The blog software has problems with displaying too many comments on one page, so after a certain point you need to look down at the bottom of the page where you'll see a link labeled "Load More." If you don't know where to look for that then you might get the impression your post has been deleted, which is what I've recently been accused of. I never delete legitimate comments (i.e. anything other than obvious spam or something outrageously inappropriate) even if the commenter disagrees with me. So if you can't find your post, check out the "Load More" link at the very bottom of the page.
To avoid future problems of this sort I keep adding new open threads. Here's no. 4.
something else that happens from time to time is posts simply disappear when I hit "publish". I've found that if I just wait a while and post again it usually "takes". Must be something on Blogger's end.
ReplyDeleteCH
Doc, I just want to thank you for this blog. You've had it running for a very long time now and even though you've said everything you can in support of your theory -- sometimes over and over -- you continue to welcome new comments by any and all who are interested in this case. It is very generous of you to keep this blog going.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, check it every single day and I look forward to it.
Thank you. You are a true gentleman and scholar who obviously knows this case inside and out.
bb
Thanks so much, bb, for the kind words. They are much appreciated. I keep the blog going because I find it interesting to review so many different aspects of this fascinating case, and also because I'm curious to see if anyone can blow a serious hole in my theory. So far no one has :-)
DeleteFirstly, DocG, I apologise for accusing you of deleting my comment.
ReplyDeleteIt was exactly as CH described above..my post was published and then it seemed to disappear (even after clicking on Load More). A few hours later it seemed to show again.
But back to my point, I for one think it PROBABLY was JR (so I’m not adamently disagreeing with you). All I’m saying is the Intruder “with a key” theory cannot be ruled out.
There’s a very valid reason as to why the Intruder didn’t use their own paper for the ransom note...writing a note with his own paper/pen just added to evidence that could be used against this person. Remember, if it was an intruder they knew the family wouldn’t be home to late. They knew where the paper/pen was (they had been in the house before). They knew they had ample time to write the note. So to say it makes no sense for an intruder to not pre-prepare a note is not true.
As for DNA, well the crime scene was pretty contaminated by visiting friends and police. Who knows what was missed. Plus this person would have been extra careful with finger/foot prints.
Many agree that IDI is a perfectly logical theory (just as good as yours).
As for your comment about “it isn’t necessary to prove that no intruder could have performed the crime”...it sure is If you can rule that out, you may as well arrest JR right now. But without that, you can’t. JR handwriting didn’t match the note (although you made up some fantastic story disagreeing with the experts), he gave DNA a few times in the days after the crime (which led to nothing), the window story could have been true or it could have been made up (doesn’t mean it had anything to do with the crime), there was no evidence of any sexual encounters between him and JonBenet, he let Patsy ring 911 (I know you can argue that she did this with no way of stopping her).
At the end of the day it could have been JR...but it could have been an intruder as well.
I’ve read no hard facts on this forum to lock JR in concrete, not even close.
I suggest you also have a read of this which I found (so I’m not alone in my thoughts):
http://jbrwdi.forumotion.com/t576-debunking-solvingjonbenet-and-refuting-docg-why-body-and-ransom-note
Appreciate the blog though...it’s a good place for discussions to be had.
Cheers
ZJ
Sorry about your posts getting deleted -- I've occasionally had that problem myself. I don't monitor comments on this blog, by the way, so what anyone writes should show up immediately, or else something is wrong. But as you say, most times the post will show up eventually so be patient.
DeleteAs for the refutation of my theory, by you and others (and the Ramseys certainly have many defenders), as I see it you've got it backwards. Prosecuting John Ramsey would be a slam dunk. Prosecuting anyone else for this crime would be impossible.
Let's suppose a DNA match is found, and let's suppose this is from a known sex offender who'd been living in Boulder at the time of the murder, and let's suppose this person's handwriting is found to be "a match" to the writing on the ransom note. Such a person could not be successfully prosecuted. Why?
1. His lawyer could point to the fact that there is no evidence placing him at the scene of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. No fingerprints, no footprints, no fibers (of course by now he'd have a completely new set of clothes). The DNA evidence could easily be dismissed as indirect transfer, and he'd have no trouble finding an expert to testify in his favor, since indirect transfer of DNA is not at all uncommon. He could also argue, as I have, that if his client had been wearing gloves there would have been no "touch" DNA at all, and if not then his DNA and his fingerprints would have been found all over the place.
2. The opinion of the handwriting "experts" could easily be challenged by invoking all the many "experts" who managed to convince themselves Patsy wrote the note. The lawyer could also point to the argument provided by the Ramsey's own attorney regarding the lack of accepted standards in the field of forensic doc. analysis and the fact that in many cases handwriting professionals have for this reason not been permitted to express an opinion but only point to similarities and differences.
3. The lawyer could then point to all the many absurdities of the intruder theory, as outlined in this blog and elsewhere. "Why would my client wait until inside the house to write his ransom note? If he wanted to frame John Ramsey why wouldn't he have forged John's hand? Why would he have hidden her in that room instead of take her out of the house? Why would he leave a ransom note despite failing to kidnap his victim? Why would he have redressed her in oversize panties taken from a drawer that only someone living in the house would have known about? Why would he have been able to feed her pineapple without stuffing it down her throat, which would have caused her to scream bloody murder? Why would he have placed that hard suitcase under the broken window and strewn packing peanuts underneath it?" Etc.
4. The lawyer could then challenge the prosecution to provide any other shred of evidence linking his client to this crime. Since that would not be possible, the case would probably be tossed out of court by the judge before it could even come to trial.
"I’ve read no hard facts on this forum to lock JR in concrete, not even close."
DeleteHard fact no. 1: No sign of forced entry. All doors were found locked and all locks were checked for signs they'd been "jimmied," which was not the case.
Hard fact no. 2: Anyone who might have had a key was thoroughly investigated and cleared. And any friend of any of these people who might have made a copy of their key would have known better than to write a hand printed note that could be traced to him.
Hard fact no. 3: The note was written on a note pad from the house, previously used by Patsy. This is inconsistent with someone entering the house with the intent to kidnap.
Hard fact no. 4: The note is far longer and more detailed than the average ransom note, suggesting that it was not a casual afterthought, but reflected considerable planning. It is also very carefully and carefully written, with consistent spacing from word to word and careful attention paid to both margins (not one single hyphenated word). In other words, this was not the work of some drugged out wacko.
Hard fact no. 5: Not one piece of evidence points conclusively to an intruder. While many such items have been claimed, in just about every case (such as the palm print, the hair, the foot print) an innocent source has been found. An intruder bold enough to leave a hand written note would not have made an effort to eliminate any trace of his presence, so we would expect to find something originating with him that would be conclusive. For example, a note written on paper from outside the house, mud tracked into the basement from outside, fingerprints, etc. Moreover, the much heralded DNA evidence is also inconclusive as it could easily have been due to indirect transfer from an innocent source.
Hard fact no. 6: John Ramsey is known to have been in the house at the time of the crime, and is one of only three such people other than the victim.
DeleteHard fact no. 7: JonBenet was sexually assaulted, making John Ramsey far more likely than anyone else in the house to have committed this crime.
Hard fact no. 8: The inner wall of the victim's vagina revealed signs of chronic abrasion, consistent with prior sexual abuse. Again, John Ramsey is far more likely to have than anyone else to have been the abuser.
Hard fact no. 9: The housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh, testified that she knew nothing about any broken window and denied helping Patsy clean up any glass from such a window, as Patsy claimed. If Hoffman Pugh is to be believed, and there is no reason for her to lie, then John's story about breaking in earlier is a fabrication. Since the only reason for John concocting such a story would be to point away from his staging of a breakin on the night of the crime, that tall story in itself should be enough to convict him.
Hard fact no. 10: It was Patsy, not John, who called 911 to report the "kidnapping," something she would not have done if she were involved in the staging and knew who wrote the note.
Need I go on?
ZJ, the arguments you (and others) have presented are exactly the sort of thing a defense lawyer would invoke, and essentially the sort of thing defense lawyers have argued in case after case where the prime suspect claimed "an intruder did it." Such cases are not rare and in most instances such "intruder theories" have not been accepted by juries -- and for good reason, as they tend to be just as unlikely as the Ramsey intruder. For example, in the case involving Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede claimed he'd had consensual sex with the victim but then, when he was in the bathroom, he heard her scream and realized that an "intruder" had attacked her. According to the far out "logic" of your Ramsey intruder argument, Guede should have been acquitted, because after all there is no way to prove beyond doubt that some such intruder could not have been present.
That sort of argument has been tried in countless cases and usually fails -- because, as I've repeated many times, there is a huge difference between reasonable doubt and any doubt at all.
Yeaah, my post on the July board were submitted and posted, then a day later disappeared. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteThat's disturbing. I hadn't heard of that happening before. Are you sure you were looking in the right place?
DeleteI have been unable to publish for several days and basically gave up. Just tried hitting "web version" at the bottom of the page and if this publishes, that was the problem. I assume the mobile version kicked in at some point and did not work with IOS? MM
ReplyDeleteEureka! MM
ReplyDeleteThe RN clearly points to JR because IT GOES TO SUCH EXTREMES TO POINT AWAY. It serves no other purpose. A true ransom note would require no more than three terse lines.
ReplyDeleteCC
Hey Doc: Do you know if LE searched the national crime data bases at any time for crimes with child/digital abuse/garrote/blow to head/kidnap - or any combination thereof? Something like that, if perpetrated by an intruder, would not be a single occurence but rather a pattern of behavior. Adds more fuel to the JRDI body of circumstantial evidence.
ReplyDeleteCC
According to one source I've read (probably Steve Thomas), the investigators did a search along similar lines and came up with only one "hit": the JonBenet Ramsey case, which appears to be unique in the history of crime.
DeleteOn the prior open thread (part 3) M. E. wrote -
ReplyDelete"AnonymousAugust 20, 2015 at 12:54 PM
You see no reason why PR would lie about the panties if the panties were an issue she knew would be discussed? IF she were covering for herself and JR (supposing that they both covered up the death), then she would have to figure out an excuse as to why JBR wore the larger panties. PR giving the answer to that question points in the direction that they both covered up the crime....because really, how would JR be privy to the knowledge that JBR wore large panties? PR knew this. She would be more inclined to know her daughter's underwear preference rather than her husband. JR, if he grabbed extra panties to put onto JBR, would get normal size panties to make everything look as kosher as possible. Kids themselves put on larger clothing for whatever reason, adults would not choose larger sizes for their kids to wear...they would want them to wear fitting clothing, not something that is too big.
So, basically what I am saying is that either JBR was wearing those large panties all along or they were replaced and PR was involved in the cover up.
(i'll start naming my posts with M.E.) "
@ M.E.
If she were covering for JR she might well tell this story to explain the panties.
Except, that begs the question - if PR were helping JR cover up, why would Jonbenet be in size 12 panties in the first place? With Patsy involved there would be no reason for either John or Patsy to replace normal sized underwear with size 12 underwear. So, it seems very unlikely that PR was involved.
I'm afraid her answer only points to her participation if you've already decided she's involved. For those of us who are convinced by Doc's theory of the case, her explanation seems innocent and reasonable.
The way I look at it, either JBR was wearing the size 12s all along, or John alone put the size 12s on her. I think the reasons Doc gives for JR to put the size 12s on her don't make a lot of sense, so I tend to think she was wearing them all along.
CH
I think John was in a hurry and in a panic state. He grabbed the first pair he could get his hands on. those size 12's could have been the first one's he found in the drawer, or in a clean laundry basket, or maybe even on top in JBR's partially packed items for the trip. I don't see this as binary- either on her already or John purposely chose them. If he put them on her, they were the first ones he could find. I'm not clear why any of this matters. What is important is that she was wiped down. That means there was something to wipe up, and makes it likely that whatever she had been wearhing before had to be disposed of due to having trace evidence on it. LE.
DeleteNot sure about the haste assumption: The size 12s said "Wednesday" and if the JBR was killed before midnight it was indeed still Wednesday. Or the killer wanted to point LE to Wednesday, or imply those were the original panties JBR was wearing that day. More misdirection. Always thought that was an interesting point.
DeleteCC
"Kids put on larger clothes for whatever reason"...Not underwear. Not girls. They'd bag, sag, droop, bunch up, be very uncomfortable.
DeleteSpeaking of wiping down JonBenet, there seems to be only one logical thing that would need to be wiped down: semen. So doesn't that pretty much point to an adult male that assaulted her? How do the PDI's explain that?
ReplyDeleteBlood would be a second logical thing that would need to be wiped down.
DeleteCH
She was wiped down, but traces of blood remained on her thighs, I believe. I think the forensics people used a special light to detect it. There was no semen detected on her body at all. I'm thinking it would be difficult to remove all traces of semen--for the same reason that traces of blood remained after wiping her, so I tend to think there was no semen present at all. The killer could have wiped the blood off because he suspected or noticed his DNA, finger or handprints were in the blood on her thighs. Just speculating, of course.
ReplyDeleteInteresting find while researching semen left as evidence on the internet: I found a site that says if the perpetrator had a low sperm count (or no sperm count at all) it may not be detectable. Wonder if the killer had a vasectomy!
ReplyDeleteAccording to Patsy, JR did have a vasectomy. So cleanup would have been a bit easier to accomplish without sperm in the semen, I suspect.
DeleteI don't think he ejaculated. My theory is he accidentally injured her in the middle of the act, she screamed and tried to get away, and that's when he hit her with the flashlight.
DeleteDidn't I read somewhere that there were traces of Phisohex or some similar soap detected on the body? I think there likely was semen, hence the thirough wiping and the changed underpants. JR was doing all he could to point away from a good Christian father's abuse of his daughter, so he staged a brutal sexual attack that deliberately drew blood, hoping to mask the earlier abuse, and a vicious garroting that he hoped, from his time in the Phillipines, would further suggest a "foreign faction".
ReplyDeleteCC
CC, I have not heard of any traces of Phisohex or soap, but that could be true. I suspect the police held back quite a bit of information from the public. I totally agree with you that JR staged a "brutal sexual attack" deliberately. It's hard to believe that a sex-crazed pedophile that would digitally penetrate his victim to the point of bleeding would then carefully wrap her up in her favorite blanket and then hide her body in some remote little room. A REAL pedophile would likely take her from the house to some other location, rape her and then discard her body like a piece of trash. And I also agree that JR purposely made that garrote to support the fantasy "foreign faction" monsters he hoped LE would think were there. He knew what he had done to his daughter was horrific, so he had to stage an even more horrific crime scene to point to some deranged sexual predators. I mean, if he wanted to make sure she was dead after blugdeoning her in the head, why not just smother her or, for that matter, hit her a second time? IMO, the garroting was a prop to point to a violent intruder and lift any possible suspicions off of him, hoping that the public would never believe for a minute that any father could do that sort of thing to his daughter.
Deletebb
Doc will know about the Phisohex, bb. It was, I believe, in some report somewhere along the line.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting, psychologically, that JR had a beauty pageant wife, sexually abused a beauty pageant daughter, and has now married a woman who designs and makes gowns for beauty pageants. I know, Doc, not evidentiary facts, but interesting nonetheless.
CC
Yes, very interesting. And the woman who claimed to have had an affair with John (and then retracted without giving any reason) reported that he liked to dress her up in pageant costumes.
DeleteAnd there were reports of a woman with whom JR had a relationship while PR was being treated for cancer. Supposedly he liked for her to dress up in glam, pageant-style costumes, similar to JB's. She mysteriously disappeared from the scene, and there were allegations she'd been paid off. Has anyone ever tried to find her or otherwise corroborate this reported relationship?
ReplyDeleteYes, Jameson made such an effort, inviting her to post on Jameson's forum, which she did. She was asked all sorts of questions, but never gave an answer that satisfied anyone. Her responses were full of contradictions.
DeleteA few more thoughts on the panties (apologies to those who are tired of the subject)
ReplyDelete1. There are blood stains on the panties (the size 12s)
2. There are no blood stains on the LJs
3. Blood could only transfer to the panties directly from the body, or from JR’s hands (assuming a JDI theory of “who done it” which is what I’m assuming.
4. The body was wiped down. We don’t know what was wiped off. It could have been semen, it could have been blood, and it could have been both. However, we only have evidence that there was blood. We have no evidence that there was ever semen present.
5. Patsy gives a statement to the police that she bought the size 12s for her niece Jenny, that they were intended as a gift but never sent, and eventually given to Jonbenet, and were placed in JBR’s underwear drawer to be used as JBR pleased.
6. Both the panties and LJs were urine stained.
So, what to make of all this? First, I think it’s logical that the panties must have been placed on the body shortly after the wiping down. If the panties were not placed on the body until after the 911 call, the blood on the body would be dry and would not transfer. JR would have washed his hands by then and even if he didn’t the blood would be dry by then. Remember that by 6 am JBR had likely been dead at least 4 hours if not longer.
CH
...to be coninued......
Much the same analysis applies to the urine. If the size 12s were put on her sometime after the 911 call, then the body would have been in the WC several hours and the urine would likely have been dry.
DeleteNeither the blood or urine could transfer after drying, so the panties must have been on the body shortly after the wiping down, and before the post mortem release of the bladder, or at least with in an hour or two of the post mortem release.
At any rate, the panties had to be on the body well before Patsy ruined JR’s plan A by calling 911.
There are no blood stains on the LJs, meaning they could not have been placed on the body w/o the panties, otherwise the blood would have transferred to the LJs, just as it did the panties.
So, the size 12s were most likely placed on the body shortly after the wiping down, otherwise the blood wouldn’t transfer. They had to be on before, or within an hour or two, of the post mortem release of urine. I think we can reject the notion that they were placed on the body sometime after the 911 call. In turn, this means that whatever the explanation for JR putting the size 12s on the body, it had to be consistent with JR’s plan A, not a remedial measure taken after plan A was ruined by Patsy’s 911 call.
CH
...to be continued.....
This still leaves us with the question of why JR put the size 12s on her, regardless on the time of night they were put on.
DeleteOne plausible answer is provided by Patsy. For those of us who don’t think PR is lying about the panties (being bought as a gift, but later given to JBR) then we have a sensible, plausible, explanation for why JBR is in size 12s – they were in her drawer, available to wear and she put them on herself. To deny that JBR would wear too big panties is essentially to deny the credibility of PR’s story. If one accepts the story as true, and if one does not believe PR is involved in either the murder or the cover up, then denial that JBR would put size 12s on herself seems contradictory.
All that is needed to accept that JBR put the panties on herself is to realize that her comfort with extra large panties may be different than your own comfort with articles of clothing that are too big. Given that the panties would be held in place by the LJs, I see no problem with JBR wearing them at night.
