Welcome Tracy B, I, like you am also on the fence. I think Doc's theory very interesting and most likely, although i sway back and forth to LHP and co, or the parents covering for Burke. One thing i've made my mind up on is, I don't believe PDI, i think she was too loving a mother from what i've read to contemplate those injuries to Jonbenet just to cover for herself. Only LHP said different, and that was when Patsy started naming her as a possible suspect. There are some very good posters on here, and Doc has explained in great detail as to why JDI and no-one else in his opinion.
Doc, it does appear both of the suspects are still alive. For now, this murder is a one time occurrence? I dont believe this is comon, so might this have started out with the little girl dying as some sort of unbelieveable accident? Thank you for caring.
To rebut DocG's claim that no intruder would have a reason to leave both the ransom note and body behind, or that there is no such intruder theory that can explain it, there is one such intruder theory outlined here
You post this Mr. Cruel link once every new thread and you never sign your post. Are you by any chance redpill, who's been banned from so many other forums for this junk about "case linkage" between an Australian rapist/murderer and JBR?
Thanks evej! You and I are definitely in the minority as fence straddlers. I like it this way because it allows me to be as open minded as possible on the case. Most people who lock themselves into a specific theory will ignore clues, facts, and evidence to suit their theory. I agree that the chances for Patsy being the killer appear to be unlikely, on the surface anyways. Out of all theories, the Patsy one requires the proponents of it to ignore more info than all the others. Not sure about how loving of a mother she was but I have yet to read a Patsy theory that is believable from start to finish.
Doc, you replied to my post in part 7 so I'll respond to it here. You said...
"3. no intruder theory makes sense (so you can forget about the "visit from Santa", the DNA "evidence" etc.)"
Sorry Doc, you cant forget about something that actually occurred. This is exactly what I was talking about, how people who lock themselves into a theory wish to dismiss certain things as long as it suits them. I can understand ignoring certain rumors and things of that nature but Jonbenet mentioned this "secret Santa" before she was murdered so there's no point in people dancing around this fact or wishing to ignore it. Ignoring it is even worse than placing too much emphasis on it. I don't see how silencing the victim's words helps anyone. Like I said, Santa could be ANYONE, including John himself, but to ignore the victim's own words in the days leading up to her death is inexcusable.
You said..
" 4. and yes, Patsy would not have called 911 if she had written that phony note, whose only purpose was to stage a phony kidnapping."
Again, she can write the note in various scenarios. I'm not saying she DID write it but you cant say its impossible for her to do so. Someone could just as easily say the same thing about John and that wouldn't be correct either.
You said..
"It never ceases to amaze me how so many following this case fail to grasp that crucial point. The whole purpose of the note is to stage a kidnapping. That should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to reject the intruder theory."
Of course it was written to stage a kidnapping. That's true regardless of who killed her.
You said...
"And if you are staging a kidnapping, you don't undercut that staging by calling the police before you've had a chance to get the body out of the house. That's basic."
Undercut?? It was brilliant! Even if the decision to do it was made at the last second it doesn't take away from its originality. It's what made the crime so unique and bordering on unsolvable.
You said..
"It's clear from what you've written that you too are stuck in the morass. Trying to figure out what all these bits and pieces of case folklore mean is a pointless task."
Ignoring actual clues is even more pointless. You seem willing to silence the victim rather than deal with the fact she mentioned something interesting leading up to her murder. I'm not going to silence her just because it doesn't fit all nice and neat into a theory. Her killer silenced her permanently and I'm not going to retroactively silence her words.
You said..
"Without an overall grasp of the case as a whole, none of them can lead you anywhere, you just wind up going around in circles, pointlessly."
We are ALL lacking in this regard. LE should have released all the evidence in the case years ago since it appears that they are willing to let it stay cold forever. Many dots need to be connected and they are probably withholding evidence that would blow our minds. Yes, certain clues can cause people to go in circles but that doesn't mean you ignore them. You speculate in great depth in your theory even by avoiding such clues.
I actually think many aspects of your theory make sense (specifically the molestation issue and John/the family's need to hide it which I'd like to discuss in a later post) but ignoring actual things that occurred doesn't help your case, it hurts it.
One clue that always bugged me is the pineapple. The pineapple itself doesn't but the need for sleuths to place so much emphasis on it, as if the pineapple holds the key to solving the mystery. Maybe this is what you were referring to...how people latch on to one thing and run with it.
IMO the best thing the pineapple can do is help in the attempt to establish a proper timeline, which was always messed up to begin with. One of the reasons(and its valid) people focus on the pineapple is how the Ramseys seem reluctant to even acknowledge its existence.
People focus a lot on that suitcase and IMO the staging aspect of it makes them focus on it for the wrong reasons. Having said that, the suitcase cant be ignored either because it tells us something. It is a multi-layered piece of evidence; its contents, its location, Smit's desire to focus on it to suit IDI, and its potential value in a staged crime scene.
I would also like more information on what went on at that Christmas party on the 23rd. It is really unfortunate that the cops blew it off as nothing. Meaningless 911 calls happen everyday in this country and its no big deal. What makes this one important is what happened two days later and the real possibility something was going on in that house.
I'd also like to see the pictures from this party which haven't been released. I think they can tell us something.
You sure move fast. Less than 24 hours ago you admitted you needed to do a lot of reading in order to get involved in this blog. Better start with Doc's first two posts, then maybe his e-book. He's dealt with all this a million times.
JBR didn't call him a "secret santa" those are your words. JBR told Mrs Kostanick she'd be getting a visit from Santa after Christmas, most likely the second Christmas the family was planning in Charlevoix.
Get caught up, then come on back and join the conversation.
"JBR didn't call him a "secret santa" those are your words."
Yeah I know what she said. She was getting a special visit from Santa and it was a secret, which is why I said "secret Santa". You knew that though yet for some reason felt the need to correct something that didn't need to be corrected. This is already starting to feel like those forums.
" JBR told Mrs Kostanick she'd be getting a visit from Santa after Christmas, most likely the second Christmas the family was planning in Charlevoix."
That's a nice assumption but she obviously didn't elaborate to that extent. It would be an even better assumption had she not been murdered after returning home Christmas evening.
"You sure move fast. Less than 24 hours ago you admitted you needed to do a lot of reading in order to get involved in this blog."
I'd like to reread a couple books and check out that old site acandyrose. I'm not like the people who spent years doing nothing but constantly discussing this case. Real life gets in the way and like I mentioned before(Doc seems to agree), those forums were a huge turnoff. I never said I knew nothing about the case. I'd just like a refresher course to get down all the specific details that get brought up, especially concerning dates.
"Better start with Doc's first two posts, then maybe his e-book." I've read Doc's theory and its intriguing. Some of it is hard to swallow but I think he's on the right track about JB's abuse and how it played a crucial role leading up to her murder.
Hey Doc, any plans on releasing this in paperback in the future? Not a big Kindle reader but your book gets good reviews on Amazon.
"He's dealt with all this a million times."
Yeah and he'll deal with it a million more as long as he runs a JBR site or contributes to others. I know the merry go round nature of these JBR communities. "You should read the whole blog too, start to finish."
This blog has thousands of posts spanning years. I'm not reading the entire thing.
" All of this has been discussed many times."
Of course it has yet it doesn't prevent people from continuing to discuss it. Back in high school I got interested in this case and started posting on some forums. I left for a long time, came back, and I saw some of the exact same people saying the exact same things. Left again for years, came back, and saw those same people once again saying the exact same things. Even though I had been gone for years each time, it felt as if I had never left. The last time I was on a forum I decided to just never go back. Some of the members are mentally unbalanced and I don't like the games played by them. Intentionally running in circles, straw man arguments, disingenuous posts, trolling, the use of alternate accounts, etc. There's normal people such as myself with an interest in the case and there's that outer fringe that attempts to dominate the communities.
I'd like to discuss this case with people but if it starts going in that direction, I wont be around long.
"Don't miss Schiller's, Kolar's and Thomas's books either. We refer to them a lot here."
I haven't read Kolar's. I should get it as it's the latest book on JB. PMPT was great and that's one I was considering picking up again. Thomas's book was a let down. I liked some of it and it was well written but I don't think Patsy killed her and Thomas wasn't able to convince me.
Kolar's book is supposedly BDI and that's why I didn't bother buying it yet. Only Burke's confession itself could ever convince me he did it and even then I'd need to hear all the hows, whys,etc.
I didn't order Kolar's book for the same reason. No doubt he has some interesting details but I work too hard for my money to spend it on a book where the conclusion is BDI.
For us the devil is in the details, and we'll discuss a fiber to death if it's one of the few available facts. The value of Kolar, et al, is not in their theories, it's in gleaning those facts. Empty assertions about possible fights in cars . . . not so much. CC
" Empty assertions about possible fights in cars . . . not so much."
Fair point but it's not any different than people speculating on what happened after they entered the house. Something set the wheels in motion and when or where it happened is relevant to the case. We'll probably never know the answer to that unfortunately. If something did happen in the car it would throw the timeline into an even greater state of flux than it already is.
I went ahead and ordered Kolar's book on Amazon. It should be here in a few days.
Doc, I have to get ready for work but wanted to quickly reply to an old comment of yours I was reading about John finding the body.
"As for his finding the body himself, I don't think he would have had much choice at that point, because he'd been told to thoroughly search the house. I also think the body would probably have been hidden away in a corner, covered by a blanket. By finding it himself, he was able to testify it was "right out in the open." But Fleet White was in that room earlier and never saw it."
I'll never understand why LE didn't hammer him on this issue. I've also wondered if her body was originally somewhere else in the house initially and he moved her at some point that morning or afternoon. John has a lot of explaining to do. He once slipped up and admitted he had been in the basement earlier than previously thought, and of course there's that hour or so unaccounted for in the house while Arndt was there. That's a long time to be missing in that situation. If LE had immediately demanded everyone in the house step outside and the house be treated as a crime scene, god only knows where they would have found the body.
Excellent. The more you read, the more sense Doc's theory makes.
You expressed an interest in prior sexual abuse and it's role in the murder, and to that end you may want to read the last three or four threads, in which some of us make a case for JDI and premeditation.
