime.

      If the prosecution can convince the jury of either 1 or 2 (more than likely both), then it will be clear that there was no intruder -- beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Once the jury realizes that this was an inside job, then as I see it, John's goose would be cooked. Because it would be clear to the jury that he's been lying about the case for years and has some explaining to do. If he then elects to take the stand and convince the jury that Patsy or Burke did it, he will have that option. I can't imagine he'd ever be willing to do that, but if in fact he is innocent then this would be his opportunity to prove his innocence by explaining what actually happened in a clear and convincing manner. If he does not take the stand and there is no attempt to implicate either Patsy or Burke, then I think the prosecution would have an excellent chance of convicting him, especially when the evidence of prior sexual molestation is revealed. The importance of reasonable doubt is overestimated imo. What's important is that the prosecutor is able to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty by any reasonable standard -- despite any lingering doubts they might have over certain unresolved aspects of the case.

      As I see it, the real problem would not be convincing a jury, but convincing a prosecutor to go ahead with such a case. The notion that John was "ruled out" has become iron clad dogma that no one wants to question. It's just part of a mindset that's almost impossible to overcome. The biggest challenge as I see it, would be to get someone in authority, or someone in the media, to interview the "experts" who decided to rule John out, and question them regarding the basis for that decision. Once that can of worms is opened, then it might be possible to convince someone in a position of authority to proceed.

      Delete
    10. Well, let me start by saying I agree with you completely to a point: you can show quite convincingly that there was no intruder in that house that night. Almost certainly the person who killed JBR was a family member. You have 3 options.... And only 2 of those could have written that RN.

      But 3 options does not mean JR murdered JBR. As you have stated, "the Ramseys" is not a legal entity. If JR is on trial for murder, you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he, JR, committed the crime. He doesn't need to take the stand and blame anybody. Why? He just needs to deny any involvement. How do you get around that?

      All you have by your own reasoning is that he is a liar, and almost certainly involved in a cover up of some kind. But even that is not clear, and as I noted, I don't believe a jury will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on that point. But as you noted, if there is a trial, at least the evidence can be properly examined. I agree with you there.

      Chief Kolar thinks Burke killed her. You saw the AMA on Reddit, I noticed. He believes both parents were involved in a cover up. You clearly disagree, but if that is a valid opinion held by someone intimately familiar with the facts in this case, what happens to your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for JR on charges of murder? In that scenario, he's "only" guilty of being an accessory to a crime. And as you noted, why, when his son couldn't even be prosecuted?

      I think Burke is the key. Either he talks one day about what happened that night, or there will never be any closure to this. I can't imagine a prosecutor would reopen this case without something new and compelling like that. I wonder if Burke can be subpoenaed to talk? He's clearly an adult now, so strange there has been no attempt to speak to him.

      Delete
    11. The AMA was very frustrating because they are so convinced that patsy payed a part and that John has been ruled out. I'm regretting not pointing out what Doc has said that why would they write the note and than call the police? On some level I can believe they would cover for their son but why blow the extensive cover by calling the cops? I just don't think any other scenario makes sense. Also I think I agree with Patrick about a trial if even super intelligent police an detectives have not put 2 and 2 together I think it's very possible some jurors would find reasonable doubt. Also with the amount of time passing and media coverage and the only other adult in the house dead I think it would pretty easy to sway some jurors towards reasonable doubt. I agree Burke is probably the only one who could shed new light but I personally don't think he ever will.

      Delete
    12. ^^^
      Sorry for typos super hard to edit on iPad.

      -SM

      Delete
  68. Not to stray too far from the subject, but Amanda Knox's conviction has been overturned by the Italian high court.

    CH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot to add that Sollecito's conviction was also overturned.

      Delete
  69. Wow! Thanks, CH. That's great news.

    ReplyDelete
  70. www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-sexual-abuse.htm.