Another explanation, for why JR put size 12s on JBR, would be that he went upstairs and got them from her drawer. If this happened he might not question the size, assuming that if they were in her drawer they were meant for her to wear. But of course this scenario means one must accept Patsy’s statement as true.
Another explanation is that JR found the panties in the basement, in a package that was intended to be gift wrapped but was never wrapped and sent. This scenario assumes several things, which I will list, but it’s important to remember that JR is operating with plan A in mind at his point. 1. That JR was oblivious to the size difference (nearly impossible imo, given that he’d previously removed size 6 underwear from JBR – the size difference would be readily apparent.) 2. JR knew where the package intended for Jenny was located. Quite possible, but then he’d also probably know they were intended for Jenny. 3. JR is staging a kidnapping. He’d have to consider the possibility that the body would be found (out in the woods or wherever he’d dump her). If the 12s were on the body, the kidnapper would have to have placed them on the body and the kidnapper would have little to no reason for doing this. I’ll anticipate Doc’s objection – JR isn’t a criminal mastermind, he was panicked, he was short on time, he couldn’t think of every detail – but imo this is rather obvious and doesn’t require much reflection. JR would have tried to stage the body as if an intruder had done these things to JBR, and an intruder simply has no reason to redress her before abducting her.
So, imo, the most plausible explanation is that JR simply redressed JBR in the most literal sense – he placed back on the body exactly what had been taken off the body, the LJs and the size 12s. He could not have done this after the 911 call because the blood/urine would be dry and would not transfer to fresh panties. He had to put them on her while he was still operating under plan A. Plan A would require the kidnapper to abduct JBR in whatever clothes she happened to be wearing at the time.
CH
CH, you make some good points, but you are way overthinking this. Here's what Patsy had to say about those panties:
Delete12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
Which tells us that no, she never actually saw JBR wearing those panties. During the questioning it's clear she is confused and not sure exactly what is being asked of her. All we know is that Patsy placed these panties in JBR's panty drawer along with the others. We have no indication from anyone that JBR had any interest in wearing them. If they were in the panty drawer, however, that could explain why John could have mistakenly selected the oversize pair (labeled "Wednesday").
As for the blood and urine, you make an excellent point. And you could be right. Everything depends on the timing of the garotte strangulation and the vaginal penetration. The strangulation reportedly took place anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours after the head blow. Patsy said she awoke to the sound of John taking a shower. She says nothing about when, or if, he was in bed next to her at any time during the night. It's possible the strangulation took place shortly before he got into the shower. Unfortunately the med. examiner never took the temperature of the body, so it was impossible to determine time of death with any accuracy.
If the penetration was associated with the strangulation, and if both took place shortly before John's shower, then there could have been enough liquefied blood and urine to transfer to the new panties, assuming he put them on her later that morning, after the 911 call. (I can't see any reason why he'd have wanted to change her before that call, so the transfer would have to have taken place after it.) We must also remember that we have no way of knowing exactly how much blood or urine was found on the panties by the medical examiner when he checked. All we know is that he found some stains.
Since we are forced into making assumptions regarding this evidence, then as I see it, the assumption that John changed the panties to misdirect away from semen on the original pair is far more likely than the assumption that she'd have changed into grossly oversized panties on her own, during the night, for no reason. If she'd wet herself she could simply have discarded the wet panties and pulled up her longjohns. No reason to replace them with fresh ones, and no reason to select panties that would have been far too large.
To me, your argument sounds very much like the sort of thing a desperate defense lawyer would come up with in a last ditch effort to sow "reasonable doubt." Again, there is a huge difference between what is possible and what is likely.
Of course PR didn't see JBR wearing the panties. How could she if JBR put them on after being put to bed. The point is not Patsy being able to verify JBR had them on at bed time - if PR could verify that she'd simply have done so. The point is whether or not the panties were available for JBR to put on, and you seem to agree they were.
DeleteShe can't be confused as to what is being asked - she's being asked about the panties being too big. She's had the questions in writing, in advance. She knows these questions are coming.
"All we know is that Patsy placed these panties in JBR's panty drawer along with the others. We have no indication from anyone that JBR had any interest in wearing them. If they were in the panty drawer, however, that could explain why John could have mistakenly selected the oversize pair (labeled "Wednesday")."
So you agree that Patsy put them in the drawer, but you disagree that JBR ever wore them? Why would Patsy put them, and apparently leave them, in the drawer if JBR wouldn't wear them? JBR must have asked for them, just as PR stated, and if she asked for them it stands to reason she'd wear them.
It's not entirely true that we have no idea how much blood was found on the panties. The AR says the stains are up to 0.5 inches in size. A 1/2 inch stain is a a good size stain.
As I see it, the idea that John needs to misdirect away from semen on the original pair is without merit. There is no evidence at all that there was ever any semen, anywhere, on the body or on any article of clothing. Additionally, JBR would not have changed for no reason, but for her own reasons, she liked wearing the panties that were originally meant for Jenny.
To me, your arguments sound like someone desperately trying to hold on to a theory that has little going for it. There is no evidence there was ever semen anywhere, there is no reason for JR to assume the police are going to go around looking for "missing" panties just because there are no panties under the LJs, and this is the first time I've heard you suggest the TOD was shortly before JR's shower.
What is probable is that JR redressed the body shortly after wiping it down. What is probable, based on the onset of rigor mortis is that she died about 1 am. That means the blood and urine would be dry by the time of JR's shower.
I'm perplexed as to why you try so desperately to hang on to your theory about the panties when it has so little to recommend it.
CH
"Of course PR didn't see JBR wearing the panties. How could she if JBR put them on after being put to bed."
DeleteMy point was that nowhere during the questioning does Patsy ever say she saw JonBenet wearing those panties -- at any time.
And yes, you can call my take on this a theory if you like (maybe that's what I've called it also, at times) but for me it's not so much a theory as an effort to unwind the meaning of evidence that seems contradictory. Logically there is no straightforward reason for her to have been found in those oversize panties. So whatever one comes up with is going to seem unreasonable from one angle or the other. Nevertheless, this is where they were found and we have to deal with that. What I try to do first is get rid of any possible assumptions. And one of the first assumptions I've challenged is the assumption regarding the time of death, which you put at around 1AM. I couldn't find an exact reference in the autopsy report, but this is what I just now found on the Crime Museum website:
"In addition, JonBenét’s body had entered advanced rigor mortis. This led investigators to the conclusion that the time of death was between 10:00 PM on December 25 and 6:00 AM on December 26." http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/jonbenet-ramsey
This means the blood and urine COULD have leaked onto a fresh pair of panties if he placed them on her shortly after the 911 call, which came around 5:30. We can't know for sure, but it certainly can't be ruled out.
Somehow those panties got on her. And for the life of me I find it highly improbable that a little girl described by her mother as "zonked" when put to bed, would have awakened in the middle of the night, removed her long johns, removed her panties, gone to the panty drawer, and for no particular reason that I can see, changed into a pair she knew to be much too large. The middle of the night is not the time to play grown-up, and certainly not by putting on panties that don't fit. And we also have to ask ourselves what happened to the original pair, because from everything we know about JonBenet we can be pretty sure she'd have dropped them on the floor. Yet they were, apparently, never found.
On the other hand, if John had spilled semen on the original pair, and knew the police were on hand and would soon discover the body, there is no way he'd want them to find panties with his semen on them. Which has led me, and I'm sure I'm not alone, to conclude he must have replaced them with the outsized pair. For me that's the only resolution to the contradiction that makes sense. JBR changing to that pair in the middle of the night does not make sense. That's how I see it, anyhow.
All I'll add is that the problem CH and I have been having lately is that he is seeing the case from the defense point of view, coming up with anything he can find to shed doubt, while I'm coming at this from the prosecution standpoint, wanting to defend any bit of evidence consistent with guilt. I can't deny that my bias could be affecting my judgement, nor can he deny the same on his side of the fence. Fortunately we both agree on the matter of who did what. But as I see it, there is a wide range of incriminating evidence pointing to John and I see no reason to discard such evidence simply because it might possibly be irrelevant. In such a situation, to me, it's a matter of what seems most likely.
I have a lot of respect for CH, who has an excellent analytic mind, but as I said I think he's over-analyzing too many aspects of this case. At this point I think it best that we just agree to disagree, on this and some other matters as well. I don't think we are ever going to change the other's mind.
The body was cold to the touch, and had the odor of decomposition. This is from the search warrant affidavit. These statements were made by Det. Arent to the officer who filled out the affidavit (who's name escapes me at the moment. With the body cold, and the odor of decomposition we'll have to accept that her death was much nearer midnight than to 6 am.
DeleteI'm sorry, but I see nothing odd about a child waking up at night, nor do I see anything strange about her putting the panties on, if they were in fact in her drawer, and we both seem to agree that PR is telling the truth.
I'm not sure whether or not Patsy ever claimed she had seen JBR wearing them, at any time. .
You claim to be getting rid of assumptions, but you start with the assumption that semen got on the "original" panties. This is a reasonable conjecture, because we have a sexually related crime, but it is nothing more than conjecture. There is absolutely no evidence at all of semen present on the body or any of the articles of clothing that were taken into evidence. If we are operating on facts, not assumptions, then the body was wiped to remove blood.
If you think I'm acting as a defense lawyer, I'd suggest it's because you yourself are overly defensive of a position that is very weak. I am absolutely not seeing this from a defense POV or trying to create doubt. In fact I have repeatedly, in several posts, said, point blank, this remains a JDI case whether or not JR put the 12s on her or she put them on herself. There is no doubt - it's JDI. I don't know how to say it any plainer.
CH
I think many issues in this case have become over analyzed. I often become confused and have to re-read the posts here, such as CH's above.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line to me is if an intruder committed this crime, he would not have sexually assaulted or killed her in the house. He would likely have taken her out of the house and done what he pleased with her. And he certainly would not have redressed her, if in fact she was redressed.
So, imo, the oversized panties are not important. What's important to me is that her body was found in the house which leads me to believe that this was an inside job, likely committed by JR. Whether JR redressed her into those oversized panties or whether JonBenet put them on herself, makes no difference. Sure, the panties might be a factor in determining the timeline of events that night, but they don't point the finger at anyone in particular because we don't know for sure how and when they were put on JonBenet. I suppose that if it could be proven that they were put on after the assault (redressing), it would make JR look even more guilty because, as I said, I find it unbelievable that an intruder would redress her.
I think too much analyzation makes it hard to see the forest through the trees. Or maybe I'm just dense and am missing CH's point???
bb
@bb
DeleteI agree, and intruder would not sexually assault JBR in the home, nor would he redress her. He'd take her out of the house as quickly as he could, and she'd be dressed just exactly as she was when he took her from her bed.
So, JR had to dress the body in the same way she was dressed when taken from her bed. He couldn't change articles of clothing because a) an intruder wouldn't do that, and b) he couldn't know what Patsy knew about how JBR was dressed at bed time. JR is in the same position as the mythical intruder, he has to take JBR as he finds her - clothed as she was at the time she was taken from her bed.
As far as solving the question of who killed JBR you are right, the panties are not important. It's a JDI case whether JR deliberately selected the size 12s, or mistakenly pulled them from her drawer, or JBR put them on herself. All that is at issue is how JBR came to be wearing size 12s - it's a question that is still completely within the context of a JDI theory.
So I'm not sure if you (and possibly Doc) have missed the point or not. This is not an attack on general JDI theory, nor is it an attempt to play devils advocate. Sticking with our JDI theory, Doc's explanation for the too big panties is unlikely. It's improbable she was killed just prior to him taking a shower, due to the state of rigor when she was found. Possible, maybe, but likely no. In turn that means the panties can't have been placed on the body after the 911 call because the blood/urine would be dry. In turn, that means that JR had to put them on her within the context of his plan A -where he'd be dumping the body. In turn that means he'd have to re-dress the body as he had found her dressed. That means it's likely that she was already wearing size 12s when JR took her to the basement as there is no good reason for him to have put 12s on her in keeping with plan A.
CH
And as "Wednesday " Was christmas day, maybe JBR had put them on herself that morning and wore them to bed. Body may have been wiped down for different reasons. Perhaps no ejaculation was done on the body.?
Delete@ evej
DeleteThere's a very good chance there was no ejaculation. Even if there was, there is a very good chance semen never got on the panties.
CH
PART 1
ReplyDeleteI've been away from the blog for most of the summer and have just gotten caught up on all the recent comments. I wanted to respond to Hercule's theory and the way he's been presenting it.
Hercule, I believe you first posted on May 24th of this year and I think almost all of us initially welcomed your comments (I'm sure many still do). Rather quickly, however, the way you presented your theory started to grate on some of us. I understand you have a detailed theory and you wanted to present it in its entirely, but the constant cliffhangers were annoying. Everything was: "stay tuned," "I will go into more detail about that in my next post," "please continue to read each day," "I urge you to be patient," "part two coming later," "bear with me...."
You apologized for giving your theory piecemeal, even after being asked a couple times to just come out and say what you wanted to say, but you persisted in the piecemeal delivery.
As I read the conversation between you and other posters, I have to say that you started to remind me of a catfish -- someone we can't be sure is who he says he is, and whose main interest is stringing people along on the internet. It is now three months since you first appeared on this blog and I still have yet to hear your proof. I've heard a lot of theory certainly, but no facts to back them up. You saying things like, "this is not the action of an innocent person" is not proof. It's just your opinion.
And then came the excuses for why you couldn't just come out with your entire theory. You were away for "personal responsibilities" and "illness" and you had had "a busy week." I'm not saying you were lying, just that these statements contributed to your reminding me of a catfish. Were you using your "three decades of behavioural psychology" to make sure we stayed hooked?
PART 2
ReplyDeleteThere were also times you were very upfront with your theory, but I still found it lacking. For example, back at the beginning of June, you said, "My next post will cover why Patsy decided to make the 911 call and why it does not mean she should be eliminated as the killer." Then all we got was your opinion: "So it is my opinion that Patsy's plan was to make the call and do it in a hurry amidst the breaking hysteria that she created and before John could interject a plan of action." Do you have any proof of what you're asserting?
You said the group of doctors and forensic specialists who reported on the evidence of prior sexual abuse did their work "haphazardly." Would you be willing to expand on that? What evidence do you have that the autopsy and review of the findings were done haphazardly? Or again is that just your opinion?
You say you've been granted access to the Ramsey case files through your career connections. How exactly did you obtain access to those files and when? While authorities admit that all the relevant information in those files has been disclosed, they also say that some facts have been held back from the public. Can you speak to those facts? If you truly have inside information, please feel free to share even a small portion of it with us. It could go a long way in convincing more of us that you're telling the truth about what you claim to know.
You say Patsy invited friends over to contaminate the crime scene. How could she have known the police would be so incompetent as to allow those friends inside? As Doc reminded you, the police were the first to arrive. If this was truly Patsy's plan, she should have managed it better and ensured the friends arrived first. If what you contend is true, she was incredibly lucky that the police were so inept.
You talk about what you think John did and did not believe: "After spending about an hour mourning with JonBenet in the cellar, John made the decision to stand by his wife's plan, believing that she would have never intentionally harmed JonBenet. He refused to believe otherwise. John knew he had to return upstairs because he had already been missing for a long period of time." Again, this is just what YOU believe. There is no proof that John mourned beside JBR's body for an hour "believing" things about Patsy's intentions (garotting and molesting a child is pretty damned intentional, IMO). It's just your interpretation of what happened during John's hour-long absence from the group (he could have been in the bathroom with a magazine for all we know). Doc called it a fantasy and he was right. Anyone can come up with a theory of the case. The burden comes when you have to provide some factual evidence to back that theory.
PART 3
DeleteYou also write about Patsy and your belief in her guilt, in part because of what you personally "expected to see" and what you see as "inconsistencies" in her behaviour. I understand you study behavioural psychology, but I don't believe you can base a verdict of guilt upon a woman who was still very much in recovery from a deadly illness and who was grieving her only daughter. She was also heavily medicated after the murder, so she could hardly have been expected to "charge" into the police station. If John and their lawyers were pumping her full of fear about her being a suspect, I imagine she would have wanted to stay as far away from the police as possible. You really can't say, if she was innocent 'she would have done this and she would have done that.' You never met Patsy Ramsey. You're not claiming to be a forensic psychologist, are you?
You don't believe that Patsy could have been gaslighted based on the strength of her personality. But that was the personality of a woman with a wealthy husband, two children, a mansion with staff, lots of friends, and an active social life. The personality of a grieving mother on loads of medication whose world had just crashed down around her and who was living in a friend's guest room while the authorities hounded her for answers and handwriting samples could have been very different.
You say that if John had written the note, he would have ensured that he was the one to find it, thus "ensuring that no 911 call was made." How would that have worked? John could have been the one to show the note to Patsy and she could still have reached for the phone as soon as his attention was diverted.
You say that you can't imagine that JB could have been JR's first and only victim, but I've read quite a bit on pedophilia in an attempt to learn more about the possibility of JR sexually assaulting his daughter. While it's not as common as an offender assaulting multiple times, fathers assaulting one child in one assault or a series of assaults have been documented. PR admitted that her cancer treatment had made her too ill to engage sexually with her husband. JBR was rouged and lipsticked and available. This type of situation is well known to researchers of pedophilia.
You say that pedophiles can't control themselves and they don't have affairs on their wives and also assault children. That's simply not true:
http://theweek.com/articles/479986/pedophilia-guide-disorder
From the link above:
"What kind of people are pedophiles?
Most are male, though about 6 percent are female. Although the stereotype of the pedophile is the trench-coated loner who hangs around playgrounds, in reality most pedophiles function as ordinary members of the community, like former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the man accused of sexually abusing children in his care. About 44 percent of convicted pedophiles either are or have been married, and a vast majority of pedophiles have sexual relationships with adults — only 7 percent say they are exclusively attracted to children. The majority of child molesters do not abuse children at random. For all the worries about "stranger danger," 70 percent of reported abuses involve an offender who knows the child, including relatives."
Can pedophilia be cured?
No. There's no magic cure that can make the sexual attraction to children go away, and up to 50 percent of convicted pedophiles re-offend." (So this means that many people who offend once, do NOT reoffend. JR could be in their number).