It should be pointed out that Doc himself makes few speculations, though he occasionally gets sucked into ours.
Tracey, if you read carefully here you'll see that I have never deliberately ignored evidence. And if there's something I've inadvertently ignored, there are several posting here who'll set me straight.
So: I haven't ignored "secret Santa" or any of the other evidence that concerns you. However, when a consideration of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that there could have been no intruder, then all the so-called "intruder evidence" anyone can name, including the "secret Santa" comment, is beside the point.
But that isn't the only reason for discounting such "evidence." Even if we were unable to rule out an intruder, things like "secret Santa," odd bits of unaccounted for fibers, likely suspects with access to Hi-Tec boots, stun guns, etc., none of this can tell us anything in itself. We can speculate forever about it and come up with all sorts of theories about what this or that might mean, but all of is famously: inconcslusive. Without additional evidence enabling us to put it in some sort of perspective, there is really no point in continually harping on it.
"Secret Santa" could mean anything or nothing. It might have some bearing on the case if we knew more about the context but we don't -- so why bother with it?
There was no intruder. Because no intruder would have done all that this intruder supposedly did. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. So does Kolar, so does Steve Thomas, so does Cyril Wecht, so does just about anyone who's ever seriously delved into this case. Does that mean you could never ever come up with an intruder scenario that takes everything into account? Well, no. We see such a scenario in the first chapter of Kolar's book, where he provides us with a theory of the case involving a team of midget foreign agents who are also acrobats. It's all tongue in cheek of course, but it's a good example of how absurd your scenario would have to be in order to fit the evidence.
This is why the legal system distinguishes reasonable doubt from any doubt at all. There will always be room for some smidgen of doubt even in the tightest case. But proof, in the legal sense requires that the doubt be reasonable. In this case, as I see it, along with so many others, it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there could have been no intruder. If you want to explore things like acrobat midgets -- or secret Santas -- you have a right to do so. But don't expect me or anyone else to take you seriously.
"There was no intruder. Because no intruder would have done all that this intruder supposedly did. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. So does Kolar, so does Steve Thomas, so does Cyril Wecht, so does just about anyone who's ever seriously delved into this case."
Well, we do have highly regarded detective Lou Smit coming out of retirement and fairly quickly deciding IDI is the answer. That alone should make us question how confident we should be that a jury, or rather at least one juror, wouldn't believe the IDI scenario.
I've always agreed with Vincent Bugliosi that it's the implausibility of an intruder doing it that makes us reject IDI. But not everyone feels it's implausible, as evidenced by the numerous IDI threads on various JB forums.
We have a handful of touch-dna profiles, any one of which could be from the intruder, even if we tend to believe that none of them are. It's not a fact that Jonbenet was sexually assaulted, though imo it is darn good reasoning. If she was assaulted it's not a fact that John did it, though imo darn good reasoning. We have a daughter from a prior marriage who says daddy (John) never touched her inappropriately. There is no history of John committing sexual abuse against anyone. We have two adults that have no criminal record at all.
As I see it the chance that at least one juror will consider IDI a reasonable possibility is pretty good.
It wouldn't be the first crime with inexplicable elements and no evidence left behind by the intruder. (Except possibly DNA along with unidentified (unsourced) fibers).
Blue Note, the problem I have with so many of your posts, as with Tracy's, is that you both keep bringing up what I see as red herrings. A red herring to me is a "clue" that serves a devious purpose by directing our attention away from what is meaningful. It can't really help solve the case because we are unable to place it in any sort of meaningful context. However, such "evidence" can be used by a defense attorney as grist for the "reasonable doubt" mill. Evidence of this sort can be meaningful ONLY as part of a reasonable doubt defense, and as such I find myself regarding it with suspicion.
The "secret Santa" rumor is one example. What JonBenet may or may not have said in this regard is beside the point as far as solving the case is concerned, because we have nothing to attach it to. It might mean something but we will never really know what it means, because it's just an isolated piece of information that leads nowhere. On the other hand, it's a perfect example of the sort of "evidence" a defense attorney can stress to elicit reasonable doubt: "Hey, folks, until we know exactly what JonBenet meant by that visit from Santa, or who told her about it, we can't rule out an intruder."
Similarly with the DNA evidence. In itself it tells us nothing, because we have no way of attaching it to any possible suspect. But it works perfectly as a red herring, because the defense could always argue that we can't rule out an intruder until we find that all important DNA match. And since no match has ever been found, then there may never be any way to prove conclusively that JonBenet was not killed by the carrier of that DNA.
You have been consistently playing the role of such a defense attorney, bringing up odd bits of evidence and odd interpretations of the evidence to build a case for reasonable doubt. And that's all you've done. Nothing you've contributed to this forum can help solve the case. It's just a series of red herrings dragged into the case to foster a reasonable doubt defense. So it doesn't surprise me when you raise the possibility of that one juror who remains unconvinced.
The problem is that red herrings of this sort can be trotted out in any case, even the most cut and dried. It remains the responsibility of the prosecution to expose such arguments for what they are and encourage the jury to differentiate between what is truly reasonable and what is just tossed out there in the hope that it will stick to someone gullible enough to take it seriously.
And sure, there might be such a juror and the case could end in either exoneration or a hung jury. That's the challenge for the prosecution in any case. And in this respect, the Ramsey case is no different from any other.
Fair points on the "red herring" aspects of many clues and mixed together they certainly muddy the waters of an already confusing crime. I also realize some clues are hard to decipher on face value and can mean different things to different people. Even the suitcase suffers from this like I mentioned earlier. Its presence at the crime scene morphs into different theories and especially when Smit ran with it for IDI.
Some of these loose ends might have been able to be tied up had LE taken a much closer look at some of them at the time.
"A red herring to me is a "clue" that serves a devious purpose by directing our attention away from what is meaningful. "
Which would mean the ransom note itself is the biggest red herring of all.
"It might mean something but we will never really know what it means, because it's just an isolated piece of information that leads nowhere."
I think it did mean something but almost 20 years later, we are very unlikely to find out exactly what it was.
" It can't really help solve the case because we are unable to place it in any sort of meaningful context."
That's where this stuff gets dicey. Clues will be tossed aside or have much emphasis placed on them depending on which theory is on display. For example, I'm sure you've noticed that just about any PDI or BDI theory places a lot of emphasis on that pineapple while others have it in the background, that's if they even bring it up at all. I understand why people do this but its almost by necessity as it would be nearly impossible to create a scenario where they all factor in to the equation.
You make a valid point. One person's red herring could be another's meaningful clue. But it's up to the person who sees it as meaningful to demonstrate how and why it's meaningful. In the case of the ransom note I believe I've done just that. You can't just bring something up and claim it's a meaningful clue just because it exists and can't be explained. If you can't demonstrate how and why it's valid then it's nothing more than a red herring.
Doc I realize there's a ton of chaff to separate from the wheat in this case. Some of it leads into rabbit holes. Comparing her words to acrobat midgets is over the top though, and so is saying I cant be taken seriously simply because I brought it up. You're better than that Doc.
I'm not going to bog this discussion down into that one clue because there's certainly a lot more to the case than that.I will say this about it..
On the surface it certainly appears to be a clue leaning IDI but can actually go either way. John could've just as easily told her about this Santa as anyone else. The ONLY thing that makes her comment interesting is the fact she was murdered in the time frame of this supposed visit. In hindsight it can appear that Jonbenet is unwittingly mentioning her own imminent death. What better way to entice a child at Christmas time than a special visit from Santa himself?
I haven't read all your posts Doc but I've read enough to know the general points(and then some) on your theory. I can easily buy into John doing it over the abuse and even the crime being premeditated to an extent. Either way we slice it, it wasn't some random murder out of the blue.
The timing of her murder is intriguing on a couple levels. Christmas itself and also the fact she was murdered hours before the family was making that trip. This is actually the main reason I cant lean much towards IDI because how does an intruder luck into this weird timing for the family?
I've always wanted more information on what the Ramseys did in Michigan besides just the fact they had a vacation home there.
The 'secret Santa' thing can actually fit into your theory quite nicely(if taken as coming from John) and its nowhere near such a leap as some other scenarios you bring up, specifically that long drive John was supposed to take with the body had the cops left.
Tracy, please see my response to Blue Note, just above. The secret Santa "clue" leads nowhere because we have no way of knowing what it means. But the part of my theory involving John's plan to dump the body under the guise of delivering the ransom does lead somewhere, because it provides a plausible explanation for both the note and also John's odd behavior both before and after finding the body. Without such a theory we are left clueless as to why the note was written in the first place and what its writer hoped to achieve by writing it.
The main thing the note achieves(in any scenario) is that it buys some time. If John really is the killer, hard to imagine what was going through his head when he initially had a houseful of cops, friends, victim advocates,etc. to deal with knowing her body is in the house. He had around seven hours from police entering the house until John discovered the body. I also believe that whether or not he murdered her, he certainly saw her body at an earlier time than 1 pm, probably earlier than the 11 am time he let slip out after he talked to JAR, Melinda,etc.
You mention his odd behavior and it certainly raises red flags. I wish someone with more experience had been in that house dealing with the unfolding scene. When 10 am passed and no one is pointing out that something must be wrong, the house should have been searched high and low at that moment( obviously it should have been searched at 6 am). If the parents of a supposed kidnapping victim aren't too concerned about the time a kidnapper should be calling, its easy to assume they know where she is. -- Doc you're theory is solid in places certainly but the dumping of the body later on is where it starts to lose me. Did John really expect LE to just walk away from the scene of the crime? In the early stages the FBI are in the mix due to the kidnapping itself, which according to you was likely instigated by John. The FBI certainly aren't going away in a legitimate kidnapping scenario, so how long is he willing to wait? John did not have the benefit of hindsight to guide him in his actions. He couldn't possibly know that LE would immediately allow the crime scene to be tainted and certainly didn't realize they wouldn't even do a proper search of the house. He would've had to assume that Jonbenet's body could be found in minutes. If her murder was premeditated and your theory is close to what happened, he didn't have the slightest clue as to what he was doing and was merely winging it at that point.