    Posting from phone so apologies. Maybe this is old news but just found a page detailing everything known about the sexual abuse. The last couple entries at the bottom really support Docs theory.
    -SM

    ReplyDelete
  71. I think there are really only two valid theories now: either JR did it, as you have described here. Or Burke did it, and the parents tried to cover it up. Both theories are problematic. Both have their logic. Let me play devil's advocate in support of the Burke as killer theory. I realize you may have answered some of this before, so my apologies in advance, I'm coming to this unsolved mystery late... :-)

    1 - 10 year old kids do bad things. Some are sexually curious. I can't imagine the psychological impact on a small boy of a younger sister who is doted on, clearly favoured, dressed as an adult in sexually revealing outfits, etc. It is certainly possible that a 10 year old boy hit his sister with a heavy flashlight, more or less killing her. It's also possible he was molesting her. It's not unheard of for boys at that age.

    2 - JR had zero history before or since of sexual molestation of children. I am no expert, but I would assume this is something that a person does repeatedly, it's a mental illness. Why did he start molesting this particular daughter, seemingly out of nowhere? And it wasn't sexual intercourse, but probing with a finger or some other object. Doesn't that sound much more like a curious boy than a grown adult? Again, not going to pretend to understand the mind of adult abusers of children, but it just doesn't add up.

    3 - There was no evidence of prior physical abuse (beatings) by either parent. Ok, she wet her bed. So her father beaned her with a flashlight?? That's a hell of a leap there, don't you think? I have been very mad at my kids, we are all human, we all lose our tempers, but hitting my 6-year old daughter in the head with a flashlight? Hurting her in any way like that? Inconceivable! This, again, is a huge leap, it just doesn't make sense. From no prior physical abuse to literally killing her with one blow?

    4 - Your motive is seriously lacking. In fact, what is JR's motive? She was going to tell, so he killed her? And he decided to kill her that particular night? Or he planned it? Clearly if he planned it, he's a terrible planner. The cover up looks like something that was completely spontaneous. So what is the motive? I just cannot accept that she was going to tell someone and he had to act. He had never thought that scenario through before? Was murdering his daughter always his end game? No way... My guess is that 99% of abusers are prepared for this and have 100 excuses ready, including blaming the brother, etc. There is no need to kill your own daughter! I don't think pedophiles are necessarily killers. It just doesn't match the profile of a father who is abusing his daughter (although I grant you I am basing this on common sense, and perhaps an expert should weigh in on this topic). Burke, on the other hand, has a motive: he's a 10-year old who is mad at his sister for whatever reason (kids have their reasons) and he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. He's 10 years old, after all...

    ReplyDelete
  72. 5 - It's true the parents had no need to stage all of this if the son did it. That is a huge problem with this theory. But perhaps they just didn't realise it? Perhaps they panicked and thought their son could be held accountable, had visions of him being in mental institutions for years, traumatised, their reputations destroyed, etc., etc. Who knows? Maybe they just panicked and one terrible decision led to another, they never realised it would get so out of control.

    6 - The ransom note could have been a stupid idea that they both came up with at 2 am under tremendous pressure. Calling 911 was part of their plan, not really thinking the police would check the house, since they assumed the police would take them at face value and believe it was a kidnapping. They are rich people who usually get their way, at least in their own minds. The plan all along was to discover the body in the house. The "kidnappers" had simply killed her and left her body hidden, then hoped to collect a ransom before the body was discovered, etc. Ok, it's not brilliant, but it was 3am now and they were desperate. :-) Maybe they even thought they would have a chance to move the body later. But worst case, they just find the body in the house at a convenient time and blame it on the kidnappers.

    7 - The window was clearly staged. However, there was no plan to complete the staging later, as you assume. They had already done it to their satisfaction. It was only after JR heard comments from the police about no footprints in the snow that he panicked and realised they screwed up and had to quickly adapt. And hence came up with the lie the window was already broken, etc. Then it was just time to lawyer up and hold on.

    Is that such a crazy theory? Perhaps some parts aren't completely logical, but this is what they came up with on no sleep and in a total panic, devastated that their son had just killed their daughter.

    ReplyDelete