You wrote in early August that JB showed no sign of sexual abuse. This doesn't mean it wasn't happening. The following website says in bold print to: "Remember that a child could show few or no signs and have experienced abuse."
http://www.theadvocacycenter.org/adv_abuse.html
PART 3
DeleteYou also write about Patsy and your belief in her guilt, in part because of what you personally "expected to see" and what you see as "inconsistencies" in her behaviour. I understand you study behavioural psychology, but I don't believe you can base a verdict of guilt upon a woman who was still very much in recovery from a deadly illness and who was grieving her only daughter. She was also heavily medicated after the murder, so she could hardly have been expected to "charge" into the police station. If John and their lawyers were pumping her full of fear about her being a suspect, I imagine she would have wanted to stay as far away from the police as possible. You really can't say, if she was innocent 'she would have done this and she would have done that.' You never met Patsy Ramsey. You're not claiming to be a forensic psychologist, are you?
You don't believe that Patsy could have been gaslighted based on the strength of her personality. But that was the personality of a woman with a wealthy husband, two children, a mansion with staff, lots of friends, and an active social life. The personality of a grieving mother on loads of medication whose world had just crashed down around her and who was living in a friend's guest room while the authorities hounded her for answers and handwriting samples could have been very different.
You say that if John had written the note, he would have ensured that he was the one to find it, thus "ensuring that no 911 call was made." How would that have worked? John could have been the one to show the note to Patsy and she could still have reached for the phone as soon as his attention was diverted.
You say that you can't imagine that JB could have been JR's first and only victim, but I've read quite a bit on pedophilia in an attempt to learn more about the possibility of JR sexually assaulting his daughter. While it's not as common as an offender assaulting multiple times, fathers assaulting one child in one assault or a series of assaults have been documented. PR admitted that her cancer treatment had made her too ill to engage sexually with her husband. JBR was rouged and lipsticked and available. This type of situation is well known to researchers of pedophilia.
You say that pedophiles can't control themselves and they don't have affairs on their wives and also assault children. That's simply not true:
http://theweek.com/articles/479986/pedophilia-guide-disorder
From the link above:
"What kind of people are pedophiles?
Most are male, though about 6 percent are female. Although the stereotype of the pedophile is the trench-coated loner who hangs around playgrounds, in reality most pedophiles function as ordinary members of the community, like former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the man accused of sexually abusing children in his care. About 44 percent of convicted pedophiles either are or have been married, and a vast majority of pedophiles have sexual relationships with adults — only 7 percent say they are exclusively attracted to children. The majority of child molesters do not abuse children at random. For all the worries about "stranger danger," 70 percent of reported abuses involve an offender who knows the child, including relatives."
Can pedophilia be cured?
No. There's no magic cure that can make the sexual attraction to children go away, and up to 50 percent of convicted pedophiles re-offend." (So this means that many people who offend once, do NOT reoffend. JR could be in their number).
You wrote in early August that JB showed no sign of sexual abuse. This doesn't mean it wasn't happening. The following website says in bold print to: "Remember that a child could show few or no signs and have experienced abuse."
http://www.theadvocacycenter.org/adv_abuse.html
I could swear I saw Part 3 posted here earlier, but it looks like it's disappeared for some reason. Anyhow, it was sent to me via email and I'm posting it here:
DeletePART 3
You also write about Patsy and your belief in her guilt, in part because of what you personally "expected to see" and what you see as "inconsistencies" in her behaviour. I understand you study behavioural psychology, but I don't believe you can base a verdict of guilt upon a woman who was still very much in recovery from a deadly illness and who was grieving her only daughter. She was also heavily medicated after the murder, so she could hardly have been expected to "charge" into the police station. If John and their lawyers were pumping her full of fear about her being a suspect, I imagine she would have wanted to stay as far away from the police as possible. You really can't say, if she was innocent 'she would have done this and she would have done that.' You never met Patsy Ramsey. You're not claiming to be a forensic psychologist, are you?
You don't believe that Patsy could have been gaslighted based on the strength of her personality. But that was the personality of a woman with a wealthy husband, two children, a mansion with staff, lots of friends, and an active social life. The personality of a grieving mother on loads of medication whose world had just crashed down around her and who was living in a friend's guest room while the authorities hounded her for answers and handwriting samples could have been very different.
Part 3 part 2:
DeleteYou say that if John had written the note, he would have ensured that he was the one to find it, thus "ensuring that no 911 call was made." How would that have worked? John could have been the one to show the note to Patsy and she could still have reached for the phone as soon as his attention was diverted.
You say that you can't imagine that JB could have been JR's first and only victim, but I've read quite a bit on pedophilia in an attempt to learn more about the possibility of JR sexually assaulting his daughter. While it's not as common as an offender assaulting multiple times, fathers assaulting one child in one assault or a series of assaults have been documented. PR admitted that her cancer treatment had made her too ill to engage sexually with her husband. JBR was rouged and lipsticked and available. This type of situation is well known to researchers of pedophilia.
You say that pedophiles can't control themselves and they don't have affairs on their wives and also assault children. That's simply not true:
http://theweek.com/articles/479986/pedophilia-guide-disorder
From the link above:
"What kind of people are pedophiles?
Most are male, though about 6 percent are female. Although the stereotype of the pedophile is the trench-coated loner who hangs around playgrounds, in reality most pedophiles function as ordinary members of the community, like former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the man accused of sexually abusing children in his care. About 44 percent of convicted pedophiles either are or have been married, and a vast majority of pedophiles have sexual relationships with adults — only 7 percent say they are exclusively attracted to children. The majority of child molesters do not abuse children at random. For all the worries about "stranger danger," 70 percent of reported abuses involve an offender who knows the child, including relatives."
Can pedophilia be cured?
No. There's no magic cure that can make the sexual attraction to children go away, and up to 50 percent of convicted pedophiles re-offend." (So this means that many people who offend once, do NOT reoffend. JR could be in their number).
You wrote in early August that JB showed no sign of sexual abuse. This doesn't mean it wasn't happening. The following website says in bold print to: "Remember that a child could show few or no signs and have experienced abuse."
http://www.theadvocacycenter.org/adv_abuse.html
PART 3
ReplyDeleteYou also write about Patsy and your belief in her guilt, in part because of what you personally "expected to see" and what you see as "inconsistencies" in her behaviour. I understand you study behavioural psychology, but I don't believe you can base a verdict of guilt upon a woman who was still very much in recovery from a deadly illness and who was grieving her only daughter. She was also heavily medicated after the murder, so she could hardly have been expected to "charge" into the police station. If John and their lawyers were pumping her full of fear about her being a suspect, I imagine she would have wanted to stay as far away from the police as possible. You really can't say, if she was innocent 'she would have done this and she would have done that.' You never met Patsy Ramsey. You're not claiming to be a forensic psychologist, are you?
You don't believe that Patsy could have been gaslighted based on the strength of her personality. But that was the personality of a woman with a wealthy husband, two children, a mansion with staff, lots of friends, and an active social life. The personality of a grieving mother on loads of medication whose world had just crashed down around her and who was living in a friend's guest room while the authorities hounded her for answers and handwriting samples could have been very different.
You say that if John had written the note, he would have ensured that he was the one to find it, thus "ensuring that no 911 call was made." How would that have worked? John could have been the one to show the note to Patsy and she could still have reached for the phone as soon as his attention was diverted.
You say that you can't imagine that JB could have been JR's first and only victim, but I've read quite a bit on pedophilia in an attempt to learn more about the possibility of JR sexually assaulting his daughter. While it's not as common as an offender assaulting multiple times, fathers assaulting one child in one assault or a series of assaults have been documented. PR admitted that her cancer treatment had made her too ill to engage sexually with her husband. JBR was rouged and lipsticked and available. This type of situation is well known to researchers of pedophilia.
You say that pedophiles can't control themselves and they don't have affairs on their wives and also assault children. That's simply not true:
http://theweek.com/articles/479986/pedophilia-guide-disorder
From the link above:
"What kind of people are pedophiles?
Most are male, though about 6 percent are female. Although the stereotype of the pedophile is the trench-coated loner who hangs around playgrounds, in reality most pedophiles function as ordinary members of the community, like former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the man accused of sexually abusing children in his care. About 44 percent of convicted pedophiles either are or have been married, and a vast majority of pedophiles have sexual relationships with adults — only 7 percent say they are exclusively attracted to children. The majority of child molesters do not abuse children at random. For all the worries about "stranger danger," 70 percent of reported abuses involve an offender who knows the child, including relatives."
Can pedophilia be cured?
No. There's no magic cure that can make the sexual attraction to children go away, and up to 50 percent of convicted pedophiles re-offend." (So this means that many people who offend once, do NOT reoffend. JR could be in their number).
You wrote in early August that JB showed no sign of sexual abuse. This doesn't mean it wasn't happening. The following website says in bold print to: "Remember that a child could show few or no signs and have experienced abuse."
http://www.theadvocacycenter.org/adv_abuse.html
PART 4
ReplyDeleteYou talked about a line that intrigued you in housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh's first chapter of the book she was writing when she says, "You forget that I saw you take her there so many times before...." Well, if you've had access to the case files and read all the interviews, is there a time that Linda actually tells detectives that she witnessed Patsy being abusive with JB in the bathroom, or was it just something she wrote in her hypothetical take on what happened that night? If it were true, she would have said so in very uncertain terms when being interviewed by the BPD. Did she? (I have to admit that while I've read extensively on this case, I haven't read absolutely every single thing available, so I could have missed a police interview with LH-P.)
Doc asked you in one exchange, "if it was an accident, why would she not call an ambulance? Why would she instead create an elaborately staged scene and kill her child?" Your response was basically, oh, because she's a pageant mom and unless you're a pageant mom, you can't understand that dark world. Really? She was a perfectionist and all about appearances, so she murdered and mutilated her child? That's one heck of a leap.
You certainly believe Patsy to be very Machiavellian in her scheming. Somehow even though John's "taking responsibility" for her broken window came as a surprise to her in your theory, she still knew to "include LH-P in her lie" to make Linda look guilty. She knew all about fiber evidence and transfer and contaminating a crime scene. She knew all about sexual assault and how to fool the coroner. I know she was a smart, educated woman, but I don't believe that her response to accidentally injuring her daughter would have been this elaborate first-degree murder scheme. Remember that when BR accidentally injured JB with a golf club, Patsy rushed her to the doctor.
You have a theory. That's fine. You're entitled to one, and many people agree with you that PDI. Doc also has a theory. The difference in my eyes is that his is based primarily on the facts of the case. As you wrote this month: "I am so confident that Patsy is the killer that I am willing to wager that I can provide an acceptable explanation to any question regarding her guilt." But that's just offering an explanation based on your own opinion. What actual proof do you have that backs you up?
Personally, I was on the fence about 'whodunnit' until I found Doc's blog. While I'm sure everyone has a different experience, it was when I read his thoughts about why the ransom demand was only $118,000 that everything fell into place for me. To my mind, the bonus was basically "found" money for John and if he had to destroy it to convince authorities that it had been handed off to the kidnappers, so be it. No harm, no foul to his bank account. And I also believe Doc to be wise when he reminds us that a lot of the confusing evidence in the case was never meant to be seen. John was supposed to have a whole day to deal with all the loose ends. Patsy messed up his plan by not heeding the dire warnings in the RN. You don't need to rebut me on this. I know you don't believe what I believe...I'm just talking about my own process.
PART 5
ReplyDeleteNow for an opinion of my own. You say John recognized Patsy in the ransom note and just decided to go along with it. You really expect us to believe that a father who had already lost one daughter to tragic circumstances that had nothing to do with him would just allow a second daughter to be violently ripped from his life and would go along with it and cover for her killer? Some PDI theorists might throw back that, "Well, if John was so devastated by Beth's death, how could he then be the cause of a second daughter's death?" While I don't know the answer to that, I also subscribe to the theory put forth in previous posts about John having narcissistic personality disorder. Perhaps both daughters were seen as extensions of himself and he believed that if he was able to survive one daughter's demise, he could survive a second. (This is just my own theory. I have no factual proof to back it up.)
And John has survived, hasn't he? In a 2012 interview with Anderson Cooper, John said that he rarely even thinks about JB's death anymore. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-JdO_aqlM
Finally, Hercule, while I appreciate your willingness to share your ideas and your relatively quick replies to questions posed to you, the ad hominem comments that occasionally pepper your posts are bothersome. You commented about one poster who didn't subscribe to your theory of the case as feeling "threatened" and refusing "to be educated." The poster's comments were "archaic and obstinate." That person must have a closed mind. The way Doc presented his theory about PR was "absurd." You say to Doc that you can see that he is "frustrated" and "that will suit [you] fine." Really? It suits you that you're frustrating your readers? I don't think Doc is the only one frustrated by your constant cliffhangers and lack of any real proof. You seem to forget that this is Doc's blog and he is, in essence, our host. He's been patient and accommodating and welcomes all viewpoints, but I understand how three months of "I'll get to that later" can wear on a person's patience. It's certainly worn me down. But I suppose that's because I am constantly "befuddled" and I "refuse to be educated."
Anyway, apologies for the super long post. Thanks for reading.
Thanks for taking the time to compose this very sensible -- and fair -- response, Canuck. As I've said many times, any theory of the case that rules John Ramsey out will, of necessity, be bizarre. If you do a search here under "fantastic theories" you'll see what I mean. The notion that John would take such tremendous risks to protect a wife who just bludgeoned and then strangled a beloved daughter is, for me, beyond fantastic. The same goes for Patsy wanting to protect a husband who killed her daughter. The popular notion that somehow the Ramseys were "in it together" makes no sense, period.
DeleteThe only thing to commend Hercule's theory is that something of the sort is widely believed by so many, including many law enforcement veterans who should know better.
PART 3
ReplyDeleteYou also write about Patsy and your belief in her guilt, in part because of what you personally "expected to see" and what you see as "inconsistencies" in her behaviour. I understand you study behavioural psychology, but I don't believe you can base a verdict of guilt upon a woman who was still very much in recovery from a deadly illness and who was grieving her only daughter. She was also heavily medicated after the murder, so she could hardly have been expected to "charge" into the police station. If John and their lawyers were pumping her full of fear about her being a suspect, I imagine she would have wanted to stay as far away from the police as possible. You really can't say, if she was innocent 'she would have done this and she would have done that.' You never met Patsy Ramsey. You're not claiming to be a forensic psychologist, are you?
You don't believe that Patsy could have been gaslighted based on the strength of her personality. But that was the personality of a woman with a wealthy husband, two children, a mansion with staff, lots of friends, and an active social life. The personality of a grieving mother on loads of medication whose world had just crashed down around her and who was living in a friend's guest room while the authorities hounded her for answers and handwriting samples could have been very different.
You say that if John had written the note, he would have ensured that he was the one to find it, thus "ensuring that no 911 call was made." How would that have worked? John could have been the one to show the note to Patsy and she could still have reached for the phone as soon as his attention was diverted.
You say that you can't imagine that JB could have been JR's first and only victim, but I've read quite a bit on pedophilia in an attempt to learn more about the possibility of JR sexually assaulting his daughter. While it's not as common as an offender assaulting multiple times, fathers assaulting one child in one assault or a series of assaults have been documented. PR admitted that her cancer treatment had made her too ill to engage sexually with her husband. JBR was rouged and lipsticked and available. This type of situation is well known to researchers of pedophilia.
You say that pedophiles can't control themselves and they don't have affairs on their wives and also assault children. That's simply not true:
http://theweek.com/articles/479986/pedophilia-guide-disorder
From the link above:
"What kind of people are pedophiles?
Most are male, though about 6 percent are female. Although the stereotype of the pedophile is the trench-coated loner who hangs around playgrounds, in reality most pedophiles function as ordinary members of the community, like former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the man accused of sexually abusing children in his care. About 44 percent of convicted pedophiles either are or have been married, and a vast majority of pedophiles have sexual relationships with adults — only 7 percent say they are exclusively attracted to children. The majority of child molesters do not abuse children at random. For all the worries about "stranger danger," 70 percent of reported abuses involve an offender who knows the child, including relatives."
Can pedophilia be cured?
No. There's no magic cure that can make the sexual attraction to children go away, and up to 50 percent of convicted pedophiles re-offend." (So this means that many people who offend once, do NOT reoffend. JR could be in their number).
You wrote in early August that JB showed no sign of sexual abuse. This doesn't mean it wasn't happening. The following website says in bold print to: "Remember that a child could show few or no signs and have experienced abuse."
http://www.theadvocacycenter.org/adv_abuse.html
Apologies for the posts being out of order. Something happened while I was verifying that I'm not a robot, and Part 3 got dumped, so I reposted it at the end. Sorry for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteHurray for you, Canuck, and welcome back! You're too polite to label him, but many of us feel Hercule is a blowhard with wildly inflated ideas about his own career, access and deductive reasoning.
ReplyDeleteDoc is indeed a gracious host, but this Poirot-not is trying the patience of many of the rest of us, who come here for informed discussion based on facts.
BTW, I also agree with your statement about JR's being able to survive JB's death, having gone through Beth's, and agree that he's narcissistic and likely suffers some personality disorder. JR's psyche fascinates me; wish we knew more about his early life, first marriage and affair (s).
ReplyDeleteCanuck, thanks for taking the lead on what many of us have felt over Hercules' posts. I, too, told Hercule that hid endless cliffhangers were getting tiresome. In fact, hearing from him only once in a awhile causes me to forget what he has said previously, other than I know he thinks PDI.
ReplyDeleteHercule, give us your theory -- in its entirety. Like Doc, I am always interested in someone else's theory and how they have come to it. Some of the things you said did make sense, but then you would abruptly conclude your post without finishing your "thesis" and I found myself forgetting the original posts you made.
I have some specific questions for you and I hope you will answer them by finally telling us your compete theory:
1. Do you feel that JonBenet's head injury was accidental? If so, what do you think caused that huge crack in her skull?
2. If PDI, why did she wipe down JonBenet's body? What do you think she was trying to remove?
3. If PDI, do you believe she confided in John? If so, why do you think John would go along with a coverup?
I do not believe any accidental fall or intentional slam against something would cause the degree of head wound JonBenet had. The crack in her skull looks like she was hit with something --- very, very hard --- which leads me to believe she was hit intentionally.
I believe JonBenet's body was wiped down to ensure no semen would be found. That, of course, points to an adult male.
I do not believe Patsy would confide in John because she couldn't guarantee that he would go along with it. She couldn't be sure how he would react and, in fact, he might have gone straight to the police.
Looking forward to your response to both this post and Canuck's above.
bb
I'm not sure what happened with Part 3. I tried to publish it after Part 5, but apparently that didn't work.
ReplyDeleteI've successfully posted Part 3 as a "Reply" after Part 2, so it's now in the right order. If you wouldn't mind going back and taking a look, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
Still not seeing Part 3 - ?