I'm sorry Tracy but Anonymous was right. Had you read Doc's theory in its entirety you would know John expected Patsy to let him handle things. He did not expect her to call 911 and have LE on the scene until the 27th. mb
Thanks mb. Like TracyB has said, we each have a busy life and rehashing certain basic assumptions or even known facts does prevent us from moving forward with new questions. It is not anyone's place to challenge someone for why they haven't written something or engaged in a certain thread of discussion.
@TracyB - the sarcasm is not nice. Surely you can tone it down; it just makes people think less of you and not want to hear anything you have to say. I often have to tell my teens this.
Surely you knew that this discussion has hinged heavily on not just the handwriting (John being ruled out), but the fact that Patsy called 911 when the note very specifically said JB would be beheaded if they involved the authorities? It is NOT pure speculation that the author of the note did not want anyone calling 911. -LE
I don't understand. You claim a serious interest in the case, say you're looking for a friendly forum, yet you're unwilling to take the trouble to read the entire blog. All this has been discussed and debated by folks who have and who read every book, article, interview, etc many times. I don't know about Doc, he's pretty patient, but it's very hard for me to take you seriously.
"I didn't order Kolar's book for the same reason. No doubt he has some interesting details but I work too hard for my money to spend it on a book where the conclusion is BDI."
I'm gonna go ahead and give it a try. If he starts going in Burke circles I may put it down. Hopefully there's a lot more info in it and he's not like Thomas with his Patsy obsession.
I was reading the section on acandyrose titled the Bonita Papers and I read this about Burke..
"He said that the only thing he asked his dad was "where did you find her body", a highly unusual query from a child considering the possible questions a child might ask about the death of a sibling."
Other details about Burke but I have a feeling a lot of BDI people really zero in on that. It's definitely an odd question to ask when your sister has been murdered in your house. I think the only thing the comment really shows is how highly dysfunctional that family really was.
The psychologist also said Burke got agitated when she brought up "uncomfortable touching" and he wouldn't say anything. She felt there should be a followup on this but we know how that went. IMO Burke most likely knew of the abuse going on in the house(if not participating, hearing it) and couldn't deal with it, especially with a stranger.
This quote:
"Dr. Bernhard asked Burke if he had any secrets, and he said, “probably, if I did, I wouldn't tell you, because then it wouldn’t be a secret."
"I don't understand. You claim a serious interest in the case, say you're looking for a friendly forum, yet you're unwilling to take the trouble to read the entire blog. All this has been discussed and debated by folks who have and who read every book, article, interview, etc many times. I don't know about Doc, he's pretty patient, but it's very hard for me to take you seriously."
It's called having a life. This blog has thousands of posts going back YEARS(you know this already) and I cant spend that much time reading THOUSANDS of peoples posts, and on top of that, catching up on the thousands made after I've read all those. You're delusional if you think anyone finding this blog is going to read the entire thing before commenting.
If I need to sit on my ass 24/7 reading old Jonbenet discussions on blogs and forums to get you to take me seriously, then you're just going to have to not take me seriously.
I can tell by your comment you're one of those people who literally lives on these JBR sites and thinks there's something wrong with someone who is not as invested in the communities as you.
It's possible to be interested in this case and want to join in on discussions without the need to spend years nonstop thinking about it.
For the record, this isn't aimed at most of the people reading this. Just at this specific type who clearly need a breath of fresh air.
Yes, we've all read this about Burke. We've discussed BDI many times. Apparently your point, if you have one, is to take random potshots at Doc's theory by bringing up IDI and BDI and random unconnected facts like Santa. Serious discussion welcome, but you really need to get caught up.
One more thing "Anonymous", since it's all been discussed and debated before, I assume you will now be leaving since there's no reason to discuss it anymore.
I didn't think so.
Or do do you have some entirely new JBR topics that have never been discussed before? Let's see em.
I've raised new points. Plenty of people have here, but you'll never see them because you won't do the reading. Maybe we do all sit around doing nothing but JBR, but that's our prerogative, and who are you to drop in and criticize?
Some feed back please--Lou Smit, I passed by anything he had to say after the stun gun thing and his quote " JB got a piece of the killer" referring to debris under her finger nails-- Now I question his role in this case-- Quote from one of the investigators "Things are not what they seam to be". .Consider L Smit to be a double agent, WHY-- No cop is that dumb , From what I have read LS was a very good investigator. This is a game LE plays with retired cops , by for example put them in the same jail cell with a suspect in order to gain info. Lou S. really had nothing to lose by this and could care less what the public though . Then there was the court order for him to have the Power Point presentation to the Grand Jury . Why the formality ? Well (IMO) His presentation was all a lie and every one knew it. including himself. But in order to carry on the surad ,as a lie to a GJ this had to be addressed , even the jurors knew of it. -- Okay , I am ready for a beating--- Robert
I totally disagree with Lou Smit's take on this case. But I can understand why he felt it necessary to defend the Ramseys by any and all means. As an experienced detective he realized there was no evidence of Patsy's involvement. And since John was "ruled out" it was all too easy for him to assume John must be innocent as well. And judging from at least one statement he made when interviewed (no time to find the exact reference at the moment), he found it impossible to believe that "the Ramseys" would call the police while the body was still in the house unless they were both innocent.
So I don't think we need to assume he was being paid off or anything like that. I think he was sincerely convinced that no other explanation was possible aside from an intruder, and so he managed to convince himself that someone broke in via that window in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
You don't need to read very far into this blog to see where he went wrong. But everyone investigating the case went wrong, so I don't see him as any worse than any of the others.
"Yes, we've all read this about Burke. We've discussed BDI many times. Apparently your point, if you have one, is to take random potshots at Doc's theory by bringing up IDI and BDI and random unconnected facts like Santa."
Now you're merely trolling. I've already stated I find Doc's theory intriguing but definitely think it has some holes in it.
You've discussed BDI and Santa before? I'm shocked! How dare I bring up something on a JBR blog that's been discussed more than once.
You're being incredibly disingenuous as you've obviously spent years on these communities and certainly are not immune to discussing these things on a regular basis. Someone new to the blog starts posting and you put on this act. You're not fooling me.
"I've raised new points. Plenty of people have here, but you'll never see them because you won't do the reading. Maybe we do all sit around doing nothing but JBR, but that's our prerogative, and who are you to drop in and criticize?"
I've read sections of the blog. I'm not going to say that again. I said I wasn't going to read the ENTIRE thing.
You raised new points? Where? Post a link and I'll read it.
"Maybe we do all sit around doing nothing but JBR"
HAHAHA I knew it. It comes through in your posts.
"but that's our prerogative, and who are you to drop in and criticize?"
That's funny. You jump all over me and say you cant take me seriously because I don't have the time to obsess over the case 24/7, then have the colossal gall to say I'm criticizing you.
Obviously it's a fascinating case and I'm not surprised that people love discussing it. Having said that, there is an outer fringe of these communities that go too far and you're definitely in that group. I've been posting a few days and I've already got you criticizing me for absolutely no reason at all.
Instead of ignoring my posts or starting your own brand new, hot off the presses JBR topic, you feel the need to criticize me for mentioning something you've discussed hundreds or thousands of times and will discuss thousand of times after this.
"Anonymous", that is the last thing I'm saying on the matter. I know what you're doing and I'm not falling for it. I like Doc's site and I'm not going to play out a troll game with you and ruin the discussion. If you feel the need to reply, send me an email if you're willing to come out behind your anonymity.
"Some feed back please--Lou Smit, I passed by anything he had to say after the stun gun thing and his quote " JB got a piece of the killer" referring to debris under her finger nails-- Now I question his role in this case-- Quote from one of the investigators "Things are not what they seam to be". .Consider L Smit to be a double agent, WHY-- No cop is that dumb , From what I have read LS was a very good investigator."
It really is unfortunate that Smit wouldn't look in other directions. He focused too much on that damn window and of course the so called stun gun evidence. Watching him climb through that window didn't prove anything. All it proved was that he could climb through a window.
Even if they were looking for IDI, I'd rather someone other than Smit have been brought in. He seemed out of his depth IMO but that can be said for pretty much all LE on the case.
"This is a game LE plays with retired cops , by for example put them in the same jail cell with a suspect in order to gain info. Lou S. really had nothing to lose by this and could care less what the public though . Then there was the court order for him to have the Power Point presentation to the Grand Jury . Why the formality ? Well (IMO) His presentation was all a lie and every one knew it. including himself. But in order to carry on the surad ,as a lie to a GJ this had to be addressed , even the jurors knew of it. -- Okay , I am ready for a beating"
Well you certainly wont get a beating from me but I highly doubt it was "all a lie". I think Smit truly believed what he was saying. That's why he was so stubborn and wouldn't give an inch on his theory.
My Opinion was that he didn't give an inch because his theory was a lie,and he knew it. he had to make the Ramsey's believe that he was on there side. He knew better himself ,but had to carry that out. (IMO) Smit didn't truly believe what he was saying ,even in part.-- robert
Like many on other forums being far removed from the case and only guess at what is fact unless it comes from the ME or see the actual RN and other sources , I tend to ask could it be this way or that. Lou Smit's role is one of those, nothing in fact or proviable , but put it out there in case someone really knows or can convince me otherwise , Looks like I am convinced otherwise on Lou's role so far. Why did Smit have to carry this out--I am answering your question as if he was a double agent-- He would have to in order not to be exposed. There is no theory on my part of the Ramsey's buying Lou S off. I see LS as being an honorable man in that regard . Things are not what they seam to be, may have been said at the time of the crime, the one I was thinking of was many years later by Tom ? one of the detectives or investigators . and it was my own application to that and a Lou Smit fall guy for the BPD. So to be clear , Lou Smit was actually working for the BPD, things are not what the seam to be. -- I am thinking less an less of this possibility , but thanks for your time. robert
"You expressed an interest in prior sexual abuse and it's role in the murder, and to that end you may want to read the last three or four threads, in which some of us make a case for JDI and premeditation."
Yeah I've read some of the old pages on Doc's theory. I was waiting to see how this new discussion was going to flow instead of attempting to steer it in a specific direction.
Here's another quote of Doc's I am in full agreement on...
" The murder and the sexual assault are clearly related, so if we are looking for a motive, then obviously the most likely motive is a perceived need on the part of the assaulter to silence the victim. And of the three survivors in the house that night, John Ramsey is clearly the most likely one to have committed that assault. And if he's the guilty party, then I see no reason to assume he would have wanted to confess what he had done to Patsy, for whom JonBenet was clearly the most important thing in her life. Nor do I see any reason for Patsy to want to help him stage a kidnapping by sitting down to write a phoney "ransom note". To me that makes no sense at all, but to a great many it seems the only possible explanation."
I'll actually go one step further...even if John isn't the killer, I still believe her murder is related to her abuse. It's even possible she had multiple abusers. I'd throw JAR into that mix as well.
I also agree with Doc when he said this about Patsy..
"For one thing, what possible motive could she have had to kill a child she obviously doted on?...Also, penetrating her daughter's vagina, and then strangling her with a garotte seems like absurd overkill. Nothing in Patsy's past suggests she was psychotic, so how does she morph from social butterfly/housewife to a character from grand guignol? Even if we assume she was covering for Burke, it still seems seriously out of character."
Jonbenet was her world. Would have easily been a teen model and certainly a Miss America contestant(dare I say winner?). PDI just doesn't cut the mustard IMO. I think Patsy's grief was genuine and it doesn't surprise me she has made some contradictions in her statements since she was so dependent on pills at the time.
". . . nowhere near such a leap as some other scenarios you bring up, specifically that long drive John was supposed to take with the body had the cops left. "
It's five minutes up either Boulder Canyon Drive or Baseline to the Front Range of the Rockies, ten minutes to some seriously rugged mountain terrain - sheer cliff faces and drop offs inches from the road. One of the trailheads, Boulder Falls or some other landmark would have been a plausible place to claim to be directed by the kidnappers, and he could literally drop the body over a cliff on the way.
Doc, I haven't had much to contribute to the theory lately. I've mulled over your entire case and indulged in my own speculations to fill in gaps for which we have no facts. As I've commented before, I believe you have nailed this case and have done a brilliant job of communicating your case effectively. I do enjoy reading the comments from others, with the exception of those that insult others or presume to know what type of person is blogging here. Hercule and TracyB are going to be the reason I stop reading. And it is not because I don't think they have anything to contribute, but this forum has been conducted with polite, seemingly educated and reasonable people. There is no need for the defensiveness and the picking apart of every paragraph written by someone in order to defend one's own points. I'm sure we all have a life (I know I do), and its offensive to suggest that we don't. The recent sarcastic comments are out of line. I admit that I have gotten frustrated with Hercule's reasoning (and put downs) but have continued because CC, -H, and others have provided some good reasoning and food for thought. Can we ask those who feel the need to be so sarcastic to tone it down? Thanks for all you have done. I have high hopes that JR will be indicted one day. -LE
Thanks for the reminder, LE. I've already sent out a warning that personal attacks would not be tolerated, but have been lazy in carrying that out. I keep hoping those involved will get tired of the feuding and return to discussing the case rather than picking on one another. From now on I'll try to be more diligent. So, to those of you who find yourself getting caught up in a flame war, don't be surprised if your posts get removed.
Hi CC - I think I have come to believe a lot of what MWMM has suggested. Patsy was sick of being sick, worn down, and just plain conditioned to go along with a demanding/self-absorbed/probably narcissistic John. However, JB's medical problems were becoming more frequent and problematic, and I think she may have even made remarks like "It hurts down there, I don't want to go to the doctor because I don't like being touched there" or something that caused Patsy to call the doctor and want to discuss this with him. Patsy could have said to John, I need to get her in to see Dr. Beuf, she is so cranky because of the vaginal infections (every female knows that these infections make you cranky). John knew he was out of time and was frantic to shut JBR up. If he is a narcissist, his desperation would allow him to think the unthinkable. He would have justified in his mind that JB would be better off dead rather than living with what was to come when she got older and realized how she had been victimized, even if she didn't talk for years to come. Also, I think John harbored anger toward Patsy. How dare his trophy wife get cancer, stop having sex with him, stop being all about him and his company and his success? I think he resented her focus on JB and the pageants. IF something happened in the car that night on the way home from delivering gifts, such as an exchange of words over not wanting to be out driving around when they need to get to bed because of the early trip, and John came home angry, he may have snapped and decided that then was the time to execute a plan he had been thinking about. In other words, the idea of offing JB may have been in his head during December, but something made him snap and he realized it was now or never. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if another idea of his was to push her off the Big Red Boat. Anyway, my imagination may seem wild, but I've tried to think about the dynamics going on in that family with those being the victims of narcissism, the anger, the resentment over Patsy's dad being instrumental in saving his company early on and John then being beholden to employee the entire Paugh family. All of this allowed his sick mind to justify what he did. -LE
While this is possible it's all completely speculative. As much as I respect MWMM her analysis amounts to amateur psychological profiling. (Not all of it, and she has some great insights over at Websleuths, it's too bad she hangs out there more than here)
It's not a fact that John has NPD. No amount of amateur profiling makes it true. It may be true, but we don't know that.
Why would John harbor anger against Patsy? It's not her fault she got cancer. Sympathy and fear of loosing her would have been much more likely emotions, imo.
I would be extremely surprised if he gave any serious thought to pushing her off the big red boat. Too likely to be seen.
"Anyway, my imagination may seem wild, ..."
Nothing wrong with imagination, as long as we recognize it for what it is.
"... but I've tried to think about the dynamics going on in that family ..."
With respect, trying to imagine the dynamics will lead nowhere as there is little if anything that tells us what the dynamic actually was, and even less tells us what dynamic was in play that particular night.
DocG speculates here and there but he stays away from the psychological profiling. I think he has the right approach.
Yes Blue Note. Remember that I was answering CC's question about my own thoughts on filling in the gaps of what we don't know, given my support of Doc's theory. I didn't say I was trying to make a case based on ideas about John being a narcissist alone. This was just my way of working out motive. If you are around a narcissist for any time, you would realize that they do not respond with normal emotions. Life is all about them and woe to anyone who disrupts or doesn't give them what they want or need. -LE
"With respect, trying to imagine the dynamics will lead nowhere as there is little if anything that tells us what the dynamic actually was.. "
This is a valid point of course but the family dynamic is crucial to the case, especially when it's sleuths trying to figure out what was going on. The main line of thinking here is that John killed her and it may have been premeditated, so this area is where the most speculation is likely to occur since there has to be a specific reason why he did it.
On the surface it appears to have been a dysfunctional family which likely played a role in many people believing they were involved even if they leaned towards IDI previously.
@LE
That was a great post.
" IF something happened in the car that night on the way home from delivering gifts..."
If the murder wasn't premeditated and it somehow boiled down to a domestic dispute of sorts, I also believe that something occurred in the car that lit the fuse that night. Their statements about that drive home were incredibly vague..
"In other words, the idea of offing JB may have been in his head during December, but something made him snap and he realized it was now or never."
My main issue with this type of scenario is the timing. The Ramseys were hours away from taking that trip. Do some believe that the trip itself was never fully intended to occur and its planning disingenuous? If premeditation is a factor here, then this trip was never going to take place.
" I wouldn't be surprised if another idea of his was to push her off the Big Red Boat."
Interesting. Sounds a little too risky. Also reminds me of the info from that informant who claimed JAR wanted to hire him to kill JB in a boating accident the previous summer.
Well, I certainly don't think a domestic dispute alone was the reason JR murdered JB. I just wonder, and again this is just speculation, if John was in the planning stages for doing something over the holidays, had already thought about the kidnap/ransom scenario, and that night he mustered up the guts to carry it out. Hitting her over the head like that took some serious gumption and/or anger. This guy was like a volcano about to erupt, I imagine. Anyway, my overall point is the motive. I think John is a narcissist and also has anger problems when life doesn't go exactly the way he wants it to. I'm basing this on comments about how mad he got over household mishaps, demands that the kids be quiet in the house, and the overall role Patsy apparently played in keeping them out of his hair. Maybe those accounts are not true, who knows. If they are, it goes to his personality. -LE
@LE I was defending myself. I was jumped on & criticized almost immediately. Interesting that you didn't mention this "anonymous" person who started it.
I might have been harsh towards "anonymous" but I'm not interested in playing those sorts of games. Like you, I'd much rather discuss the case than get sidetracked by that stuff.
@CC @Doc I found one of those older discussions that goes more in depth regarding premeditation. It's a really long thread but I'll read it when I get off work.
@everyone Sorry for the mess between "Anonymous" and I. I'm sure it was a chore to read and kills the early flow of this new page of discussion.
@Doc Maybe just delete the exchange between "Anonymous" and I?
Hi, I didn't mention the remarks of anonymous because I have no idea whether its one or more persons, and also because I didn't find the remarks to be highly critical or to be jumping on you. That's just my takeaway, but if you feel the remarks are too personal, or could be better delivered, its probably best to take the high road and just make your points. For example, if you think JAR should be thrown into the mix, discuss that. We know he was in Atlanta on the night of the murder. Do you think someone else killed JB to cover up sexual abuse on the part of JAR? I'm just curious to know your thoughts on that. -LE
I re-read the exchange between you and Anonymous. It seems to me s/he was suggesting - politely - that you may want to do some reading before covering a lot of the same ground, but your response was aggressive, hostile and very personal. We've kinda' had a bellyful of that lately from another source, so our resistance may be down. I'm sure if you have a genuine interest and can temper your approach a bit you'll be welcome here. CC
I'd thought about JR's sense of entitlement vis-a-vis sex, LE, and thought that may have contributed to his taking what he wanted from JBR, but I never considered resentment - or narcissism, 'til MWMM brought it up - but that sounds possible as well.
And you know I agree with you about the Dr. Beuf/reporting thing. I tend to think JR premeditated it at least a few days in advance because of the airplane hangar/computer font/ransom note, rather than that he lost his temper Christmas night. Never even considered the Big Red Boat, but you're right, I'll bet he did.
LE, thank you for saying what I'd been thinking. And thank you to Doc for agreeing to be a bit more vigilant when it comes to flaming. One of the main reasons I've stuck around so long is that discussions have always been civil. Almost always, anyway. The vast majority of posters here are educated and polite. I'm often impressed by the caliber of writing. I hope the recent discord is done and we can return to form.