DeleteKoosh
Hi Koosh,
DeleteI've tried to post Part 3 a few different times without success. It did show up briefly one time, only to disappear. I've emailed Part 3 to Doc and asked him to post it after Part 2 so it's in the correct order.
Thank you for letting me know it still hasn't shown up. I wasn't sure if it was an issue with my computer.
Cheers.
First of all, I would like to apologize for my sporadic appearances. I am often distracted by my work, which is very time consuming, mentally exhausting, and I must prioritize it above everything else (unfortunately that includes family more times than not).
ReplyDeleteMy passion for this case is what always brings me back to this blog and I sincerely appreciate Doc for allowing me to express my thoughts. Doc and I often butt heads but I do respect him and his impressive theory although I contend some of his assertions are just as "fantastic" as he claims mine to be.
I apologize for any rude comments. It is not my intention to be combative, but if I feel like I am being disrespected then I have a tendency to get defensive. Some of my ideas are different thus not accepted by members of this blog. That is understandable. What is concerning to me is some of the responses are closed minded and disrespectful. Such behavior does nothing to help us solve this case. If you already believe everything Doc has written then why have you chosen to come back to this blog? Perhaps your subconscious is not satisfied and demands more information because there are serious holes to Doc's theory that cannot be bridged. It is my intention to make sense of all this clutter. Everyone here seems to only accept the tangible evidence (and even then it is often contextual), but I challenge you to think outside the box. I believe these holes can be bridged by behavioral psychology. You may not agree and that is your right.
Lastly, I will post my thesis in its entirety when I am able to properly finish it. As I have said, my apologies for the delay.
Hercule
Rude, combative, defensive? A knee-jerk response to being "disrespected"? These are not typical characteristics of a mental health professional or any sort of practicing psychologist, as you claim to be.
DeleteIt's not that your ideas are "different" that make them "unaccepted" by some posters on this blog. It's that they do not conform to evidentiary facts...and your hostile, deprecating responses to those who question your theories. Fascinating though it is, behavioral psychology is only theories, and cannot bridge your perceived "holes" in Doc's carefully constructed and entirely fact-based solution.
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you, Hercule, to consult the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure before propounding your thesis. While some theories of behavioral psychology are admissable in court - such as the ability to form intent, or will, or in some cases profiling - many are not. Citing Patsy's possible behavior as based on her being a "pageant mom", for example, does not meet the standard.
ReplyDeleteTo be taken seriously by many of us who have come to embrace Doc's theory, you must match his rigorous standards of evidence. Given that caveat, I too am interested in reading your completed essay.
CC
I would further point out that all evidence is contextual. A toothbrush under a mattress in a suburban home is an interesting anomaly, while a toothbrush under a mattress in a prison has an entirely different potential meaning.
ReplyDeleteCC
Hercule once again we are left waiting...
ReplyDeleteHercule,
ReplyDeleteI have always played devils advocate and even though I am convinced the JR is guilty (having been convinced solely because of Doc's blog), I am always interested in other theories. And you're right --- that's exactly why I keep reading this blog. I know there have been criminal cases in history where the guilty person ends up being someone who is the last person on earth suspected. It seems to me that most people on this blog subscribe to Doc's theory on the basis of the facts that he presents rather than behavioral analysis. There are also many people who feel that Patsy was a loving and caring mom who could never, ever do such a horrible thing to her daughter, regardless of her passion for beauty pageants. Well I'm here to say that I understand that people can hide their dark side from others and I do believe it's possible Patsy could have committed this crime. However, the facts just do not point that way. But I am still very open to hearing your theory and considering it.
I hope that you next post will give us your theory, in its entirety. I have a very hard time grasping your theory when it is given in a piecemeal fashion. Just give it to us in one post . . . it shouldn't have to b a "thesis." If you want people here to take you seriously, you should give them everything you've got.
Thanks. I will once again wait for your next post.
bb
Thanks so much, Doc, for posting the third part of my (long) comment. Even though you had to break it up into two posts, I really appreciate the fact that it's finally all in order.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the author of this site is still active so I'm going to post this. To the author: I'd like to draw your attention to a very similar case that is probably one of the biggest unresolved murders in India. A young girl (only 14 years old) found killed in her bedroom, while her parents were sleeping in the adjacent room. Here is the Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Noida_double_murder_case The wiki is very detailed and even has a sketch of the layout of their house. A small warning though: I had my mouth hanging open while reading it. So many possible twists. I was wondering if you could give it a read and give us thoughts on it. Thanks.
ReplyDeletePoor Doc! As if a single, one-legged, moldy albatross isn't enough!
DeleteThanks for the reference. I've been reading about this case, but it looks very complicated. Compared to this case, the Ramsey case looks very simple indeed. If I come up with any ideas I'll post them.
DeleteGreat! I personally don't think the parents did it. In case you're interested, there's also an interview of the mother only 8 days after the murder (it's in English): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyxGTNUwOmo
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHoly cow!!! That's a lot to read!! I don't know if my life can afford another addiction.
ReplyDeleteHey Doc: I just finished re-reading Steve Thomas's book for the first time in years. I was curious to see how it read after having been converted by your blog, and I was struck all over again by his candor
ReplyDeleteand his passion. He doesn't say how he came to
eliminate JR as a suspect, though he's quite clear
about basing his conviction that PDI on the ransom
note and the supposed handwriting match, which
you've pretty thoroughly debunked.
Have you ever had a conversation or any
correspondence with him? Is he aware, do you
know, of your theory and the evidence and
arguments behind it? I wonder if he may be a potential convert as well, and possibly someone who may be able to bring some LE or media attention to bear.
CC
I have a feeling Thomas is no longer interested in thinking any more about this case. I wouldn't know how to contact him anyhow and even if I could I doubt that 1. he'd agree with me; 2. be in a position to do anything even if he did.
DeleteYou're probably right. I've been struggling to come up with a way to get JR into court. Next year is the 20th anniversary - perhaps renewed interest then would present an opportunity. Perhaps a case could be brought in Federal court if one could show - and it would not be difficult - prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Hunter's office. I wonder if sufficient media attention to your theory could compel the Feds to take a look.
DeleteCC
I'll be away from my computer for a couple weeks, so may not be posting as often as usual.
ReplyDeleteThe case has been solved! Check out:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/jonbenet.mystery.solved?notif_t=page_user_activity
" Citing Patsy's possible behavior as based on her being a "pageant mom", for example, does not meet the standard."
ReplyDeleteHa!!!!! Pageant Moms that were Pageant Queens, have horrible morals and behaviourally are narcissistic, self-serving, and don't very often care about the harm done to others as long as the public’s perception of them isn't ruined or tarnished.
"Doc asked you in one exchange, "if it was an accident, why would she not call an ambulance? Why would she instead create an elaborately staged scene and kill her child?" Your response was basically, oh, because she's a pageant mom and unless you're a pageant mom, you can't understand that dark world. Really? She was a perfectionist and all about appearances, so she murdered and mutilated her child? That's one heck of a leap."
Not a leap, not by any means. She's tired and angry, trying to clean up JBR. JRB slips and hits her head. Instead of panicking, she waits, there's no blood….. it can't be that bad. She'll wake up. The longer that PR waits the more she realizes that her window of opportunity to say it was an accident has flown. As an accident her Public Perception would be shaken but recoverable. But with JBR not waking up....... Now her Perfect Appearances would be smashed. Because, now she would have to answer why she didn't call an ambulance. What happened? An investigation would be opened on other possible injuries that the children obtain that were recorded as an "accident" were actually a result of abuse. Once a Pageant Queen Always A Pageant Queen.
Everything that PR worked so hard to gain and maintain would be gone instantly. Beginning sick and being a laughing stock or worse a criminal to the public would be her worst nightmare. (Yes, go ahead. Accuse me of opinions. It won't bother me) JBR's dance instructor and all the house maids can't be wrong about PR's behaviour.
Canuck- If you are a Canuck (Canadian), Peace Keep. Don’t play the finger pointing games that I have seen on here.
We are aldults (I hope) Text without context. Someone could be making fun of themselves and yet someone may take it as an insult. It happens.
Nancy D.
What dance instructor? What "all the housemaids"? Kit Andre and Pam Griffith, JBR's pageant coaches made no disparaging remarks about PR"s character or behavior, other than to say she was a stage mom and very involved. LHP was the only consistent housekeeper, and not surprisingly she did have a few nasty remarks about PR, AFTER learning the Rs considered her a suspect. No one ever impugned her morals or called her a self-serving narcissist, terms that could easily, however, be applied to JR.
DeleteNancy D: Google JBR Autopsy Photos and have a look at that skull fracture. It's 8" long, on the top of her skull, with a clearly defined impact point. Not likely JBR could have taken any kind of accidental fall that would result in her landing almost squarely on top of her head.
ReplyDeleteTouche! JonBenet was clearly hit by something and hit VERY hard.
DeleteTell you what, Nancy D, I'll refrain from finger pointing (though I fail to see how asking someone to back up their theory with facts is finger pointing) if you'll refrain from stereotyping. Sure, some pageant moms have horrible morals but not all do. Yes, Canadians are known internationally as peacekeepers but, unfortunately, not all of us are (just look at our war-mongering PM).
ReplyDeleteI would never "accuse" someone of having an opinion. Everyone has a right to an opinion and I don't care if it differs from my own. I only ask that if someone claims that their theory is the correct one (as Hercule does) that he/she back it with some facts.
Believe me, I understand why so many people subscribe to the theory that PDI. I just don't see the facts of the case backing up that theory.
I stumbled on this interview of John Ramsey:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSJD3KKMjI
I found his choice of words very interesting when talking about the murder of his daughter:
"obviously a crushing blow . . ."
"it was madness looking back on it"
"everybody's thrown a curve ball in life . . . "
"pretty much everybody carries a burden . . . many times you don't know that they are, but they are."
Crushing blow? Madness? Curve ball? Burden in life? My interpretation of his usage of these words:
Crushing blow: what he did to JonBenet's head
Madness: what he experienced that night when killing his daughter
Curve ball: having to go to Plan B when Patsy called 911
Carries a burden . . . many times you don't know that they are: His burden is the guilt of what he did. Many people probably don't know the "burden" that he carries.
Peoples' choice of words can be very telling. Sometimes our subconscious lets words slip out.
se
Interesting. Also, I posted this elsewhere, but on the video of Doc's 'Seeing is Believing' post, at 2:54 the interviewer asks: "Did you have anything to do with the death of Jonbenet?". Notice how Patsy shakes her head without hesitating, whereas John takes in a sharp breath (hesitating), nods (subconsciously), and his eyes shift away (as recalling the lie vs the truth is cognitively effortful) BEFORE shaking his head and giving an answer. I think that's quite chilling. Also, notice how Patsy gives a direct answer: "No" whereas John first rambles a bit before saying "To answer your question, no". A classic false start signalling lying!
DeleteThe link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RacsMPGVwew
John has lots of small but significant tells throughout his interviews with LE and media. I continue to think his largest is this peculiar pattern: He married a pageant queen, molested a pageant child, had an affair during PR's cancer treatments with a woman whom he had dress up in pageant costumes, and is now remarried to a woman who designs pageant gowns.
ReplyDeleteCC
“Nancy D: Google JBR Autopsy Photos and have a look at that skull fracture. It's 8" long, on the top of her skull, with a clearly defined impact point. Not likely JBR could have taken any kind of accidental fall that would result in her landing almost squarely on top of her head.”
ReplyDeleteHow about I go by the autopsy instead?
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf
II. Craniocerebral injuries:
A. Scalp contusions
B. Linear, comminuted fracture of the right side of the skull
C. Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral hemisphere
D. Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage
Note how the skull injuries are the right side of the skull. NOT the top. Also, Linear pattern of contusions. (Line, not cresent).
The autopsy also goes into the abrasion of the right cheek, and the abrasions/contusions of the posterior right shoulder. That goes a long way in consistency of a fall against a hard surface. Even the lower left back and leg abrasions and contusions suggest a fall as those would happen as a result of her body turning (Bouncing) and coming to a rest.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000060.htm (In regards to Linear and Comminuted head injuries) Falls ARE equated to such fatalities as the velocity and momentum and weight of the child against a hard compounded surface can in fact create and cause such damage in which is documented in JBR’s Autopsy records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_(accident)
The severity of injury increases with the height of the fall, but also depends on body and surface features and the manner of body impacts on to the surface.[7] The chance of surviving increases if landing on the surface of high deformity (a surface that bends, moves, or compresses), such as snow or water.[7]
Falling is the second leading cause of accidental death worldwide and is a major cause of personal injury, especially for the elderly.[1] Builders, electricians, miners, and painters are occupations with high rates of fall injuries. In 2013 unintentional falls resulted in 556,000 deaths up from 341,000 deaths in 1990.[2]
Causes of Skull Fractures
A skull fracture occurs when a force is applied that is strong enough to break the bone. Any type of impact to the head can cause a skull fracture, including being hit with an object, FALLING and hitting the ground, head injury in a car accident, or any other type of trauma.
http://mobile.journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/_layouts/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=03000&article=00001#ath
http://mobile.journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/_layouts/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=1993&issue=09000&article=00005
If a fatal fall for a child can be as little as 0.6m and JBR was 1.1938M tall, YES it is possible and probable that a Fall depending on the hardness and shaping of the surface (such as the hard linear surface of the tiles around the bath tub) can and did cause the cranial injuries reported in the autopsy.
167.67498559641480985089629753728Pa for a 1.1937m tall 20.4117Kg girl falling That given the right circumstances actually provides enough force, to do more damage to the skull than what was done.
A depressed skull Fracture can and will occur alongside a linear fracture as the skull has been weakened and the amount of pressure that is applied. As well as if the depressed fracture is the point of origin then you need to look at what part of the skull it was. A curved portion of the skull then could be consistent with a straight edge.
Nancy D.
So why didn't she/they just call 911 and tell the paramedics/police JBR had a fall?
ReplyDeleteWhy not indeed? Nancy D is wedded to the PDI theory not because of any factual evidence but because of her own past negative experience with pageants. While I think most of us find what PR did with JBR and the pageants to be unsavory and disturbing, we do not find it evidence of murder and an elaborate cover up. I suspect most of us came to this blog as I did, feeling that PDI, only to be persuaded by Doc's fact-based logic.
ReplyDeleteAbove posted by CC, September 1, 5:36.
DeleteDespite my negative experiences in pageantry, it’s not my experiences that have given me insight. Twelve years is a long time to watch fellow contestants and younger contestants go through constant coaching and criticism and unattainable expectations and standards. So as much as it is easy enough to place bias on why I firmly believe PDI, it’s not the reason.
ReplyDeleteI have many Nagging questions in regards to Docs JDI theory. Things that, although I have read answers to from past posts, doesn’t make sense to me. If anyone can convince me of the answers I would be more than happy to consider changing my opinion.
Why did PR change routine and not get up to make sure that JBR didn’t wet the bed? (Tired, ill and medicated never prevented it before so why this particular night? Or was it a lie?)
PR, very appearance based (as Canuck also said), wore the same clothes two days in a row. Being that PR was very appearances based she wouldn’t have normally done that. So why not change her outfit to be consistent with what her friends and family were accustomed to?
If all accounts that JR took Melatonin that night are true, it’s not likely that he got up. So how did he manage to fight his way through a drug induced sleep to wake up and be coherent enough to not wake PR up?
There was soiled underwear in JBR’s room, PR was always the one mentioned when it came down to cleaning JBR up, especially in the middle of the night. So it’s especially hard for me to believe that JR woke up after taking Melatonin and cleaned her up. So who truly cleaned her up? Or was the findings that JBR had been wiped down just evidences that she had soiled herself and that PR had in fact woke up to clean her up?
When JBR’s body was found, PR didn’t run from the sun room to see if she was alive. As I recall, from the police statements is wasn’t stated to Officer Arndt until White reached to the top of the stairs and spoke quietly with her about the condition of JBR. Why was PR the last one out of the Sun room and not the first?
And what possible reason did PR have for trying to conceal that we was sobbing and watching Officer French?
And all this is pure speculartory reasoning. But realistically, as a parent, as a wife and as a person I have a hard time that a mom changes her routine just because. That on the biggest day that something horrible happens is when you choose to go against everything that you had done up to that point.
It just does not make sense. So give me the COLD HARD FACTS that will CONVINCE me.
Nancy D.
As for why PR wouldn’t call for help right away, as many of the posters here have mentioned PR was tired, had been ill, medicated, as Hercule and I have said she’s a pageant mom and a pageant queen.
ReplyDeleteI believe:
PR was cleaning JBR up from soiling herself, PR yes tired and frustrated is manhandling JBR as JBR wants to clean herself so that it doesn’t hurt. PR gets upset because she just wants it done and over with so that she can go back to bed. JBR, tries to get out of the bath tub, PR blocks her, stepping on the ledge of the tub, wet and slippery and unable to go anywhere JBR slipped, her head hits the opposite side of the tub along the tile surround, her cheek and shoulder on the tub. As she continues to fall her back and leg hit the other side of the tub. Coming to a rest. First off the speed which she would have fallen would have been a split second. PR was probably in shock that it happened at all. Maybe she even thought about what had happened and why it happened. Maybe she did realize that she should call an ambulance and was even going to. She probably tried to wake JBR up, perhaps PR didn’t even realize that JBR had hit her head and thought that it was an act to be left alone.
Regardless, PR thinks about what had happened, starts thinking that had she not blocked JBR from getting out of the tub it wouldn’t have happened. Calling an ambulance would be the smart and “Normal” thing to do (Although there is nothing normal about this case at all). Then she realizes that if JBR gets better and wakes up and is questioned about what happened JBR would probably say that it was PR’s fault that she fell. Intentional or not, JBR would say exactly what had happened. The roughness used to clean her up in a hurry, PR’s words to her, PR’s actions. All painting a horrible picture around PR(Appearances) . So, hoping that the fall wasn’t as bad as it seemed, PR waited. If JBR woke up then she could instruct her that it was all an accident.
Yes I know that PR rushed JBR to the Dr. after BR hit her. But BR being a child and a “rough and tumble boy” there was more than enough for that to be overlooked.
However, when a Parent of a child is involved in the injury, there is always an investigation. Especially with the injuries that JBR sustained. Fear of losing all of her family, of losing her wealth, of being named a bad parent, a bad person. Fear of disappointment, shame, and disgust. Plain unbridled fear of losing everything.
After a while it becomes obvious that JBR isn’t going to wake up. Creating even more fear that PR will lose everything. Because now it has become an easy charge of “Negligence”. Now she has to do something because there is no way of explaining what happened was an accident and that she meant to call 911 but was afraid to. The bleeding in her brain had made JBR appear like she wasn’t alive anymore. Very shallow and slow breathing, an extremely faint pulse. PR could have believed her dead in a panicked state of mind.