Back to the Lou---No doubt Lawyers of John Ramsey warned him to watch what he said around Lou Smit-- I have had some rethinking on LS and maybe he did actually believe the Ramsey's innocent . I reread the Larry King interview with LS , still can't figure out why anyone would believe a stun gun was used , especially a cop--If you don;t want to wake the parents , don't target someone with a stun gun is all I have to say. Lou Smit had stun gun tests done on dead pigs-- He should have done it on live ones , then he would know how much squealing is done. robert
do'n know why that happened to you, i've just copied and pasted. here it is. Shawn Messick • 7 days ago
Can someone get me contact information for either Bill Hewitt or Vicki Bane the authors for this article? I possibly may have some important information regarding solving this murder. This is not a joke, I am a former police office that happened into someone who knows of the killers involvement and want them to have this information. I will gladly give them my personal information. Thank you in advance
This guy is on Facebook, if you care to reach out to him to get his input. If he truly has valuable information, why contact People writers? I wonder if he has tried to contact the Boulder PD. If he's a former police officer, perhaps he would have some cred with them. -LE
Yes I saw he was on facebook, I may private message him tomorrow, see what he has to say, I'm in different time zone to most on here, I'll check in morning to see if anyone here has had any contact first
eve, I've seen so many cases of people who feel sure they know who did it or who know of someone who knows. I no longer bother looking into such theories as they invariably lead to dead ends. If this person is really on to something, he'd have reported it to the authorities years ago.
But if you want to pursue it, by all means do so. You never know what you might uncover.
"If this person is really on to something, he'd have reported it to the authorities years ago."
Agreed. I assume that reward money itself would have been enticing enough. Anyone holding on to secrets at this point isn't likely to voluntarily give them up.
@Eve
",i don't mind spending 5 min of my time pursuing something that may or may not help. So what's the harm if any possible information could even lead to perhaps John?"
Robert, i replied earlier, sometimes my posts via mobile seem to disappear. I said words to the effect of,i don't mind spending 5 min of my time pursuing something that may or may not help. So what's the harm if any possible information could even lead to perhaps John?
I have a bit of a hard time negotiating this site-- No harm what so ever in spending time looking for truth or a lead.--I've wasted plenty and gained a little-- it was the part about a cop who had info. on the case as stated in an above post that caused me to respond the way I did. (IMO) if a cop had anything of value he would go to the proper channels instead of having it printed in some mag or forum and that source seems to be old-- robert
Robert, I never said it was anything new or that anything may come out of it, there is clearly people out there that make up all kinds of stories for attention, but following up doesn't hurt 5 mins of my time. And what if by chance there was information against John?
Curious, I haven't read this in any article discussing fiber evidence, but did they ever check for carpet fibers from the trunk of John's car (or any of the Ramsey's cars) to see if there was a match on any of the clothing that Jon Benet was wearing at time of death (that she wasn't wearing during the car ride to and from the White's)?
Also, thinking out loud, I wonder if anyone ever thought to empty the septic tank of the house to see if any evidence got in there. I know they checked the house pipes, but what about the tank itself. Any trace DNA wouldn't be able to be recovered but solids like cut up gloves or underwear might have been found. Suza
Good question about the car. I have a hard time with those aspects of Doc's theory but I can see why he is leaning in that direction to an extent. John did seem to have something else planned in the early hours after the crime. He first blames himself for breaking the window(previously), and then telling LE that he had locked all the doors. He was basically destroying the IDI theory himself right off the bat. Why do that? Just tell LE one door was open and there is where your intruder came and went. It was later on that he changed direction and of course Smit poured more fuel on that fire.
Placing her body in that car would've been an incredibly gutsy move under those circumstances. Even worse would've been trying to get it out of the car and back into the house with all those witnesses there.
Even in a best scenario with that car and LE leaving the house, he'd have to assume they are monitoring his every move.
God only knows where her body was(if it had been moved) but the fact her body wasn't seen in that cellar initially is troubling.
Thanks, Tracy! I also think you are on to something interesting in terms of perhaps an incident at the White's or on the way home in the car may have sparked the events that evening. Do you know why they haven't released the pictures of the White's party?
For me, John's guilt was sealed when I looked at his behavior after the crime was discovered. I also am one of those who strongly feels he wanted his wife named as the murderer. The false show of loyalty and standing by her was just that, a farce, like his entire life. Take for instance that moment in Patsy's deposition with Darnell Hoffman, when Darnell asks her to read a selection from their book DOI where it says, "leaving the ransom note is akin to the murderer leaving their calling card", I was appalled. John wrote that at a time when he knew that every law enforcement officer in Boulder and the general public believed his wife wrote the ransom note. What a completely irresponsible and damning thing to write. I think he was angry that the grand jury didn't indict his wife. It meant he had to wait longer to move on with a new woman.
Also, what convinced me on Doc's theory isn't so much the 911 call (even though it's convincing) it was the pineapple. If they were both involved, then why not admit that they fed her pineapple before bedtime. No harm, no foul. But they both denied knowing anything about it, meaning one must legitimately not know while the other is guilty. With all we know of Patsy's character, I don't see Patsy pulling out one of her best pieces of silver from the drawer to let her daughter eat with. I feel the selection of that particular piece of silverware was done by her abuser who, in haste, just wanted to move along with his intentions quickly and didn't want to waste much time with Jonbenet indulging in her snack. He probably forgot to get a spoon out of the drawer in the kitchen and didn't want to go back in there, so pulled one out of the closest drawer by the dining room table. Or maybe it was already laid out from their Christmas tour. Just my two cents. Suzs
Ah yes. I see that Mr. Messick is no longer dormant. I wonder if the gun-toting Texan/musician/religious zealot/conspiracy theorist/doomsday prepper has yet another alternate theory to this case.
MR Poirot,unlike some other other posters on here,i accept everyone's opinion regardless of the fact that i may disagree with your theory, but will always listen to what you and others have to say. Most likely you are correct above, as i have had no reply, except dormant?, his facebook page is still there as is the comment he made on the page i posted. Perhaps if LE had done their job properly in the first place, my wild goose chase to help or eliminate would'nt be happening now. But ah yes, i really don't mind.
Doc, I love this blog and you have thoroughly convinced me of JR's guilt along with your supporting theory -- so much so that I find myself a bit bored with this case now.
I am wondering if you are familiar with the case regarding Steve Avery which has gotten a lot of attention recently, even in the national news. Netflix started the craze with their documentary, "Making a Murderer" and Nancy Grace has put in her two cents in her 1-hour show about the same the case. There seem to be two camps: one that feels Steve Avery is innocent and framed by corrupt police out to get him, and the other that feels there is overwhelming DNA and forensic evidence proving his guilt. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this case if you're familiar with it.
The Avery case does interest me but I know little about it. I subscribe to Netflix so will probably be viewing the documentary sometime soon. I'm very curious about the DNA evidence that supposedly ruled him out in the first case, but won't have anything to contribute until I've learned more.
I hope you have time to watch it. There are 10 episodes total, so it may take awhile to get through. I am still watching it myself and have yet to come to an opinion on the case. I think you will find it fascinating.
The 12/26 and 12/27 search warrants both list the family cars. The fibers found on JBR and her clothes were from PR's jacket and an Israeli-made shirt JR wore Christmas night, and whatever was used to wipe her down, presumably a washcloth.
mb was correct earlier this morning about the RN and the call to 911. CC
Tracy, I do not appreciate being accused of being a member of some sort of cabal, or "select group" that is out to get you. And as someone who discovered Doc's blog last summer and read it in its entirety before posting, as well as all the ancillary material I could find, I don't agree that doing so makes one delusional or lacking a life. CC
Unfortunately I've had to delete some posts that were getting overly personal. You know who you are! Please try to control your emotions, folks and avoid getting seduced into flame wars.
I recently commented to Doc that because he has convinced me who killed JonBenet and because I am convinced his theory is correct, I have become bored with this case. But I failed to mention another thing that has turned me away from this blog lately: the mean spirited comments that have recently appeared.
Doc has put a lot of time and effort into this blog and has kept it going for years. People, please reframe from all the negative, personal comments. It's a real turn off and they belong on those "other" blogs where targeting one another is a common and welcomed forum.
Doc, there's been bits and pieces I have not been able to work out.I see you posted on a handwriting site where Brenda believes the rn was written to point the blame to patsy. The rn does echo male and female use of words. Do you think as someone else suggested that John was using Patsy's phrases, but his own came into it too to point towards Patsy. It occurred to me that patsy wouldn't have added those strokes at top of her " a's, but someone trying to frame her would. I have struggled with jdi for the length of the rn, Le seem to think it was written after the crime, but in my view, it would appear to be written in advance.
I know that in the eyes of many the content of the note sounds feminine, but I simply can't agree. There are far too many terms associated with masculine interests, and also references to the sort of movies that mostly interest men. The notion that the note somehow expresses "motherly concern" because of the injunction to be "rested" strikes me as almost comical. The only thing in the note that relates to Patsy is the "southern common sense" bit, which is apparently the sort of thing Patsy would sometimes say. But if that's something she was known to say, why on Earth would she want to include it in the note?
In any case, I don't think John intended the note to be attributed to Patsy because the whole point of his plan was to point to an outside intruder. Once the note became associated with Patsy in the public mind, then he came under suspicion as well, since both seemed in it together. I think his intention was to construct an intruder/kidnapper who had a personal grudge against him and his family, which would explain the personal references.
"I don't think John intended the note to be attributed to Patsy because the whole point of his plan was to point to an outside intruder."
I agree with Doc on this point. IMO, John's goal was to create a number of possible suspects with the ransom note. The use of: "Victory! S.B.T.C" was always something that fascinated me and one of the reasons that I feel like this murder was planned at least a week ahead of time. I am convinced that these initials have a great deal of meaning and were chosen because of ambiguity.