Convincing, herself that JBR was already dead, PR went to protect her family, her name, her title, and her reputation. Fashioning a garrote from knots that she had seen BR learn in scouts or that JR had shown BR. Using her paintbrush and twisting it. When it snapped she violated her child as all the family and friends knew that wasn’t something that anyone in the house would do to JBR.
Her adrenaline still rushing while writing the RN, it helped disguise her writing just enough that it would seem that someone had appeared to be trying to copy her writing. Adrenaline creating that chemical change in the brain that actually alters many things about people the way they talk, walk and write while it’s still in the system.
Nancy D.
I'm sorry Nancy D. ---- this just sounds way too fantastical. However, being the devils advocate that I am, I will say that some people do very strange things and act in ways that surprise even the closest people they know. I get what you're trying to say about self-absorbed pageant queens/moms and that some might actually flip out like this.
DeleteBut there is one thing that absolutely doesn't make sense. If Jon Benet did slip on the side of the tub while trying to get out, she could have slipped whether or not PR was blocking her. Tubs are slippery. I do not believe that PR would have worried about JonBenet saying it was her fault. PR would have told the medics that she slipped and fell. Period. No one is going to question HOW that happened in the tub. Also, I don't believe JonBenet would be so aggressive as to blame her mommy for her fall. It is unbelievable to me that PR would imagine such a scenario when she could simply say is was an accident. Period.
"It just does not make sense. So give me the COLD HARD FACTS that will CONVINCE me.
ReplyDeleteNancy D."
The cold hard facts are presented by Doc in his very first post. It's the interpretation of the facts that makes or breaks a particular theory of the case.
Personally, I'm convinced that no one would stage a kidnapping gone wrong. They'd stage a successful kidnapping and dump the body somewhere. I don't think anything will convince me otherwise. I might buy the idea that someone would stage a sexual predator murder, but clearly they didn't. But other people are completely convinced that both JR and PR worked together to stage a scene in which both a RN and a dead body are found in the house, yet they expected the police to believe IDI.
In the end it just comes down to what a person will or will not accept as plausible.
CH
I wanted to comment about falling in the tub and hitting one's head as I have some personal experience with that. I slipped in the tub a few years back and hit my head on the side. The impact broke the skin on my scalp immediately and it bled quite a bit. (Heads tend to do that). I didn't end up needing stitches, but the wound did require bandaging.
ReplyDeleteJust from this personal experience, I believe that if JB had fallen in the tub and hit her head hard enough to cause a huge fracture, she would also have broken the skin and bled. But we know that her skin was unbroken despite her massive skull fracture. This suggests her either hitting, or being hit with, something hard that had a malleable surface. There's no proof that the Maglite was that thing, but the fact that it was out on the kitchen counter, had been thoroughly wiped of fingerprints, and the Ramsey's neighbour said he witnessed someone using a flashlight in the kitchen the night of the murder certainly points to the possibility of the flashlight being the instrument used to fracture JB's skull.
There is only John's word that he took Melatonin, which doesn't knock one out in any case. Patsy was likely tired after Christmas with the kids and a party. She got up an hour before their planned flight to Charlevoix, why shower and primp to fly? She threw on the same clothes and planned to clean up when they reached Michigan.
ReplyDeleteTrue! She was traveling from one home to another on a private plane with no one but family, no one to look good for or impress. No matter how appearance-obsessed, easier to shower and change after the flight.
DeleteI totally agree. I know Steve Thomas makes a strong point of Patsy wearing the same clothes the next day but, hey, maybe it was her favorite Christmas outfit and she had only worn it a few hours while at the White's for dinner. Why not wear it again and get some mileage out of it? This does not seem unusual to me.
DeleteAlso, I agree that Patsy was probably very tired that night. Not to sound sexist, but I think in the majority of homes, the moms do most the planning and work at Christmas. She was most likely exhausted from a very long day and she knew she had to get up early. Another reason to just slip on the same clothes from the night before. And she may have opted to get an extra hour of sleep by skipping the shower and redoing her hair and makeup.
I'm so glad someone else finally is defending her on this point!
Sorry, Nancy, your "cold hard facts"are weak and soft. Melatonin is a synthetic hormone touted for many benefits, one of which is an aid for sleep. It is not particularly efficacious and certainly does not cause the stuporous, "drug-induced sleep" you imply. The only soiled underwear in JBR's bedroom were soiled with BR's feces. No JBR urine-stained underwear were found other than those on her body.
ReplyDeleteCC
Also: PR didn't routinely get up to make sure JBR didn't wet the bed - she got up routinely when the child HAD wet the bed, cleaned her up, changed her, moved her to other bed, tossed bedding in washer. No wake up from JBR that night, so no getting up for
ReplyDeletePR.
Further, no source places PR in the solarium when JBR was carried upstairs, but rather in the back of the house, in the den.
More cold, hard facts, Nancy D.
I just experienced what some other commenters here have experienced --- when I hit "publish", my comment disappeared. So I will re-write it and hopefully it doesn't pop up later as a duplicate.
ReplyDeleteI was re-reading this blog from the beginning and was in Doc's post, "Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections" where Doc refers to Brugnatelli's handwriting comparison between JR and the RN. There is a link that you can open to see the comparisons of letters. It took my breath away. The similarities are uncanny. I just do not understand how JR could have been ruled out.
I just have to wonder if this case will EVER be brought to justice. There has got to be some young ambitious investigator out there that could open this cold case and take a second look at everything. Sadly, I have a feeling JR will die before that happens.
What we need is a fearless prosecutor rather than an investigator. Not something we're going to find in Boulder, then or now. Alex Hunter should have used the investigative and subpoena powers of the Grand Jury to get the Ramseys in court when he could, knowing you don't always have a perfect case, but because of the political climate in Boulder and his own inexperience at trying cases he blew it, big time. I don't see any judicial opportunities in the future, unfortunately.
DeleteThere has been much debate regarding the relevance of the suitcase being positioned under the basement window. According to Doc, after Patsy foiled John's plan by phoning 911, he must have went down to the basement (while she phoned their friends) with the intention to unstage the staged intruder break in by cleaning up the broken glass from the window. So I ask - Why would John leave the suitcase underneath the window? Clearly, he would have placed it inconspicuously amidst the clutter in the basement.
ReplyDeleteHercule
It's "he must have gone down" not "he must have went". You make an awful lot of grammatical and syntactical errors for someone with three decades of
Deleteprofessional psychological experience and,
presumably, the education to match. And yes, you may - and should - take this as disrespect. I do not believe you have any particular professional insight, nor do I believe you have been given special access to case material.
Is this and the following post your long-promised thesis? Looks like just more fragments.
Your reply has no bearing on this case. If you would like to offer something useful please do.
DeleteHercule
I agree with Hercule on this. Show some respect and be kind.
DeleteYes, if he was unstaging, he'd want to move the suitcase back to wherever it was. Yet he didn't. Why? The usual explanation is that he ran out of time (and to be fair he had only 7 minutes before the police showed up) or that he simply couldn't think of every detail.
DeleteIf the suitcase wasn't normally kept there (according to JR) where was it normally kept? And how would an "intruder" find it? Of course an intruder could have run across it while roaming the house, but he'd have come across the chair first, it being there in the room and a sensible thing to stand on.
We know the suitcase was under the window when it was broken. So it had to be there when the "intruder" broke in. At least that is the way it would look to the police.
CH
"1. Do you feel that JonBenet's head injury was accidental? If so, what do you think caused that huge crack in her skull?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it was accidental. Most likely the cause of the head injury would be the tile on the opposite side of the tub (as Nancy D. stated). To me, that makes the most sense but I would not rule out either the sink or toilet.
"2. If PDI, why did she wipe down JonBenet's body? What do you think she was trying to remove?"
The same reason that anyone would wipe down a murder victim. To remove any trace of themselves from the body. Patsy was extremely concerned regarding this correlation. As an extra precaution, she decided to dress herself in the same clothing the next morning to insure that any evidence of her being on JonBenet could be explained after she threw herself on the body as she mourned. Why else would she wear the same outfit two days in a row?
"3. If PDI, do you believe she confided in John? If so, why do you think John would go along with a coverup?"
No. I do not think she ever admitted to John that she was responsible for JonBenet's death. Keep in mind that John had already lost one daughter and the tragedy of her death nearly broke him. How could she bring herself to tell him that and expect his help? She was desperate to cover up this crime. She could lose everything. Her husband. Her wealthy lifestyle. Patsy's plan was to remain in denial no matter how guilty she looked. John, of course, was intelligent and saw through the deception. Deep down I think John believed Patsy was most likely responsible for the murder, but what could he do? If he had not supported her then he would have looked guilty. John likewise chose denial. After all, there was a small chance that someone else committed the murder so I think John preferred to convince himself of that.
Hercule
Re: #2]
DeleteWhy would she be concerned with traces of herself on JBR? She's Jonbenets mom. She bathes her, she cleans her. Of course there'd be traces of the mother on the child. It would all be completely innocent.
CH
"Why else would she wear the same outfit two days in a row?"
DeleteBeing the fashion plate that I believe Patsy was, she probably really loved the outfit she wore on Christmas Day. It's quite possible that she took a long time picking out the perfect outfit and it was probably expensive. They still had another Christmas to spend with JR's older children the next day, so I find it completely believable that she would choose to wear the same outfit. After all, she really only wore it for a few hours Christmas night. And if she thought she looked great in it, she would want to wear it again for the "second" Christmas they had planned.
bb
Yes, you are correct. Under the circumstances I think it would be normal for Patsy to overthink this aspect. The fact that she wore the same outfit two consecutive days does not mean she is the killer, but when you combine it with all the other clues and evidence it is consistent with Patsy committing the crime.
ReplyDeleteHercule
My last response was for CH.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Yes, I can see that someone might overthink an angle.
DeleteCH
Glad to see you back in the discussion Hercule. Nothing livens up this blog more than when you start to post!!
ReplyDeleteHere's another question for you: why do you think JR made up that ridiculous window story? Do you actually believe him or do you think he was covering for Patsy who, according to your theory, was the one who actually broke the window in an attempt to stage an intruder. If you believe it is the latter, then Patsy would have to have known that JR was on to her -- that he knew she was guilty -- because she would have known his story was a lie and that he never had to break that window when he got locked out.
bb
Another look at the Panties.
ReplyDeleteIf we ask ourselves where JR got the size 12 panties, we come up with, as far as I can see, 3 sources;
1. JR got them from JBR herself – that is, JBR was wearing them and JR took them off her, assaulted her, wiped her, and put the size 12s back on her.
2. JR got the size 12s from JBR’s underwear drawer.
3. JR got size 12s from a package in the basement. This would be a package that Patsy intended to wrap and send to Jenny Davis, but never got around to.
IF we look at the implications of each source we can at least say what has to be/can’t be if a particular scenario were true.
1. JR re-used the panties that JBR was already wearing. If true, the implications are;
a. Patsy is telling the truth about putting the size 12s in JBR’s drawer.
b. There was no semen or blood on the panties. Otherwise they could not be placed back on the body.
c. There should be a pair of size 6 panties somewhere that JBR took off. They were never found that we know of.
d. There should be several pairs of size 12/14 panties in JBR’s drawer, the clothes hamper, the washer, or somewhere. They were never found that we know of.
2. JR got them from JBR’s underwear drawer. If true, the implications are;
a. Patsy is telling the truth about putting the size 12/14s in JBR’s drawer. (But, in this scenario JBR did not put the panties on herself)
b. The size 6 panties must have been contaminated in some way. This could be blood, semen, or both.
c. There should be a pair of size 6 panties somewhere. In this scenario we would assume that JR disposed of them, pocketed them, or in some way kept them from being discovered by the police.
d. There should be several pairs of size 12/14 panties in the drawer, or somewhere in the house.
3. JR got the size 12 panties from a package in the basement. If true, the implications are;
a. Patsy is lying about putting the size 12/14 panties in the drawer.
b. The size 6 panties were contaminated with semen, blood, or both.
c. The size 6 panties must have been disposed of by JR.
d. There should be several pairs of size 12/14 panties in an open package. This package was not found at the scene, at the time.
Rather than try to determine which is more/less likely I’ll just make some comments and then let readers draw their own conclusions. (I don’t want to be accused of playing for the defense)
CH
to be continued
Comments on scenario 1. (Note, comments are longer in scenario one because some details must be explained. These details apply to the other scenarios as well, but do not need to be repeated)
ReplyDeleteIn scenario 1 we are missing a pair of size 6 panties. JBR would likely have dropped them on the floor
if she changed into the size 12s sometime after being put to bed. There would be no need for JR to dispose of these (if he was even aware of them) as they would not be contaminated (with blood/semen, they could have urine on them) At the same time there is no reason JR couldn’t have put them in the dirty clothes hamper, since he was obviously in JBR’s room that night. There is no reason JBR could not have put them back in the panty drawer if they were not soiled.
We are also missing the remaining size 12/14 panties. It’s possible not all info has been released to the public, but there is no use speculating on what may or may not have been found. Based on what’s known, the remaining 12s were not found and there seems to be no good reason that JR would dispose of them; in fact, quite the opposite. Other size 12/14 panties in the drawer (or hamper, or somewhere in the house) would bolster Patsy’s statement. The missing 12/14s undercut Patsy’s statements that she put them in JBR’s underwear drawer.
As far as I can see, the police did not ask whether or not either PR or JR replaced the “original” size 6 panties with 12/14 panties, nor did they ask what happened to the size 6 “originals” nor did they ask what happened to the remaining size 12s, though they did state, while interviewing Patsy, that no other size 12s were found- every pair retrieved form the underwear drawer was 6 or smaller. (15 pairs altogether, iirc) The police seemed to concentrate on establishing that the size 12/14s were in the house before the murder took place and could not have been brought in by an intruder, but they never seemed to ask themselves what happened to the missing 12/14s. As far as the investigators can tell, JBR is found wearing the only pair of 12/14 panties in the house, but they never seem to ask either JR or PR where the lost panties went.
We don’t really know what panties JBR wore to the White’s party. We assume size 6 because Patsy redressed her in the LJs and would have noticed if she were wearing size 12s. Patsy states in her interviews with the police that she doesn’t remember anything unusual in that regard.
Black velvet Jeans that were worn to the party would be able to hold the size 12s in place, just as the long johns would.
We don’t, and can’t know what may have been in JBR’s room at the time of the 911 call. Her bedroom was not sealed until 10:30. I’m not trying to make anything of this, just pointing out that we can’t say what was/wasn’t found before 10:30. The police can’t say either because they weren’t paying attention. Again there would be no reason for JR to dispose of the “originals” in scenario 1.
Scenario 1 is consistent with the fact that no trace of semen was found on the body or articles of clothing taken into evidence.
CH
Comments on scenario 2.
ReplyDeleteThe second scenario is essentially a modification of the first. In both 1 and 2 the panties came from JBR’s underwear drawer. The difference is simply whether JBR put them on herself before being taken to the basement, or whether JR got them from the drawer and used them to substitute for the original size 6 panties.
In scenario 2 Patsy is telling the truth about putting the panties in the drawer.
In 2, we have to assume that the “original” panties (6) were contaminated in some way and fresh panties needed to be substituted.
In 2, we have to assume JR got rid of the missing size 6 panties.
It does not make sense, as far as I can see, for JR to get rid of the remaining pairs of 12/14s. Yet, they have disappeared.
The missing 12/14s undercut PR’s story that she placed the 12/14s in JBRs underwear drawer. (Yet, if this is where JR got the panties, PR must be telling the truth)
A slight variation on 2 would be that JR got them out of the dirty clothes hamper, pile, or basket. But it seems to be well accepted that that the size 12s were fresh so they had to be either from the package, or from JBR’s drawer. Perhaps this is an unwarranted assumption, and the 12/14s were not fresh? If they’d been worn but not soiled in any way it might be hard to tell.
Comments on scenario 3.
In scenario 3, Patsy is lying. Since JR got the panties from a package in the basement, PR could not have placed them in JBR’s underwear drawer. Is Patsy telling a ‘white lie” or has she been gaslighted? I don’t really see it, but perhaps someone else can see it.
The missing 6s had to be disposed of by JR.
The missing 12/14s were either disposed of by JR, or must be left unexplained as in the first two scenarios. In 3, there may be a reason for JR to get rid of the remaining size 12/14 panties. If an opened package was found by the police it would look suspicious as there would be no reason for an intruder to do this, if he even knew where to find them. OTOH for JBR to be wearing the only size 12s in the house, with no source for them within the house looks weird too.
As in 2, we assume that the “original” panties became contaminated and needed to be replaced with a fresh pair.
There are other aspects of concern, but here I want to focus on where JR got his hands on the size 12/14 panties, and what the implications are of getting them from one location or another.
CH
CH - you might want to check the 2012 archive on this blog. I think it's called "Folklore - Panties" or something similar.
ReplyDeleteWell thought out, CH. I don't think you've left a stone unturned on this subject. Very interesting. I will just add my comments.
ReplyDeletePatsy said she put the oversized panties in JonBenet's drawer and said she bought them as a present for another older girl. My first thought here is why would she put them in JonBenet's drawer then? It actually makes more sense that they would have been set out somewhere so that she would remember to wrap them. I ask myself what I would do in this situation, as I had a young girl once. I would not have put them in her drawer if they were meant for someone else.
If she did, in fact, put them in JonBenet's drawer, the most obvious question then is what happened to the rest of the package? Whether JonBenet opened the package and put on the pair herself or someone else did (JR or Patsy), it still begs the question: what happened to the package containing the other pairs?
What seems more logical to me is that they were in the basement, as you suggest (good call, by the way) with the other presents and Patsy just never got around to wrapping them. If that is the case, they would be very handy for the person who assaulted JonBenet to grab when redressing her. The perp would know police would think it improbable for an intruder to redress her, so the perp probably disposed of the rest of the package to make it look like JonBenet had them on the entire time. Of course in this scenario, Patsy would be lying about putting them in JonBenet's drawer, as you have suggested. (I'm sure Hercule would jump on this point and add it to the "clues" supporting PDI). If JR felt the need to redress JonBenet, he would be taking a huge risk in going all the way back upstairs to get a new pair of panties. I mean, what if Patsy awoke and asked him where JonBenet was and what was he doing in her dresser drawers? On the other hand, how convenient it would be for him to see a package in the basement and simply open it and grab a pair.