These letters could have stood for "Small Business Technology Council" which does in fact exist and has connections with not only computer-based businesses, but also with the Navy. For more info can you visit www.sbtc.org. And yes, there is a Subic Bay Training Center in the Philippines, despite rumors that it does not go by that name. John Ramsey was also an avid Star Trek fan and even offered his opinion to detectives that S.B.T.C. could stand for "Star Base Technical Command". Equally interesting is the fact there was a Star Trek internet role playing game called StarBase 118 that was founded in 1994. And like S.B.T.C. the number “118” IMO was to be used with ambiguity. These numbers could have also represented the estimated amount of John’s bonus but there is another connection that ties in the numbers with the initials.
The following information is from www.acandyrose.com “Sandra and Bud Henderson started Henderson Technology in 1984, sold telecommunications equipment and bought supplies from CAD Distributors of Boulder. Sandra became the operations manager at CAD Distributors, which was owned by Jim Hudson. CAD merged with John Ramsey's Atlanta company and CAD Sources of Piscataway, New Jersey. This is the combination that became known as Access Graphics with John Ramsey as president. Henderson Technology ordered equipment from Access Graphics, which Henderson then sold. Sandra paid the bills and kept the books. In 1991, without prior notice, Access abruptly placed a credit hold on Henderson Technology's account and told Bud Henderson he owed the company $145,000 for invoices that his wife hadn't paid. He was shown a promissory note with his and his wife's signatures. Henderson had never seen it and said his signature had been forged. Henderson later said that his wife had agreed to pay off the debt over the next twelve months, made only one payment, and then defaulted. Within a week Access Graphics fired Sandra Henderson when it was discovered that she had altered Henderson Technology's account at Access. Henderson said that his wife tried to delete the balance that was owed. The company that bonded Access Graphics employees paid the firm $100,000, leaving a balance of about $40,000 to be paid. The Hendersons made one payment of $4,000 before they divorced in 1995. In family court, their outstanding obligation of $36,000 was divided into two notes for $18,000 each. By then, Henderson believed that John Ramsey was furious at him and his ex-wife.”
What makes this interesting in regards to “S.B.T.C.” and the numbers 1 and 8 is that the initials could have stood for “Sandra Bud Telecommunications” since they sold telecommunications equipment from the business that they owned. And of course, they each owed $18,000 to Access Graphics. So I think it is likely that the initials and numbers were carefully selected well in advance by John Ramsey while planning this murder. (Contd)
The movie references in the ransom note are also intriguing, particularly from the film, “Ruthless People”. The description of the movie is as follows from IMDb: “A couple, cheated by a vile businessman, kidnap his wife in retaliation, without knowing that their enemy is delighted they did.”
Also worth noting is that the couple, played by Judge Reinhold and Helen Slater, kidnapped the wife and held her captive in the basement of their home. Slater’s character was named “Sandy” which could have been short for Sandra. Danny Devito, who played the role of the rich businessman was named “Sam” and his wife, played by Bette Midler, was named “Barbara”. Another “SB” connection.The film was released in 1986 and likely was shown quite often on television in 1996 since it would have been the 10th anniversary. Here is the ransom call taken from the script of the film:
“Mister Stone. Listen very carefully. We have kidnapped your wife. We have no qualms about killing and will do so at the slightest provocation. Do you understand? I have no patience for stupid questions, Mister Stone, and I don’t like repeating myself. Do you understand? You are to obtain a new, black, American Tourister briefcase. Model number eight-one-o-four. Do you understand? In it you will place five hundred thousand dollars in unmarked, non-sequentially numbered one-hundred dollars bills. Do you understand? Monday morning, at eleven A.M., you will proceed, with case in hand, to Hope Street Plaza and wait for a phone to ring. You will receive further instructions then. Do you understand? You will be watched at all phases of execution. If anyone is with you, or if any action is not carried out to our complete satisfaction, it will be considered an infraction of the rules, and your wife will be killed. Do you understand? If you notify the police, your wife will be killed. If you notify the media, she will be killed. If you deviate from our instructions in any way whatsoever, she will be killed. Do you understand?”
Eerily similar. There are other films quoted as most of you already know (Dirty Harry, Speed, Ransom) but there was also a Star Trek film that had been released in November of 1996 called “Star Trek: First Contact” that used the word “faction” on more than one occasion:
Lily Sloane: Who are you?! Picard: My name is Jean-Luc Picard. Lily Sloane: No, who are you with, what faction?! Picard: I'm not with the Eastern Coalition. Picard: There's a new faction that wants to prevent your launch tomorrow.
I apologize for the length of my post but I just wanted to drive home the point that yes I agree with Doc that John wanted investigators to think there was an intruder but also I think there are too many coincidences with the ambiguous initials and numbers relating to former employees and films which could only suggest that this crime was VERY well planned.
The similarities in the two ransom notes are amazing. John could have used it for his sample note. Though its obvious to me that the murder was planned, John could have used this as a sample for what he wrote.
I agree with you that this was very well planned, and that almost every line of that RN served a purpose for JR, but the SBTC stuff is way too Byzantine for my simple taste. I get what you're saying, though, and I admire the way your mind works and the amount of thought you put into this. CC
Thank you. I also appreciate your opinion on this case as well as everyone else's. I feel like the more people that participate in this blog the more understanding and awareness this case will have until hopefully one day it will be reopened.
I understand that the initials and numbers may or may not be significant and hold very little water when it comes to the cold hard facts of the case but I find it encouraging that it supplements the JDI theory and may help us understand why the murder unfolded the way it did.
Wow Gumshoe that was very interesting. The similarities between the two ransom notes is very chilling. I guess I've been having a harder time lately even imagining Patsy writing the note through her hysteria. Someone calm and with a steady hand wrote that note most likely in advance or someone not worried about being interrupted. -SM
Yes I just think there are too many coincidences in regards to the initials and numbers from the ransom note. The kidnappers in the film were not only a couple but also so similar with Sandra and Bud when it came to motive. I think it is more than conceivable that John would have planted well-thought-out clues for police to suspect the Hendersons since they had stolen money from Access Graphics, leaving John furious with them. John, however, was intelligent enough to pick initials and numbers that could also point to other people like Jeff Merrick. What if Sandra and Bud had rock-solid alibis on the night of the murder? Such straightforward clues could backfire on John. He had to keep the clues ambiguous to cast suspicion away from himself. Merrick amazingly was also connected with the sum of $118,000 as explained by Lou Smit while interviewing John Ramsey:
12 JOHN RAMSEY: See, when he first demanded 13 what he wanted, to leave without making a fuss, I 14 think it was $250,000. And I forget the logic, but 15 if you took that number and subtracted what he 16 actually got left, a hundrerdish thousand about. 17 LOU SMIT: That's what I was wondering about, 18 because it could have been 118 that you owed him 19 or something. And he just figured that. 20 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember exactly. 21 I remember coming up with around a hundred. 22 (INAUDIBLE) but I don't remember any kind of 118. 23 We gave him the severance. We paid for outsource 24 or outplacement counseling. There were a number of 25 things that we did in that up to the $250,000.
I find it interesting that John plays dumb about specific numbers: "I remember coming up with around a hundred". That's exactly what I'd expect a guilty person to say.
The ransom note also mentioned two gentlemen watching over JonBenet and they didn't particularly like John. This looks like another connection to Merrick and two other disgruntled former employees. Also, I can't imagine John hastily killing his daughter on the spur of the moment and then being able to mathematically tie in Merrick to that number as he frantically devised a plan that included a very long ransom note.
There is simply no other person who would have needed to use the strange sum of $118,000 except for John Ramsey. Why would anyone use a ransom figure that could be tied to them? The Hendersons or Merrick would not even attempt such a kidnapping stunt being intelligent enough to understand they would never get away with it. That sum could only have come from one person. This should have been blatantly obvious and a dead giveaway to law enforcement while determining the identity of the killer.
It is a strange sum, and it's always plagued me - why not just an even hundred? I like this possible explanation much better than the tie-in to his bonus, which seems too obvious. CC
bb wondered what I thought about the Steven Avery case, and some others here may also be following it. Thanks to bb's prodding, I started watching the Netflix documentary two days ago and have been binging on it since. I think I have three more episodes to go. My reaction ranges from fascination to boredom, especially when we hear the same things out of the same mouths over and over.
My reaction so far:
1. I don't think much of Mr. Avery. Judging from his history, including an episode where he sadistically tortured his own cat, and ran a woman off the road at gunpoint, I have little sympathy for him as an innocent victim -- though technically that might the case, at least as far as his first incarceration is concerned -- though I'm not 100% sure on that one either. If it's possible the police planted DNA in the second case, then why couldn't someone have planted those hairs in the first? Interesting that the details of the first case are not being discussed at all in the media, apparently.
2. What bothers me most is the documentary itself, which is clearly biased, reminding me of the biased "reporting" in Michael Tracy's "documentary" on the Ramsey case, shamelessly presented as a whitewash. Also I have little respect for Avery's lawyers. The older one especially reminds me too much of Joe McCarthy's lawyer, Roy Cohn, during the "Commie" witch hunts of the 50's, who also specialized in character assassination, guilt by association, etc.
3. For me the ambiguity ended when the blood sample was tested and showed no sign of the additive present in the notorious vial with the hole in the lid. The lawyers contested that finding, of course, but there are only so many red herrings you can toss out there before your credibility is shredded. If that's Avery's blood in the victim's vehicle and it wasn't planted, then he's guilty, no question. And when we add that to all the other evidence and the circumstances, including the calls he made to the victim prior to the attack, then sorry, but I don't see any room for reasonable doubt.
I'll watch the rest with an open mind, but I doubt I'll learn anything that's going to change my mind. It amazes me how easily the public is swayed by media presentations such as this. So many people in this country are ready to see a "government conspiracy" everywhere they look.
Bottom line: Avery's "defense" is the same as the defense of a great many other criminals caught red handed: "It was a setup, I'm being framed. The system is dishonest. They are all against me." Yeah, sure.
Two interesting tidbits I found online after doing my own binging: Avery's DNA was under the hood latch of the victim's car; and the victim called her employer at 2:27 to say she was on her way to Avery's. They made note of it because she had complained of his harassing her on her two prior visits.