HOWEVER, what bothers me about this scenario (JR finding the package in the basement and taking a pair out of it and then disposing of the rest), is that I cannot see any reason Patsy would lie about putting the package in JonBenet's drawer, unless she simply forgot that she had later moved them to the basement. That's actually a pretty big thing to forget, imo.
So here is the bottom line, and it is in no way conclusive:
If the oversized panties were in the drawer, as Patsy says they were, then I would venture to say JonBenet put that pair on herself. But what happened to the rest of the package?? Maybe JonBenet hid it, knowing she would be in trouble for opening the package.
If the oversized panties were in the basement, JR may have grabbed a pair out of the package in haste to redress her, but then knew he had to dispose of the rest of the package because he knew no one would ever believe an intruder opened that package of panties and redressed her. He would want it to look like she was always wearing that pair. But then why did Patsy lie about putting them in the drawer?
And just one more comment . . . . I don't think the person who assaulted JonBenet would have done so with her panties ON in the first place, so there would be no risk of them being contaminated with semen as she was wiped down and then the panties could be put back on. Frankly, an intruder would never bother putting them back on. So if the perp did, in fact, take them off, there would be no need to find a fresh pair. The original pair would just be put back on.
The question you've caused me to think about the most here is where did the rest of the package of new panties go? Unless the police aren't divulging everything they found, which I'm sure they are not, I would guess they were disposed of by the perp. And they would only be disposed of if they were found in the basement because the perp would know finding an opened package with a pair taken out would point to an inside job (and intruder would not do this).
bb
I just re-read Doc's post, "Folklore - Panties", as suggested by the poster above.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, can someone tell me whether or not the rest of the package of oversized panties were found? I think this is key because if that package was never found, you have to ask yourself what happened to it. If it was found, I would tend to believe that JonBenet put on those oversized panties herself and the same panties were put back on her after the assault (they would not be contaminated because the person who assaulted her took them off first)
If the package was never found, then it points to someone who felt the need to dispose of the package. Why? Because the package was probably in the basement and it would look very suspicious indeed if they were opened down there and left behind. Certainly an intruder would not do this and the police would then suspect either JR or Patsy as the one who opened the package. In other words, an opened package in JonBenet's drawer would not look suspicious, imo, but an opened package in the basement would look very suspicious (pointing to an inside job)
bb
bb, thank you for your comments. I'd like to reply to several points you make.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn't mean to suggest PR put the unopened package in JBR's underwear drawer intending to wrap them later as a Christmas gift for Jenny. The story she tells police is that she originally bought them for her niece, Jenny Davis, but never got around to wrapping/sending them. Meanwhile JBR had expressed a desire to have them for herself so PR opened the package and put them in the underwear drawer. So I think if they were ever in the drawer they were loose. I suppose it's possible she put them in the drawer in the package, letting JBR open the package herself.
The reason I suggested they might be in the basement was that that is where I understood other presents were wrapped. I could be mistaken. Maybe they were in another room. The important thing is that they were in the house, and JR either stumbled upon them (unlikely imo, but possible) or he knew right where they were.
As far as I'm aware no other size 12s were found, either loose or in the now opened package. However, the R's did return a package that they claim was found after they had moved to Atlanta. Supposedly these were boxed up by the movers and just never discovered until quite some time after the move (years, iirc?) Patsy isn't sure if she bought two packages or one, so this could be the second package, which still leaves us missing some panties. I guess I'm not clear on whether this returned pack was open or not - I'll have to do some reading.
CH
to be continued
...continuing.....
ReplyDeleteAs you note, it would be improbable for an actual "intruder" to redress her( except to the extent of putting back on what he had taken off, if even that). He wouldn't search the basement looking for substitute panties. So why would JR do this? I think we need to separate the successful kidnapping that we assume JR was staging from the kidnapping gone wrong, which is the only theory JR could latch onto after the 911 call. In a kidnapping gone wrong, the perp would not likely redress the body at all, and if it were staged as a kidnapping gone wrong (it wasn't) then the body would be left half naked. IMO, the purpose of redressing the body is simply this - JR was planning to dump the body somewhere. He could not be sure whether or not the body would be found, but if it was, it had to be dressed exactly as she had been when taken from her bed. This would be consistent with the kidnapping story. Thus, it makes sense to me that JR simply put back on what he'd taken off her.
Of course she doesn't have to be redressed at all, even when the body is found out in the woods (or wherever it was dumped). Missing clothing could be blamed on the kidnappers, but articles of her own clothing different than what she wore when taken from her bed would almost certainly point to an inside job. This would include any article of clothing on the body. She could not be in a different top, or the Barbie nightgown instead of LJs, and she could not be in different panties. Patsy knows how JBR was dressed so when and if the body were found, it has to be dressed, if at all, as she was when taken from her bed.
I agree with you that JR most likely removed the panties before the assault. I think this would be true of either the acute injuries were inflicted, or before any "fun" that may have resulted in an ejaculation. So, even if there was semen on the body, and it was wiped away (very thoroughly) there's a good probability that there was never any semen on whatever panties she was wearing when taken to the basement.
To me the panties present us with a challenge. Do we stick with the logic that tells us PR was not involved and therefore must be telling the truth about putting the panties in the drawer? If so, why are the size 12s gone?
Or do we believe PR is lying about that, and is therefore a co-conspirator in the cover up (at least) ? I do not see this as a likely "white lie" nor a case of gaslighting, but perhaps when Doc returns he will have something to say about it.
Either way I think we have some elements we can't explain.
CH
To me the salient point is "Wednesday". The panties removed said Wednesday, so JR would go to some trouble - even going upstairs to JBR'S bedroom - to be sure the replacement pair said Wednesday as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear the BPD did not do a bang-up job with the evidence, and it's not certain the size discrepancy had been noticed early on when they did their ten-day search.
I think PR told the truth: the size 12s were in JBR'S drawer, JR took the pair he needed, and the cops left the other six pair of size 12s in the drawer, not realizing their potential significance.
CC
I don't believe there would have been any packaging to dispose of if the size 12s were in a drawer, as most mothers - I think - launder new clothes before their kids wear them to remove surface dyes, chemicals, etc.
ReplyDeleteCC
I think that makes sense.
DeleteCH
JR might have gone to a lot of trouble to get Wed. panties, or it might have been coincidence. PR states, somewhere during her police interviews about the panties, that JBR didn't wear the correct panties for the day of the week. That is, she might wear Wed. panties on a Monday, depending on what she grabbed, and what was clean and in her drawer. (With her bed wetting it's likely that what was clean and ready to wear was out of sync with the day of the week) But, JR might not have known this, and might have thought it was important that she be in Wed. panties. But then he'd have to have ignored the size problem - which is more suspicious? She's in the wrong DOTW or in the wrong size? If we believe PR then we have a rational explanation for the wrong size, and you may very well be right that they were selected for the Wed. feature.
ReplyDeleteThe size problem had to be noticed, by the authorities, at autopsy, even though it wasn't mentioned in the AR. Police were present at the autopsy.
I don't think Pam Paugh took them. With the police on scene they'd notice the size of them, but even if they didn't why would Pam be collecting JBR's size 12s? Obviously JBR isn't going to need them anymore. Even BPD must have realized that much. How could JR make sure Pam would take all the size 12s - what explanation would he give her for asking her to get the 12s? Why would PR ask for the 12s? And, the police took possession of everything in JBR's underwear drawer, 15 pairs, none size 12. (The evidence list is somewhere on A Candy Rose) So it must be that either JR smuggled out the remaining size 12s (for which there is no good reason in sceanrios 1 and 2, and only a weak reason for in 3) or some info about what the police found has not reached the public. JMO.
CH
I'd really like to see that evidence list, for a number of reasons. Do you know where I might find it? Do you know where ACandyRose got it, meaning is it legit?
DeleteI don't know where Candy Rose got it. They have interview transcripts, which I've seen in books, and those apparently are legit, so I just assume the evidence list is legit too. Could be a dangerous assumption.
DeleteCH
Didn't I read somewhere that PR said she and JBR had a tiff when preparing for the Whites' party over dressing alike, which JBR was resisting? They did both end up in black pants and red sweaters, so it
ReplyDeleteseems. PR won that round possibly, even likely, by
helping JBR dress. Given PR's attention to clothing
detail, she'd be the likeliest person to dress JBR in
the appropriate DOTW panties. If JR heard about
the dust-up over clothes, all the more reason to be
careful to re-dress JBR in the correct panties.
CC
Possibly. The dust up was about what to wear, but I'd assume it concentrated on outer wear. I doubt the dispute involved wearing the wrong DOTW panties.
DeleteCH
I am more and more baffled over this pantie evidence. I'm sure Doc would say we're all spinning our wheels for nothing in that it doesn't matter where the panties came from. Perhaps he's right.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe JonBenet put the panties on herself. They simply would be too big and she would not like how they felt, if they even stayed up. Surely she had other cute panties to pick from that fit properly.
So someone else must have put those panties on her. The JDI group will most likely say that he grabbed them out of her drawer in a hurry and didn't even notice the size. The PDI group would probably say Patsy put them on in a fit of rage after a bedwetting incident and also did not notice the size. Either way (John or Patsy putting them on), I think it occurred after they came home that night. I don't think JonBenet would have put such large panties on underneath her Christmas pants. They would not be comfortable at all. I have two 4-year old granddaughters who are very picky about the underwear they put on and I know they would never wear oversized panties.
I think JonBenet was wearing another pair of panties when she went to the White's dinner that night. Then, later that night, they were changed . . . by someone. Who and why are the questions. The panties tell us this was an inside job, but they don't necessarily point to either JR or PR.
Well, it matters to some extent, because depending on where you think the panties came from certain things have to be true or false.
DeleteIf you can accept scenario 1 you should be able to accept 2 and vice versa. In both cases the panties start out in the drawer, it's just a matter who put them on -JBR or JR.
If they were in her drawer, they must have been placed there for the reason PR states (e.g. PR is telling the truth) JBR must have expressed an interest in having them otherwise there is no reason for PR to have placed them in her underwear drawer. If she expressed a desire to have them, it's not surprising that she may have put them on herself. It's very hard for me to make sense of a scenario in which PR put the size 12s in the drawer but JBR had no interest whatever in wearing them. Just doesn't make sense. IOWs the underlying rationale for scenario 1 has to be true for scenario 2 to be true. The only reason JR could have got them from the drawer is that they were in the drawer. The only reason for them to be in the drawer is that they were meant to be used by JBR.
It matters because in scenarios 1 and 2 there is no reason at all for the size 12s to be missing, just the opposite. Yet they are missing. Looked at in a vacuum, w/o regard to any other aspect of the case, it's very hard to believe PR's panty story. Yet it's also hard to see why she'd be lying or what purpose it would serve.
It matters because if he got them from the basement PRs story is definitely false and it's hard to see it as a white lie or false memory. She certainly remembers whether or not she put size 12s in JBR's undie drawer. The shopping trip was in Nov. '96. I don't know how long she waited before deciding not to send the size 12s to Jenny, and putting them in the drawer, but certainly she was not being asked to remember even a full two months prior to the murder. She simply could not be confused as to whether or not she did this. She could be confused as to why the police were going on and on about it (because if she's telling the truth it must be obvious to her that JBR put them on herself) but she can't be confused as to whether or not she did it.
Finally i t matters because there are a lot of probabilities that go along with whatever source you choose. For example, let's say JR got them out of the drawer. Did he go back upstairs to get them? Or did he have the foresight to realize he was going to contaminate the size 6 panties she had on, and so he grabbed them out of the drawer before taking JBR out of the bedroom? If he had the foresight, why didn't he simply remove the size 6s from the body so they didn't become contaminated? It's easier to prevent contamination in the first place than to substitute panties, so probably, if he got them out of the drawer, he went back upstairs for them.
Any way it's sliced we have a problem. What logic is the strongest? The logic that tells us that PR is lying about putting the panties in the drawer -because if that were true there would certainly be other size 12s somewhere? Or the logic that tells us PR must be telling the truth because a) why lie under the circumstances (the police know no other 12s were in the drawer, and PR knows this too if she's lying) and b) she'd never have made that 911 call with the body in the basement if she was in on the cover up. Personally I think the later logic is still stronger, but it's certainly troubling that the size 12s are gone.
All this doesn't so much help determine what actually happened, but rather it narrows down the range of probable events and how they played out.
CH
Hercule, I'm trying not to feel 'disrespected' by the fact that you only answered bb's questions, and didn't respond to any of mine.
ReplyDeleteEven so, you've again answered a question with a fantasy. bb asked you why you believe PR wiped down the body, and you said:
"The same reason that anyone would wipe down a murder victim. To remove any trace of themselves from the body. Patsy was extremely concerned regarding this correlation. As an extra precaution, she decided to dress herself in the same clothing the next morning to insure that any evidence of her being on JonBenet could be explained after she threw herself on the body as she mourned. Why else would she wear the same outfit two days in a row?"
In your theory, PR must be psychic! She somehow knew that even though she was the one who invited the police in, there was NO WAY they would ever find the body she'd so expertly concealed in her basement. She foresaw all that morning's events, down to the fact that she had to wear the same outfit because they were all going to sit there for seven hours before John would miraculously discover the corpse and bring it upstairs so she could throw herself onto it.
If perfectionist Patsy took such extreme care and did such a great job of wiping down the body, why would she then feel the need to contaminate it? Your answer doesn't make sense.
This is the same logic you use for why she invited their friends over (to contaminate the crime scene, you say). But, as I mentioned above, that was pretty unlikely because she called the police first and the friends second...and the police arrived first. How could she have known the police wouldn't bar the friends from the premises?
Oh, right. She's psychic in your theory.
CH: I just read the search warrant results posted on ACandyRose. While they do list various"underwear", "girls underwear" and "JBR underwear", they don't detail sizes, and nowhere could I find "15 pairs". Am I looking in the wrong place?
ReplyDeleteCC
No, you aren't looking in the wrong place. The "15 pairs" is from the police interviews - also on Candy Rose. I got mixed up.
DeleteCH
As a size 10/12 in panties (uk size), i will buy 14/16,same applies for my daughter size 8, buy size 10/12. The same goes for my grandaughters. I don't think the panties being larger means they would have neccesarily fallen down. I also have friends that wash every item of clothing they buy before wearing where as i don't.
ReplyDeleteI would like to talk again about the RN and Garotte if i may. Many experts believe it was written ahead of time, and i agree. I can't see any scenario except with JR and PR collaborating, where they would have time to write such a long one. But that would meen garotting JBR to cover for Burke, which makes no sense. If accidental by Patsy, again too risky for John to wake so no time for a long rambling note, and why would she even think about garotting her own daughter to cover an accident.? The only way i can see JBR being garotted is if JR alone, but this to me would have to be a sexually motivated assault where by he intended to, and fullfilled his desires with the garotting, rather than some random thought after the assault to stage in this way. But why use the pen/pad from his own home.? These two things baffle me, who would garotte their own child to cover either an accident or incest. And who would spend half the night writing a long RN when they had so much else to sort and stage.
CH, I enjoy your posts, and you often raise interesting questions, but this time I'm stumped. Just finished reading everything I could find on the 1,058 pieces of collected evidence on ACandyRose, every published book I could find and every website and blog. Phew. I can find no source that shows what size girls' panties were collected from the home, which leads me to question your basic premise that the rest of the size 12s were somehow disappeared by the killer. Help me, CH - what am I missing?
ReplyDeleteCC
You aren't missing anything, I got mixed up as to where I read about the 15 pairs. It wasn't the evidence list, it was the 2000 interview between the police and PR. http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-oversize-bloomies.htm
DeleteIf you scroll to the "Chain of Events 2000" you'll see the interview. On the right of the page, in red, you'll see the officer state that 15 pairs were recovered from the drawer, none of them size 12. All either 6 or 4.
We don't really know what sizes were taken into evidence or what part of the house they were taken from - at least not according to the evidence list. The evidence list doesn't say what size, or if they were taken from the drawer or the basement etc.
But, if we concentrate on the interviews, clearly the police claim that there were no other 12s in the drawer. Now the police are allowed to lie in an interview, so that's one way we could explain it. However, PR doesn't express any surprise that they didn't find any other size 12s, in the drawer. She doesn't claim that there must have been other 12s in the drawer. She doesn't ask if they found size 12s in the dirty clothes hamper (or basket or bottom of the laundry chute, or where ever) . Nor do the police mention any other size 12s being found elsewhere in the house.
So, it could well be that size 12s were in the drawer and the police simply lied to see what PR's reaction would be. Sine the police don't appear to be lying elsewhere in the interviews I'd rate this as a low possibility.
It could also be that they did find other size 12 panties in the dirty clothes hamper and just didn't say so. The specific conversation is about underwear in the drawer, not in the rest of the house. But, the police are trying to determine whether an intruder could have brought the panties with him, or if they were in the house prior to the murder. With other size 12s in the house, somewhere, it would be obvious that the 12s were not brought in by an intruder. I don't see a reason for the police to focus on that issue unless JBR is dressed in the only pair of size 12s the police knew about.
My apologies for sending you on a wild goose chase, pouring over the evidence list.
CH
Poring over this is instructive, as I came to Doc and his theory and this blog only recently; no apology necessary.
ReplyDeleteI doubt there were only 15 pairs of girls' panties in the house; that's not many for an affluent family, and not nearly enough for a little girl who wets her pants. Safer to assume that's all BPD collected piecemeal, as reflected in the search warrant results of 12/26-12/27. Steve Thomas said in his depo that at the time he left the department they had not focused on the underwear, so clearly they only realized their potential importance sometime between 1998 and the 2000 interview to which you refer, by which time the Ramseys had cleared the contents of the house. I think we have to write this piece of arcana off as inconclusive and insoluble.
CC
Well, the police seem to have taken many many things into evidence. So I'd be surprised if there were more in the house that they didn't take.
DeleteThey took the contents of the underwear drawer into evidence -based on the police statements during the 2000 interview. As you note, they had not yet begun to focus on the size issue, yet they had cleaned out her underwear drawer. I don't see why they wouldn't have seized panties from other parts of the house - particularly as any in the "dirty clothes pile" would need to be examined for forensic evidence.
The house was sealed off for a week to 10 days (iirc) so nothing would have left the house w/o the police knowing. I'm sure even the items Pam Paugh was allowed to take were noted before being removed.
I could believe that an unopened pack of 12/14s might not have been taken into evidence. It's harder to believe that an open pack wouldn't be. Even if they hadn't yet focused on the size issue they were at least aware that the panties were much too large. But, I guess it's possible, since they weren't JBRs size, they might have let the opened package go uncollected. I kind of doubt it though.
It is inconclusive and insoluble in the absolute sense. We can't pin it down exactly. But my main point is that we can pin down what must be true/false if JR got them from one place or another. We don't need the panties to make a JDI case, but we can't help speculating as to why she's in size 12s.
I do think it's likely that the police, at the time of the interviews,(2000), don't know of any other size 12s (either because they let them slip through their hands or they were never there) otherwise why focus on the intruder bringing them ?
CH
I'm back, but I really don't have much more to say regarding the bloomies. The news that none of the oversize panties from the package supposedly bought for the older girl were found in the bathroom drawer IS interesting. I was unaware of that.
DeleteBut unfortunately, that very strange fact doesn't seem to support any of the proposed scenarios. Or does it? Why would John need to hide a package of 12-14 size panties? Why would JonBenet, assuming she's the one who did the changing? I suppose an intruder might have taken them as a souvenir. But as most of us agree, there was no such person on the premises that night.
I do believe you are over-thinking this issue, CH. Big time. Either JonBenet changed panties herself, or her attacker changed them. Pretty simple choice, I'd say. It all depends on what you think most likely. And for me, the latter is far more likely than the former. So we disagree. Fine. The most serious problem with your theory, as far as I can tell, is the absence of the original pair. Hard to understand why JBR would not have simply dropped them on the floor before putting on the new pair, but I've never seen any reference to anything like that in the record.
In any case, I have no desire to repeat myself on this matter. I've made my case and CH is free to disagree, no problem.
I agree, the weakness of my version of what may have happened is that the size 6s are missing.
DeleteThe weakness of yours is that there is no reason for the police to assume a pair of size 6s are missing just because she isn't wearing anything under the LJs, so no need for JR to put them on her after the 911 call. ( I have a little more to say about that in another post, hopefully this weekend. )
The weakness of both your scenario, and mine, is that the remaining size 12s are missing. There should be at least 6 more pair somewhere in the house. In your theory or in mine there is no real reason for anyone (JR, or JBR) to get rid of the size 12s. It's actually quite hard to believe Patsy's story, yet both our theories depend on PR telling the truth.
CH
I don't get the impression they were focused on an intruder bringing them. The whole line of questioning - in fact, the whole interview - appears to be a fishing expedition; Kane was clearly looking for something to take to a Grand Jury.
ReplyDeleteJust don't see that knowing where in the house the12s came from gets us any further down the whodunit road.
CC
Welcome back, Doc. I'm a newcomer to your theory and your blog, so forgive me if the following is something you've belabored that I somehow overlooked.
ReplyDeleteMindhunter, by John Douglas, was in the Rs bedroom, and I think I read that it belonged to JR. In the first chapter, Douglas says "Behavior reflects personality", a lesson I believe JR took to heart when writing the RN and with the garotte/sexual assault staging. Further, Douglas writes about a killer who invented a vigilante group to throw LE off his tracks. And then, of course, JR hired Douglas - perhaps to keep him from the prosecution team, or perhaps to literally pay him to author an intruder profile.
This is probably old hat to you, but I was struck.
CC
As I understand it, Douglas was hired by John's legal team. Which means he was constrained by the same confidentiality restrictions imposed on the lawyers themselves. If his response to John had been negative, that information would never have been released, which means his involvement did not entail any sort of risk for John. By the same token, we have no idea how many other profilers might have been hired by team Ramsey, as any suspicions any of them might have had could not have been made public. For all we know, the lawyers might have hired a half dozen such "experts," on a fishing expedition to see how many would take the bait. John did manage to fool Douglas, but in point of fact, very few in law enforcement have been willing to buy John's version of what happened.
DeleteI was pointing out that JR went to school on Douglas's book, creating evidence contrary to his personality and inventing a foreign faction similar to Douglas' s vigilante group.
DeleteCC
I see -- and yes what you suspect is definitely a possibility, as John was apparently familiar with Douglas's writings.
DeleteCH, excellent exposition on the panties. I will only add, as a BDI, that matching the day of the week to the size 12 panties (to dress a girl who did not typically match the day of the week to her panties) is a very literal move, very concrete, very childlike. Someone paid attention to the day of the week and ignored the size. Similar to constructing a literal stick for a garotte from materials within reach in the basement, the panties to be gifted to someone else were also within reach in the basement. MM
ReplyDeletePicking up on an old, repeated comment from my last visit: at least two people said that BDI could not be possible because his parents allowed him to go to the White's house the next day. I disagree. They kept him far away from the police, on purpose I believe. MM
ReplyDeleteDoc, I gave up on posting several weeks ago when this site got glitchy but saved a copy of my last lost post, so will try to resurrect this discussion if you don't mind. I will understand if you are not interested in it after all this time.
ReplyDeleteDocG: "Well, this certainly makes for an interesting discussion, I'll give you that much, MM."
--
I agree :)
DocG: "However: as I understand it, Burke was eliminated as a suspect prior to the convening of the GJ. I can't find the exact reference at the moment, but I feel sure that was the case. And you don't hand down an indictment based on the possibility that someone MAY have committed a crime, you indict on probable cause -- the operant term being "probable," not just possible. Since nothing other than some fingerprints on a bowl has ever linked Burke to this crime, either then or now, I just don't see any reason why they'd have assumed he committed "murder in the first degree" even if he was older. "
--
I also believe that Burke was treated as a witness and not a suspect prior to his appearance. But he was not eliminated, as the affidavit edited by Alex Hunter demonstrates:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?4496-Lin-Wood-Affidavit-for-Alex-Hunter-Unedited
I understand from the National Enquirer interview the Ramseys gave about his being awake that morning that at least some of the testimony he gave the GJ contradicted the statements from his parents. Beyond that I cannot say.
Not sure what you mean about probable cause. The signed True Bills were not for murder; the killer was not named. There was an impediment to naming a killer, and it could have been lack of probable cause. ......continued
Thanks for the link. It's clear from the affidavit that the DA did not consider Burke a suspect. That comes through very clearly despite his crossing out of certain passages suggested by Wood. Looks to me like they were omitted because they were redundant.
DeleteAs far as probable cause is concerned, yes the True Bills against the Ramseys were not for murder, but "murder in the first degree" is clearly referred to in the indictment. No reason to use that phrase unless the jury had been convinced that there was probable cause that 1st degree murder had been committed. Only they didn't know who committed it, John or Patsy. There is no hint of Burke's involvement and if the jury felt Burke was the one who murdered his sister there would have been no reason to keep that a secret, regardless of his age. Murders by underage children are reported from time to time. The names are withheld but usually it's pretty obvious who did what. I can't imagine a situation where a continuing investigation is pursued for years despite the fact that a juvenile is the known perpetrator, that strikes me as not only ludicrous but hugely wasteful.
You are barking at the wrong tree.
DocG: "As far as those prints are concerned, it's been reported that one of Burke's jobs was helping Patsy when she emptied the dishwasher, which would account for both their prints being on that bowl."
ReplyDelete--
I have found no credible evidence of this claim and I looked pretty hard. It would be great if you have a citation. Patsy and the housekeeper could not make BR pick up his wood shavings off the floor from whittling. Not sure how many dishes he unloaded from the dishwasher.
I believe Patsy almost certainly unloaded the dishwasher, which explains why her print could be on the bowl. But Burke's prints were on BOTH the tea glass and on the bowl. What are the odds?
It seems logical to me that since his prints were on both the bowl and the tea glass, he was involved with the pineapple snack.
DocG: "And as far as John leaving the bowl in place, I'd think that after clobbering his daughter over the head, he'd have had more important things on his mind than cleaning up the kitchen. And don't forget -- if he'd been able to carry out his plan, he'd have had another 24 hours to get rid of anything that might be incriminating. Patsy would certainly have seen nothing suspicious in a bowl containing some pineapple. There's no evidence she even noticed it."
--
I accept that in your version of the story John would have eventually cleaned up the pineapple. I can even accept that he might have been a brilliantly sneaky handler of shiny objects, and managed to never leave a print and so did not care about wiping them. But if he was the killer, I cannot fathom why he would not create a back story 18 months later. For all he knows his prints MIGHT be on those items; after all, he meant to clean up the snack later on the 26th. He does not know what the police know. The only credible reason I can find for his complete denial of familiarity with the bowl or the glass is to confirm his complete lack of involvement. He is absolutely non-committal and acts as though he has never seen any of those items in his life.
If he set that table when he prepared a treacherous snack for JBR (and might have left a print), then isn't the safest route for him to recognize the bowls and glasses from his own cupboards? Maybe to mention that he noticed that weird snack when he was wandering the house waiting for the kidnappers to call, then maybe started to clean it up and got distracted and changed his mind? Why shouldn't he? They are his dishes! Why would he behave as if he never looks at or touches the dishes in his own home?
And further, if guilty, why wouldn't he say that sometimes his daughter wandered at night? After all, SHE DID, when her bed was wet. She COULD have figured out how to open the fridge, who knows? And then her wandering could explain the pineapple, could explain how some peeping Tom might have grabbed her. But he obfuscates and dithers, and I think it is solely because he does not want to get caught misleading LE.
Imo, for John the stakes are not murder charges , they are obstructing justice charges. If the truth (as I have theorized it to be) comes out and BR confesses or is identified, John's biggest legal risk is lying during an investigation. Unlike Patsy, he did not write the note or encounter his daughter dead in the night. She is much more vulnerable. And so, as a strategy, he acts noncommittal and dim about the dishes in his own home. Which, to me, is evidence that he did not make the snack. If he did, he would freely recognize his own dishes and forestall any concern about his prints.
When he comes up with the Santa story in the next day's interview, he clearly identifies his lawyer as the source of the idea. This appears to be a calculated strategy to further protect himself from charges of obstruction. MM
Fingerprints, like fibers, are not meaningful evidence when associated with someone normally living in the place where they are found. There are a hundred innocent reasons why Burke, or Patsy, or John might have touched any item in the house. Yes, John's prints were not found on the bowl or the spoon -- neither were JonBenet's, yet she presumably ate from that bowl while holding that spoon.
DeleteI repeat. There is NO evidence associating Burke with this crime or the coverup. That doesn't mean he could not have done it. But it does tell us how unlikely it would be for the grand jury to have settled on him as the one who killed his sister. That makes no sense and there is nothing in the indictment to even suggest it.
Thanks Doc for your reply. And, as I have said before, I don't claim the Grand Jury settled on BR as the suspect. I claim that the wording of the indictments does not rule him out. I see the work of a child or a child's thinking in many aspects of the crime. Not proof, but suggestive. BDI explains many problems, such as the panties, the "stick," the wiped flashlight batteries, the weird snack. It ultimately explains why someone would fake a failed kidnapping, the biggest mystery of all. MM
DeleteMM, I agree, BDI does, seemingly, explain a lot. That's why it's such a popular theory.
DeleteOne thing it doesn't explain is why two innocent adults might want to risk being convicted of murdering their daughter. If there were some chance that BR could have gone to jail I could, possibly, buy into the idea that PR and JR covered for Burke. But of course BR couldn't be sent to jail, therefore there is simply no possibility, at all, that JR and/or PR ran such an enormous risk when there was nothing at stake. The refutation of BDI really is that easy.
CH
Yes, thank you CH. It's sometimes alleged that Patsy and John might not have known Burke would have been immune from prosecution. Which might have been the case on the night of the crime. But John hired lawyers the following day, and they would certainly have set him straight. Once they realized Burke couldn't be prosecuted there would have been no reason for them to maintain an elaborate, and dangerous sham that could easily backfire.
DeleteThe lawyers could have arranged for them to plead guilty to aiding and abetting, and they would no doubt have received considerable sympathy, both from the judge and the public for their misguided attempt to protect their child. Instead, we are expected to believe they would have maintained their deception for so many years, even in the face of a Grand Jury investigation that, as we now know, resulted in an indictment of both, which might well have resulted in a trial which could have put them in prison for life. As CH says, it's really hard to see why both John or Patsy would be willing to take such a huge risk for no good reason.
Doc and CH,
DeleteIf, as you say, it would be so simple to tell the truth the next day (i.e. expose Burke; then confess to writing the ransom note, hiding the body, lying to the police, and ultimately faking a failed kidnapping), why would it not be a legitimate option to withhold the truth until absolutely necessary to reveal it? These people were in deep trouble and surrounded by high-priced lawyers. They had two choices. One was to fold and confess: a path of immediate pain and humiliation and probable, if limited, jail time. The other was to keep playing the hand they had: to stonewall, deny, obfuscate, and delay. If Burke talked, oh well. Time to confess and fold. If they were charged with murder, oh well. Time to tell Burke to tell his story and confess and fold. I would imagine with this delay strategy they had some kind of lawyerly assurance of Burke's confession.
Really, why would they NOT continue the bluff until it failed? What was there to lose? There was one risk: the charges could get worse if they actively continued to obstruct justice. So they said things like the pineapple dishes looked unfamiliar. Or who could say anything at all about that flashlight? And you know, I think that butler door WAS open! Not sure! So many "funny little clues," as JR said. Such a mystery! Their memories were vague, their stories shifted. Patsy deposited how many pairs of size 12 underwear in JonBenet's drawer? And John broke a window in an unknown manner and came through it in his underwear? Patsy agrees, so it must be true!
So they weighed the options and decided not to fold. It was a "pay now or pay later" type of choice, and if they had assurances from their lawyers that "pay later" would not be murder charges, then why not wait it out? They called in PR people in the first days, and then made a final decision and went on CNN. And after that week was over, there was no confessing left to be done. They had doubled down on the lie, and their choices were officially limited to one. They just had to wait it out, and try to start a new life of looking like victims. Continued....MM
". . . why would it not be a legitimate option to withhold the truth until absolutely necessary to reveal it?"
DeleteI can think of several reasons. But the most compelling might not be so obvious: money. Allowing the case to drag on for years cost John Ramsey both his business and his fortune. His business because of the strong suspicions of his involvement, which caused him to be released by Lockheed, his parent company, and his fortune, because the accumulated costs of all those legal fees must have been enormous.
If Burke had actually been the one to kill his sister, then once the Ramseys realized he could not be prosecuted there would no longer have been any good reason to withhold the truth. Their legal fees would have been minimal, they would probably have received a suspended sentence, and they would have been admired throughout the world for taking so much trouble to protect a beloved child in spite of everything. John's business would have continued to flourish and might have even improved thanks to his "heroic" sacrifice.
Any lawyer worth his salt would not allow his client to be indicted needlessly. Though the standards are different in a GJ proceeding than at a criminal trial, if JR/PR were indicted there would be a good chance they'd be convicted too. Suddenly springing a surprise confession from BR would smack of a desperate and pathetic attempt to blame their son. It might not work, and no lawyer could give the assurance that it would. It's always better to keep your client form being indicted if at all possible. There is just no way a lawyer would advise his client to stick to the phony IDI story.
DeleteAs an aside, I wonder, since BR was, at the time, statutorily too young to form the intent to commit a crime, was he also too young to confess to a crime?
The "pay now" would come considerably cheaper than the "pay later". Boulder must have spent millions on the investigation over the years and it's not likely in the end that the Rs would have received a slap on the wrist. They'd have received the maximum charges and maximum punishment for dragging it on. Again, I can't see any lawyer worth his salt allowing his client to do that.
CH
Doc, I understand your money argument, but still believe that after the CNN interview, they were stuck with Plan A. In particular because of the sexual abuse, which I believe they were prepared to fight forever.
DeleteCH, I am interested in your lawyer argument. It is especially interesting given the Enquirer story (or it might have been the Globe) that claimed Burke's lawyer was in Boulder a week before the GJ heard Burke's testimony, and that the lawyer was there to make a deal. No deal was made, and Lin Wood sued the paper and won. But I wonder what kinds of conversations were held during that week?
My understanding is that defense lawyers are not interested in what happened, but in whether or not the state has a viable case. I imagine that until the DA appeared to have a viable case, the stonewall could continue. MM
There are so many reasons the BDI theory isn't viable. But, for me, the biggest reason is the popular belief (I don't say "fact" because it was never proven) that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder. I, for one, do not believe that the damage found in her vagina during her autopsy is a result of rough wiping, urinary infections or self touching by JonBenet herself. I wholeheartedly believe she was sexually abused before.
ReplyDeleteBurke was simply too young to have done this to JonBenet. And even though there are instances that come up from time to time where a 9-year old, or younger, male sexually abuses someone, there is absolutely no evidence that Burke was either interested in sex or even remotely curious about it. For that matter, he had not even gone through puberty yet! If he was the one abusing her, I think LE would have found clues leading to his interest in sex (magazines, video games he played, things he said to friends, movies he may have watched, watching his mom or JonBenet undress, etc.) Nothing of this nature was ever discovered through interviews or items found. He was just a quiet, mild-mannered, typical 9-year old boy who liked the typical toys and activities of a boy that age.
Furthermore, if Burke was the one who abused JonBenet and then accidentally killed her and then witnessed his parents covering for him and putting themselves at risk and possibly going to jail, he most certainly would have eventually cracked and talked. I think that is far too much guilt for a 9-year boy to carry, secretly, for such a long time. And even if he didn't talk, someone surely would have noticed unusual behavior on his part (people at school, church or in his circle of friends).
And, as Doc has said, Burke was a rather frail young boy and it is unlikely he had the strength to inflict such a huge blow to JonBenet's skull. That blow was powerful and was not only done by someone with great strength, but someone who was enraged. I can see Burke punching her in the stomach, shoving her, pinching her or pulling her hair ---- all more typical of siblings fighting. But to club her over the head with such incredible force as to cause that 8" crack in her skull is not something he could have done, imo.
bb
bb, I apologize for not writing sooner. You raise some solid points. I will only say that I have posted statistics here on sibling-on-sibling sexual abuse; on average range of age for sexual exploration; and on the much higher percentage of sexual abuse committed by siblings vs. biological parents.
DeleteI have no doubt that many children would not be able to keep a secret, but I can share with you anecdotally that an astonishing number of children keep family secrets very well. In fact, it can be darn hard to compel them to talk.
BR does not appear to have been a very big kid, true. There is also no known disabilty to prevent him from swinging a heavy item from a distance sufficient to cause a serious injury. His exact abilities are unknown. But I will say this: if you rule him out, this case makes no sense. If you rule him in, many questions answer themselves. MM
I've spent some time this week reading and re-reading on this case and I have tried to keep an open mind. I have to say, while i thought that BDI seemed to make no sense, i am starting to think it makes the most simplist sense.
ReplyDeleteJR or PR could not have committed the crime alone for the RN was too long. If they wrote it together, they did have time, and that means they could only be covering for Burke.