Great blog, and the most coherent theory I've read. However I'm struggling to find an explanation of the bizarre content of the note. If it was ultimately meant to convince the police (even if it was only meant to be seen later, it was meant to be seen at some point), why the hell is it so rambling and weird? What was JR up to? Of course That points more clearly to a loony tune intruder than any member of the family, which drags us back into the rabbit hole again. If not for that one element, I would favour your theory for sure though.
If you read it carefully you'll see that it's actually very well organized, with a clear beginning, two middle sections, and a concluding paragraph. It starts with the "kidnappers" introducing themselves, and informing John that they have his daughter.
Next section is the ransom demand and the instructions for raising the cash.
That's followed by a series of warnings as to what will happen if the police are contacted or if John alerts the bank authorities, marks the bills, etc.
And it ends with a personal message where John is addressed by name, making clear that everything is up to him.
The only thing that could be considered rambling are all the warnings, but that's understandable when we realize that these warnings are intended to scare Patsy to death, so she won't call the police.
1. Did either of the officers report a broken window or a suitcase underneath it when they inspected the basement soon after arriving on the morning of the 26th?
2. Upon his immediate return from searching the basement that morning, did Fleet White notify anyone that he discovered a broken window?
A more accurate answer would be: we don't know. It's easy to assume that every detail of what happened that morning has been reported to the public, but that seems unlikely. We don't even know the sequence of events: when Fleet was down there, when the police were down there, when John was down there.
Fleet was in the basement searching for JonBenet, so he might easily have overlooked the broken window and suitcase. You'd think the policeman would have noticed the broken window and reported it -- but the absence of broken glass on the floor may have led him to assume it had been already broken prior to the previous night.
I believe John had set things up so that his young son, who was reported to have played doctor with his sister, would always be J's excuse if JonBenet's molestation ever was found out. Patsy may have discovered 'something' in December. Just my opinion. -Joe
This is not information which is in the public domain in interviews or books. Colorado has laws protecting children under 10 in connection with sexual behavior or a crime. It was spoken about long ago by former friends of the R family, also allegedly described once or twice by the housekeeper. I recognize this is hearsay, but proof from a legal authority won’t be found.
My post was not intended to bring any doubt on Doc’s theory.
What? You're saying Burke did something with JonBenet that came to the attention of authorities? I think one of the former friends would have leaked that sometime in the past 20 years, don't believe that for a minute. A housekeeper caught Burke peeing in the backyard with a friend of his and told Patsy but that was it.
No, you misunderstand. I am not saying this came to the attention of the authorities. I do not believe anything came to the attention of anyone in CPS. However, it may have been brought up at the grand jury proceedings. No one would know. If you review who was interviewed last at the grand jury (gj) - B was interviewed in the late spring of '99. The gj also interviewed B's third grade teacher and the mother of B's best friend. It's only what you want to think about this. Personally, I believe they did look at B, for what I don't know.
As far as a former friend leaking something, well, again, it was mentioned in forums from long ago that a couple of them did leak something, but this is not in the public domain. Keep in mind that the Rs sued several media who mentioned B's possible involvement. I'm not challenging what you want to believe, just furnishing some information as I have read and understood.
One last point. There is evidence in books written by people who study incest, that there can be more than one molester in a family. I've no idea if that applies to this family. All I know is that the detectives involved with the case absolutely confirm there was prior sexual contact.
Can't get much more public than an internet forum, so I would say if something was leaked it was definitely in the public domain at one time.The Ramseys sued tabloids that splashed Burke's photo on the front and speculated about his involvement. Burke was in third grade when his sister was killed. Not unusual for grand jury to subpoena teacher and mother of friend to appear in case he told them something about night of murder.
Not true that detectives Thomas, Kolar, Beckner, Smit the only ones who have written or spoken about case confirmed "prior sexual contact:. Not one of them did, ever.
Well, I've certainly attempted to be very respectful with you. Who knows what was said at the gj. I only referenced that I believe they may have looked at B. Interpret the appearance of the teacher and mother of friend any way you want. For all any of us know, perhaps those interviews helped them to confirm the way they voted the True Bills.
Read the Reddit interviews of Kolar and Beckner. They both confirm 'prior sexual contact'. It is also stated by Thomas in his book, in quoting the experts who believed that there had been prior intrusive contact, and I believe he may term it 'corporal abuse.' (Keep in mind he was certain Patsy was involved in those injuries.)
I do accept the statements on the part of Kolar and Beckner in the Reddit interviews.
As far as Internet forums being in the public domain, yes they are, but they are anonymous and not confirmed by any jury whether the statements are true or not. My response was to the fact that you've read the interviews and all the books. You asked where I had heard this information and I respectfully replied. And if you review Haney's interview with Patsy in '98, he specifically tells her that the reports show prior sexual contact.
If you are here to dispute any information you don't agree with, then you're talking to the wrong person. I no longer have time to present information to you.
You’d be correct that some statements about B are in the public domain if they have appeared on forums from a decade or more past, though it’s doubtful everyone has read them. You asked me where I had heard that former friends had leaked this information, and I respectfully replied. My usage of the word ‘public’ was not appropriate.
Who knows what information B and his 3rd grade teacher and the mother of his friend gave the gj. Neither of us know, so both of our opinions would be valid. Whatever information they gave to the gj, it may have assisted them in reaching the True Bills which was the outcome of the gj.
As far as no one ever stating there was prior sexual contact, if you have read the interviews from ’98, you would know that Haney definitely is asking Patsy if she knows that there was evidence of prior sexual contact. He references the reports from experts in their files.
Also, if you’ve reviewed the Reddit interviews from 2015, you’ll know that both Kolar and Beckner state there was “prior sexual contact.”
I no longer have time to present information to you. Before you post your vehement disagreement about prior sexual contact, take time to review the Reddit interviews and the ’98 Patsy interview. Wish you well.
Dr G, the person who killed JBR. It sound like pedophiles "build up" with regards to their actions. Likley, the first symptom of their problem will not be a murder, and it wont be their last. Thats why ive always believed it was some sort of unbelieveable accidnet. A sex crime would not stop after one, right?
Welcome Tracy B, I, like you am also on the fence. I think Doc's theory very interesting and most likely, although i sway back and forth to LHP and co, or the parents covering for Burke.
ReplyDeleteOne thing i've made my mind up on is, I don't believe PDI, i think she was too loving a mother from what i've read to contemplate those injuries to Jonbenet just to cover for herself. Only LHP said different, and that was when Patsy started naming her as a possible suspect.
There are some very good posters on here, and Doc has explained in great detail as to why JDI and no-one else in his opinion.
Doc, it does appear both of the suspects are still alive. For now, this murder is a one time occurrence? I dont believe this is comon, so might this have started out with the little girl dying as some sort of unbelieveable accident? Thank you for caring.
DeleteTo rebut DocG's claim that no intruder would have a reason to leave both the ransom note and body behind, or that there is no such intruder theory that can explain it, there is one such intruder theory outlined here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934
You post this Mr. Cruel link once every new thread and you never sign your post. Are you by any chance redpill, who's been banned from so many other forums for this junk about "case linkage" between an Australian rapist/murderer and JBR?
DeleteThanks evej! You and I are definitely in the minority as fence straddlers. I like it this way because it allows me to be as open minded as possible on the case. Most people who lock themselves into a specific theory will ignore clues, facts, and evidence to suit their theory. I agree that the chances for Patsy being the killer appear to be unlikely, on the surface anyways. Out of all theories, the Patsy one requires the proponents of it to ignore more info than all the others. Not sure about how loving of a mother she was but I have yet to read a Patsy theory that is believable from start to finish.
ReplyDeleteDoc, you replied to my post in part 7 so I'll respond to it here.
You said...
"3. no intruder theory makes sense (so you can forget about the "visit from Santa", the DNA "evidence" etc.)"
Sorry Doc, you cant forget about something that actually occurred. This is exactly what I was talking about, how people who lock themselves into a theory wish to dismiss certain things as long as it suits them. I can understand ignoring certain rumors and things of that nature but Jonbenet mentioned this "secret Santa" before she was murdered so there's no point in people dancing around this fact or wishing to ignore it. Ignoring it is even worse than placing too much emphasis on it. I don't see how silencing the victim's words helps anyone. Like I said, Santa could be ANYONE, including John himself, but to ignore the victim's own words in the days leading up to her death is inexcusable.
You said..
" 4. and yes, Patsy would not have called 911 if she had written that phony note, whose only purpose was to stage a phony kidnapping."
Again, she can write the note in various scenarios. I'm not saying she DID write it but you cant say its impossible for her to do so. Someone could just as easily say the same thing about John and that wouldn't be correct either.
You said..
"It never ceases to amaze me how so many following this case fail to grasp that crucial point. The whole purpose of the note is to stage a kidnapping. That should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to reject the intruder theory."
Of course it was written to stage a kidnapping. That's true regardless of who killed her.
You said...
"And if you are staging a kidnapping, you don't undercut that staging by calling the police before you've had a chance to get the body out of the house. That's basic."
Undercut?? It was brilliant! Even if the decision to do it was made at the last second it doesn't take away from its originality. It's what made the crime so unique and bordering on unsolvable.
You said..
"It's clear from what you've written that you too are stuck in the morass. Trying to figure out what all these bits and pieces of case folklore mean is a pointless task."
Ignoring actual clues is even more pointless. You seem willing to silence the victim rather than deal with the fact she mentioned something interesting leading up to her murder. I'm not going to silence her just because it doesn't fit all nice and neat into a theory. Her killer silenced her permanently and I'm not going to retroactively silence her words.
You said..
"Without an overall grasp of the case as a whole, none of them can lead you anywhere, you just wind up going around in circles, pointlessly."
We are ALL lacking in this regard. LE should have released all the evidence in the case years ago since it appears that they are willing to let it stay cold forever. Many dots need to be connected and they are probably withholding evidence that would blow our minds. Yes, certain clues can cause people to go in circles but that doesn't mean you ignore them. You speculate in great depth in your theory even by avoiding such clues.
Doc..
ReplyDeleteI actually think many aspects of your theory make sense (specifically the molestation issue and John/the family's need to hide it which I'd like to discuss in a later post) but ignoring actual things that occurred doesn't help your case, it hurts it.