While it's been said JBR was likely to have been hit with a blunt object, ther is no solid evidence she wasn't pushed and fell.
Is it possible that the parents thought JBR'S neck was broke and she was dead, so after some time, JR thought the garotting, as used to strangle, would cover up what they thought was a broken neck.?
Having watched video's on JR and PR i see them both as deceptive,nodding opposite to what they are saying. Equally in PR'S statements to LE, she states as John often did, that she can't recall or "you'll have to ask John, John dealt with that. Both of them imo,do the same throughout their interviews.
Strangely enough, in Beckner's interview, he wants to "pass" on if he thought anything strange with Burke, and said the same when asked of Patsy's 911 call.
I'll agree that it seems most parents would call in LE to report what they thought an accidental/ angry push causing death . But if along with Burke's doctors and nurses sexual intrigment and Patsy's proudness, perhaps these parents didn't.
Depending on the time of death, the killer had at least 3-4 and at most 5-7 hours in which to write the RN. How is that not enough time?
ReplyDeleteHow could you ? Your other half could wake and see you missing from bed, come look for you and all the covering and staging and thinking it all through
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying BR was responsible for the prior sexual molestation as well?
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that yes, in this theory that jbr didn't want to this night and possibly ran off to tell mum when Burke either hit or pushed her
ReplyDeleteThis supposition about Burke is not a foundation for building a case for BDI. I wasn't aware of any evidence that Burke was into playing doctors and nurses. Even if he did, it does not automatically mean that he committed sexual molestation - kids do this type of role playing a lot. IMHO, you cannot "back into" a conclusion that BDI. If you take just the generally accepted facts, and make reasonable suppositions, then you can make a case such as Doc has done. For example, we know that John left the house for a good while on Christmas Day, claiming to be at the airport. We have the handwriting analysis that Doc did (for me, one of the most convicting pieces of information I've seen to date), so we can conclude that John wrote the note. If...John wrote the note, John told the ridiculous lies, John tried to fly to Atlanta hours after his daughter was found dead, John immediately hired high powered attorneys, John told his older kids that JBR was found dead at an earlier time in the day, John had very suspicious body language (I found Patsy's body language to be consistent with her expressed emotions), John as an adult male could have sexually abused JBR, John could have built a garrotte...then John is the prime suspect. Get him into court and ask him hard questions. If it turns out to be Burke, John will break down and confess that. Until he's backed to the wall and must save his hide, there will not be any kind of confession. -LE
ReplyDeleteWell said, LE, but unfortunately JR will never be brought into court or before a grand jury. Those opportunities were lost. The BPD and Alex Hunter's office failed this murdered child in spectacular fashion, and Mary Keenan Lacy gave JR's attorneys the ultimate get out of jail free card.
ReplyDeleteCC
Back to BDI . . .
ReplyDeleteIf you are willing to accept that Burke was the one responsible for the previous sexual abuse of JonBenet, and if you are wiling to accept that he abused her that Christmas night and then later killed her, either purposely and accidentally, and IF you are willing to accept that PR and JR then decided to cover this horrific crime and they had the presence of mind to stage a kidnapping, do you REALLY believe that PR and JR, who would have been in a state of incredible shock and grief, could go so far as to construct that garrote and put it on JonBenet's lifeless body and TIGHTEN the cord around her small neck? Look at the pictures (if you can) and see how tight that cord is. Do you really think those parents could do that to their daughter, who they have just discovered has been killed by her brother?
This is the leap that I just cannot take. Even if PR and JR decided to cover this crime, I do not believe they would desecrate their beloved daughter's body in that brutal way. The only person who could do that would be the person trying to cover his OWN crime and save his own skin.
bb
No bb, same as you, I do not believe that the Ramseys strangled their child. In brief, this is my theory of the crime (and please know this IS a theory, I have no idea who really killed Jonbenet):
DeleteBR hit his sister in anger, and she was then unconscious. After prodding her with train track and getting no response, he thought she was already dead. His father was a pilot and BR studied pilot training videos; his father was also a crime buff and perhaps BR watched crime movies with him, or read his crime novels. So he knew about "bad guys." I think BR alone decided to cover up the head bash by making it look like a bad guy killed his sister. So during the 90+ minutes between the head bash and death, he methodically made a killing tool straight out of Mafia lore, and used part of it to injure her vaginally. He was a Boy Scout and the Prusik knot on the garrote is included in the Knot badge and is also used as a Climbing knot. He made more knots to fake arm restraints. He wiped the flashlight and batteries and may have placed the suitcase under the window. He may have broken the window. He worked on all this for a long time, until he was discovered by his mother. The scream may have been hers. By the time PR arrived, Jonbenet was clearly dead and beyond help, and then her son told her what he was trying to do.
It was always my sticking point in blaming the Ramseys for a coverup, same as you, that her parents would simply call 911 if she had "just" a head injury, even if she did not appear to be alive. But if BR tried to cover it up by himself (in an attempt to avoid punishment) and faked heinous, horrible acts, and if she was clearly dead, then it made sense to me that an adult might freak out and try to cover THAT up. Although the urge to avoid punishment is normal in a child, it would appear to most adults that he was very disturbed. His mother would know it all looked like he was dangerous and insane, and she must have felt she was in danger of losing him as well. So she alone faked a failed kidnapping.
In essence, Patsy covered up her son's cover up. That was why she referred to beheading JonBenet and made so many dire death threats; it explained the garrote. Like her son, she was also trying to channel a bad guy; she rambled on for pages trying to do so.
The reason the crime is so absurdly interesting is because it is also absurdly convoluted. My theory supposes that two people acted separately and did not communicate. I think Patsy sent BR to bed with promises to never speak of that night again. While she knew some of what occurred, she did not know it all (she did not know about the snack or the flashlight, for example).
In the morning John became a third party in the coverup, probably right after Patsy called 911, and he tried to do what he could to mislead the police, including discarding evidence. However, he buckled. He called his pilot less than half a hour after discovering his dead daughter. This utterly uncool, desperate act betrayed panic, and I am sure he felt they were going to have to confess (that is if BR had not already confessed to the Whites). Getting to Atlanta was an attempt to get his family closer to extended family and lawyers and get their help with the whole mess.
For whatever reason, and perhaps it was because they were detained in Boulder and BR had not talked, instead of making a full confession and copping a plea, they doubled down on the cover up and decided to play victims. Reasons might be:
1) To deny any prior sexual abuse,which might have been perpetrated by BR
2) To protect BR's reputation and future prospects
3) To keep themselves out of prison for aiding and abetting
So ultimately, this theory makes sense because it explains all the little pieces in a way that no one is a monster. For me, all the other theories fail to jibe with the actual people involved.
MM
I will add that the tipping point that led me to the "BR coverup" theory was the paintbrush. It seems extremely childlike - and Boy Scout-ish - to use a paintbrush for a tool of fake sexual assault and then tie a fancy knot around it and turn it into a literal stick for a garotte. The entire things smacks of a merit badge in fake crime scenery. There is no part of it that says "intelligent, massively successful, adult man."
DeleteTo me the note says "desperate, histrionic female." Just like it always has to most observers. MM
It's hard to imagine anyone doing such a thing, but clearly someone did.
ReplyDeleteAn insight to what LE may know that we don't is always an advantage. From Beckner's interview it appears that LE felt the RN note was written after the crime, and that they believed an accident occured, followed with staging.
I just can't get my head around the length of the note if someone acted alone. There would be panic first, followed by a great deal of thinking out what to do, then follow it through with covering ones tracks and then the staging. All this, then sit down and write the longest RN they had ever seen, chancing that their other half didn't stir at some point and come looking for them. Is it just me, even soundo, i wake several times during the night and open my eyes.If my husband was out of bed for an hour or so, i would go and see where he was, And for me, if i had to get up early to go somewhere, the last thing i would do is take something to help me sleep for fear of not waking up in time.?
Without giving your theory too much credence, how is it you're sure the Rs shared a bed that night? After all, Patsy spoke of sleeping in JAR's room, JR may have done so as well, or told his wife so. Several weeks ago someone posted a photo of the Rs bedroom taken on the 26th, and one side of the bed was perfectly made, the other had been slept in. Doc, do you recall that post and that photo?
ReplyDeleteCC
It's on A Candy Rose, third floor evidence. Says right side of bed was slept in. Maybe JR "slept" in JAR's room whenever he wanted some private time with JBR.
Deletecc, i'm not sure they did, i am assuming they did, perhaps i'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteBDI as a theory is not my theory, just another theory to look at. Docs case solved would be for me, but for the time alone in house and the long RN.
Doc has already written about the note, and the fact that it appears to have been traced from a computer font. If so, the perp (who is JR in this scenario), had at least a draft version of the note already written. He could have formulated what he was going to write at the airport, and then done the actual writing of the note after the crime was committed. This suggests premeditation. I think that IF John is the perp, he clearly had to have had a motive to do such a heinous crime and then cover it up. I think he had been trying to find a time to get rid of JBR and had done some sort of premeditation, even if that night, something happened that forced him in to action despite not having fully baked his plan or really picked the date/time he was going to do this. - LE
ReplyDeleteRegarding BDI, I find it highly unlikely that John and Patsy would so freely direct investigators to suspect some of their acquaintances and friends of the murder if they were trying to cover for Burke.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Hi Hercule. That is interesting....I think they were not on the same page for awhile. Patsy thought a foreign faction was the safest route, and right away John said it was an inside job. They veered between pointing the finger at friends and strangers and ultimately used their power and wealth to consistently protect one person from accusations: Burke. I assume they loved him more than they loved their friends. MM
DeleteYou guys know some strange and unusual nine year olds! How do you explain the fact that - as far as is known - BR got past his sexual abuse and murder of his sister and went on to get an engineering degree from Purdue, without displaying any further aberrations, despite what must have been a fair amount of scrutiny?
ReplyDeleteBecause he did not murder his sister, he hit her on the head in anger. And for all we know the "abuse" was mutual exploration. The "coverup" was developmentally appropriate for a child his age: typical kids hide the bad things they do to avoid punishment. Most are not smart enough or calm enough to do what I suspect BR did, and parents who are willing and able to continue the charade are thin on the ground, I am sure. Thankfully.
DeleteNormal kids hit their siblings, normal kids play doctor, normal kids lie to avoid punishment. This is an example of that writ large, but still says "normal" to me. I would have no reason to think that this young man would ever harm anyone again. MM
In your post yesterday you said BR made and applied the garotte, and the garotte did in fact kill her. How is that not murder?
ReplyDeleteBecause he thought she was dead. MM
DeleteNope, not convincing. You assume an astonishing amount of poise for a nine year old, at the time of the crime, a few hours later on his own at the Whites', and two weeks later when he returns to school. Doc makes fewer assumptions, and his are more plausible given the evidence.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing about nine: they don't have abstract thinking yet. Tragedy and death are processed on another level, and they can appear quite cold about it. It is later, when they understand what "forever" means, that they can fall apart. But if they have a back story that makes sense to them, I.e. "This was not your fault. You were a little kid doing what you thought you had to do to survive," then there is no reason to think they cannot be ok. MM
DeletePS, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I use this forum to work out my own ideas and invite debate. Please believe what you will.
Thanks, MM. Oddly, I sat behind a child murderer in the third grade in Boca Raton, Florida. He was the son of a Pratt & Whitney heiress and he poisoned a bottle of milk on the stoop of the mansion next door, in an attempt to kill the four children living there. He got two. My most vivid memory of this guy is that he was reading "The Rise and Fall of The Third. Reich" in third grade, and he was very insular, very poised, and I believe he illustrated some of what you're describing. He fell apart after about ten seconds of questioning. Anyway, he is why I've never been able to dismiss BR altogether, though since discovering Doc and his blog I have become a convert to his theory. Good job, though.
ReplyDeleteCC
Interesting CC. Thanks for this, I looked up the story and what a tragedy. I noticed a couple of things, but mainly that the adults involved were destroyed. Their lives were ruined, especially the father of the children who died. The kid you knew is employed, apparently never re offended, and does not want to think about it or talk about it. Adults and children process things differently. Also have to wonder, if his parents told him not to talk he might never have revealed the truth. MM
DeleteAll the neighborhood kids (except RC, who was never included, and who hated and resented the Ds in consequence) had been at the Ds the day before for an Easter Egg Hunt. Our parents were going mad, sure the candy had been poisoned. Anyway, my point was that RC displayed enough odd behavior to alert even this unsophisticated child, and our parents as well, that there was something not right, a thing I've never heard said about Burke. Have you?
DeleteCC
No, I have never heard anything alarming about Burke. But there is also no comparison between a premeditated poisoning and a panicked attempt to cover up an accidental death. It sounds like RC walked on the dark side on purpose, for whatever reason. MM
DeleteI am so sad that I just lost my comment. I hit publish, and it did not. It disappeared. I don't have the strength to rethink what I just thought.....
ReplyDeleteHoping it magically appears, soon.
Thanks,
-H
I have a comment from today that appeared for awhile, then disappeared. Gremlins! MM
DeleteI routinely press the right button on my mouse and "copy" my comments before sending. Just in case. If all else fails, email me and I'll post your comment.
DeleteI usually write them in Note and paste them...this was a quick paragraph so no big deal. I'll rewrite when I have time. Thanks! MM
DeleteOh, it still hurts. I'm not over it. Sting to the brain!
ReplyDeleteGremlins!! :)
-H
A bit more "over analysis" of the panty issue.
ReplyDeleteI have just a few more thoughts on the panties, and it might take a few posts to fully explain.
In this post I just want to remind anyone who'd interested in this topic of two points I made in prior posts.
1. There are 3 source locations from which JR could have gotten his hands on size 12 panties that fateful night (or morning),. He could have gotten them from a package in the basement, he could have gotten them from JBR's underwear drawer upstairs, or he could have gotten them from JBR herself, if she already had them on.
2. The size 12s that were on JBR's body were likely the only size 12s police knew about. We can infer this from the nature of the questions the police asked of PR. The focus was on getting Patsy to admit (which she did) that the panties were already in the house and therefore not brought in by an intruder. If they had found other size 12s in the drawer, in the dirty clothes, or in a package then it would be obvious that the panties were in the house.
In the next post we'll look at the triggering of a search of the house.
CH
The triggering of a search.
ReplyDeleteDoc's theory, with regard to the panties, is in part this - JR probably got semen on the panties necessitating their removal. He probably put the contaminated panties in the dirty clothes bin and would deal with them later after he got PR and BR out of the house. Doc also theorizes that JR put the size 12 panties on the body to keep the police from searching for the missing size 6 contaminated panties.
With greatest respect to Doc, I don't think this makes sense and the reason is simplicity itself. The finding of a dead body transforms the crime scene from a kidnapping scene to a murder scene, and triggers a very very thorough search of the entire house. Putting panties on a dead body to prevent the police from doing a search is like closing the barn door after the horse has gotten away - it's too late. The police are going to search the house top to bottom.
It's true that JR was no expert on police procedure, but no one could be so clueless that they didn't understand that a murder scene is searched with a fine tooth comb. Once the 911 call was made, JR had to consider that it was very likely the body would be found, very possibly in a short period of time, and that would make the house a murder scene triggering the sealing off of the entire house, and a search with a fine tooth comb.
JR simply could not have left the panties in the dirty clothes bin, hoping that the size 12s would prevent a search for the missing size 6s. The finding of the body would trigger a search of the house, and while the police wouldn't be searching specifically for size 6 panties, they would be searching for anything and everything. If those contaminated panties were in the dirty clothes bin, they'd have been found and JR's goose would have been cooked.
So, to belabor the point a bit, putting panties on a dead body in order to thwart a search would have been totally useless and it's very unlikely that JR would not have realized that.
In the next post we'll look at what had to be JR's primary mission after the 911 call.
CH
The whole country had just learned about DNA from the OJ debacle. No way JR would just pop 'em in a hamper - he probably cut them up and flushed them. And I still maintain there's no way we can be sure BPD collected all JBR's undies in their two documented searches.
ReplyDeleteCC
I agree that cutting them up and flushing them would have been his best bet. However, there is always the "your mileage may vary" disclaimer - JR wasn't a criminal mastermind, he was in a panic, he didn't have much time, etc. So we can't rule out that he may have chosen a less than optimal course of action. We do know that if there ever were contaminated size 6 panties, he managed to dispose of them somehow.
DeleteWith regard to the searches I don't see how they could have missed them if they were in the house. I suppose it's possible they found an opened pack of size 12s and didn't realize their importance but it seems doubtful. The house was closed and sealed for several days and they certainly knew about the size 12s immediately after the autopsy.
CH
We also know that interdepartmental communication was not a BPD/DA forte, and they were short-staffed because of the holiday.
DeleteCC
JR's primary mission after the 911 call.
ReplyDeleteThe police are on their way. It's likely the body will be found, and likely in a short amount of time (imagine if Officer French had reached up and turned that block of wood holding the WC door closed) The finding of the body will make the entire house and grounds a murder scene, triggering the sealing off of the house, and a top to bottom search of the house. If those contaminated panties are in the dirty clothes bin they need to be dealt with before the police arrive. Taking care of the contaminated size 6 panties would have been JR's primary mission, even more important than unstaging the scene at the window. (Would you rather explain how an intruder managed to lift the grate w/o disturbing a spider web, or would you rather explain why your semen is found on a pair of your dead daughter's panties?)
As far as I can see JR had 3 options for preventing the police from finding the panties.
1) JR could try hiding the panties. For example he might put them in the crawl space in the basement. This option would have little chance of success. If JR were not standing close to the hiding spot when the body was found there may have been no opportunity to retrieve the panties The police would eventually find them no matter where they were hidden.
2) JR could have retrieved the panties from the dirty clothes bin and simply put them in his pocket hoping he could smuggle them out of the house. This may in fact be what happened since the police did not search him when he left. The success of this option would depend entirely on whether or not the police searched him. It's still better option than leaving the panties behind to be discovered by the police.
3) JR could have destroyed/disposed of the panties. He had only 7 minutes from the 911 call until the arrival of the police, so his options would be very limited. IMO the most likely way he could have disposed of the contaminated panties would have been to flush them down the toilet. This would also have involved some risk, if the panties clogged the toilet it would be all over for JR, but if the police find the panties in the house or on JR it's all over anyway.
We have no way of knowing what option JR chose. #1 seems very unlikely, and we do know that no contaminated size 6 panties were ever found.
We do know that the size 12 panties were not going to prevent a police search of the premises and we do know that JR couldn't afford to leave the panties in the dirty clothes bin - far too risky. So he must have chosen option 2 or 3.
In another post we'll look at the 7 minute window of time.
CH