One clue that always bugged me is the pineapple. The pineapple itself doesn't but the need for sleuths to place so much emphasis on it, as if the pineapple holds the key to solving the mystery. Maybe this is what you were referring to...how people latch on to one thing and run with it.
IMO the best thing the pineapple can do is help in the attempt to establish a proper timeline, which was always messed up to begin with. One of the reasons(and its valid) people focus on the pineapple is how the Ramseys seem reluctant to even acknowledge its existence.
People focus a lot on that suitcase and IMO the staging aspect of it makes them focus on it for the wrong reasons. Having said that, the suitcase cant be ignored either because it tells us something. It is a multi-layered piece of evidence; its contents, its location, Smit's desire to focus on it to suit IDI, and its potential value in a staged crime scene.
I would also like more information on what went on at that Christmas party on the 23rd. It is really unfortunate that the cops blew it off as nothing. Meaningless 911 calls happen everyday in this country and its no big deal. What makes this one important is what happened two days later and the real possibility something was going on in that house.
I'd also like to see the pictures from this party which haven't been released. I think they can tell us something.
You sure move fast. Less than 24 hours ago you admitted you needed to do a lot of reading in order to get involved in this blog. Better start with Doc's first two posts, then maybe his e-book. He's dealt with all this a million times.
ReplyDeleteJBR didn't call him a "secret santa" those are your words. JBR told Mrs Kostanick she'd be getting a visit from Santa after Christmas, most likely the second Christmas the family was planning in Charlevoix.
Get caught up, then come on back and join the conversation.
You should read the whole blog too, start to finish. All of this has been discussed many times.
DeleteDon't miss Schiller's, Kolar's and Thomas's books either. We refer to them a lot here.
ReplyDelete"JBR didn't call him a "secret santa" those are your words."
ReplyDeleteYeah I know what she said. She was getting a special visit from Santa and it was a secret, which is why I said "secret Santa". You knew that though yet for some reason felt the need to correct something that didn't need to be corrected. This is already starting to feel like those forums.
" JBR told Mrs Kostanick she'd be getting a visit from Santa after Christmas, most likely the second Christmas the family was planning in Charlevoix."
That's a nice assumption but she obviously didn't elaborate to that extent. It would be an even better assumption had she not been murdered after returning home Christmas evening.
"You sure move fast. Less than 24 hours ago you admitted you needed to do a lot of reading in order to get involved in this blog."
I'd like to reread a couple books and check out that old site acandyrose. I'm not like the people who spent years doing nothing but constantly discussing this case. Real life gets in the way and like I mentioned before(Doc seems to agree), those forums were a huge turnoff. I never said I knew nothing about the case. I'd just like a refresher course to get down all the specific details that get brought up, especially concerning dates.
"Better start with Doc's first two posts, then maybe his e-book." I've read Doc's theory and its intriguing. Some of it is hard to swallow but I think he's on the right track about JB's abuse and how it played a crucial role leading up to her murder.
Hey Doc, any plans on releasing this in paperback in the future? Not a big Kindle reader but your book gets good reviews on Amazon.
"He's dealt with all this a million times."
Yeah and he'll deal with it a million more as long as he runs a JBR site or contributes to others. I know the merry go round nature of these JBR communities.
"You should read the whole blog too, start to finish."
This blog has thousands of posts spanning years. I'm not reading the entire thing.
" All of this has been discussed many times."
Of course it has yet it doesn't prevent people from continuing to discuss it. Back in high school I got interested in this case and started posting on some forums. I left for a long time, came back, and I saw some of the exact same people saying the exact same things. Left again for years, came back, and saw those same people once again saying the exact same things. Even though I had been gone for years each time, it felt as if I had never left. The last time I was on a forum I decided to just never go back. Some of the members are mentally unbalanced and I don't like the games played by them. Intentionally running in circles, straw man arguments, disingenuous posts, trolling, the use of alternate accounts, etc. There's normal people such as myself with an interest in the case and there's that outer fringe that attempts to dominate the communities.
I'd like to discuss this case with people but if it starts going in that direction, I wont be around long.
"Don't miss Schiller's, Kolar's and Thomas's books either. We refer to them a lot here."
I haven't read Kolar's. I should get it as it's the latest book on JB. PMPT was great and that's one I was considering picking up again. Thomas's book was a let down. I liked some of it and it was well written but I don't think Patsy killed her and Thomas wasn't able to convince me.
Kolar's book is supposedly BDI and that's why I didn't bother buying it yet. Only Burke's confession itself could ever convince me he did it and even then I'd need to hear all the hows, whys,etc.
I didn't order Kolar's book for the same reason. No doubt he has some interesting details but I work too hard for my money to spend it on a book where the conclusion is BDI.
Delete-Blue Note
For us the devil is in the details, and we'll discuss a fiber to death if it's one of the few available facts. The value of Kolar, et al, is not in their theories, it's in gleaning those facts. Empty assertions about possible fights in cars . . . not so much.
ReplyDeleteCC
@CC
ReplyDelete" Empty assertions about possible fights in cars . . . not so much."
Fair point but it's not any different than people speculating on what happened after they entered the house. Something set the wheels in motion and when or where it happened is relevant to the case. We'll probably never know the answer to that unfortunately. If something did happen in the car it would throw the timeline into an even greater state of flux than it already is.
I went ahead and ordered Kolar's book on Amazon. It should be here in a few days.
Doc, I have to get ready for work but wanted to quickly reply to an old comment of yours I was reading about John finding the body.
ReplyDelete"As for his finding the body himself, I don't think he would have had much choice at that point, because he'd been told to thoroughly search the house. I also think the body would probably have been hidden away in a corner, covered by a blanket. By finding it himself, he was able to testify it was "right out in the open." But Fleet White was in that room earlier and never saw it."
I'll never understand why LE didn't hammer him on this issue. I've also wondered if her body was originally somewhere else in the house initially and he moved her at some point that morning or afternoon. John has a lot of explaining to do. He once slipped up and admitted he had been in the basement earlier than previously thought, and of course there's that hour or so unaccounted for in the house while Arndt was there. That's a long time to be missing in that situation. If LE had immediately demanded everyone in the house step outside and the house be treated as a crime scene, god only knows where they would have found the body.
Excellent. The more you read, the more sense Doc's theory makes.
ReplyDeleteYou expressed an interest in prior sexual abuse and it's role in the murder, and to that end you may want to read the last three or four threads, in which some of us make a case for JDI and premeditation.
It should be pointed out that Doc himself makes few speculations, though he occasionally gets sucked into ours.
Happy reading.
CC
Tracey, if you read carefully here you'll see that I have never deliberately ignored evidence. And if there's something I've inadvertently ignored, there are several posting here who'll set me straight.
ReplyDeleteSo: I haven't ignored "secret Santa" or any of the other evidence that concerns you. However, when a consideration of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that there could have been no intruder, then all the so-called "intruder evidence" anyone can name, including the "secret Santa" comment, is beside the point.
But that isn't the only reason for discounting such "evidence." Even if we were unable to rule out an intruder, things like "secret Santa," odd bits of unaccounted for fibers, likely suspects with access to Hi-Tec boots, stun guns, etc., none of this can tell us anything in itself. We can speculate forever about it and come up with all sorts of theories about what this or that might mean, but all of is famously: inconcslusive. Without additional evidence enabling us to put it in some sort of perspective, there is really no point in continually harping on it.
"Secret Santa" could mean anything or nothing. It might have some bearing on the case if we knew more about the context but we don't -- so why bother with it?
There was no intruder. Because no intruder would have done all that this intruder supposedly did. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. So does Kolar, so does Steve Thomas, so does Cyril Wecht, so does just about anyone who's ever seriously delved into this case. Does that mean you could never ever come up with an intruder scenario that takes everything into account? Well, no. We see such a scenario in the first chapter of Kolar's book, where he provides us with a theory of the case involving a team of midget foreign agents who are also acrobats. It's all tongue in cheek of course, but it's a good example of how absurd your scenario would have to be in order to fit the evidence.
This is why the legal system distinguishes reasonable doubt from any doubt at all. There will always be room for some smidgen of doubt even in the tightest case. But proof, in the legal sense requires that the doubt be reasonable. In this case, as I see it, along with so many others, it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there could have been no intruder. If you want to explore things like acrobat midgets -- or secret Santas -- you have a right to do so. But don't expect me or anyone else to take you seriously.
"There was no intruder. Because no intruder would have done all that this intruder supposedly did. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. So does Kolar, so does Steve Thomas, so does Cyril Wecht, so does just about anyone who's ever seriously delved into this case."
ReplyDeleteWell, we do have highly regarded detective Lou Smit coming out of retirement and fairly quickly deciding IDI is the answer. That alone should make us question how confident we should be that a jury, or rather at least one juror, wouldn't believe the IDI scenario.
I've always agreed with Vincent Bugliosi that it's the implausibility of an intruder doing it that makes us reject IDI. But not everyone feels it's implausible, as evidenced by the numerous IDI threads on various JB forums.
We have a handful of touch-dna profiles, any one of which could be from the intruder, even if we tend to believe that none of them are. It's not a fact that Jonbenet was sexually assaulted, though imo it is darn good reasoning. If she was assaulted it's not a fact that John did it, though imo darn good reasoning. We have a daughter from a prior marriage who says daddy (John) never touched her inappropriately. There is no history of John committing sexual abuse against anyone. We have two adults that have no criminal record at all.
As I see it the chance that at least one juror will consider IDI a reasonable possibility is pretty good.
It wouldn't be the first crime with inexplicable elements and no evidence left behind by the intruder. (Except possibly DNA along with unidentified (unsourced) fibers).
-Blue Note
Blue Note, the problem I have with so many of your posts, as with Tracy's, is that you both keep bringing up what I see as red herrings. A red herring to me is a "clue" that serves a devious purpose by directing our attention away from what is meaningful. It can't really help solve the case because we are unable to place it in any sort of meaningful context. However, such "evidence" can be used by a defense attorney as grist for the "reasonable doubt" mill. Evidence of this sort can be meaningful ONLY as part of a reasonable doubt defense, and as such I find myself regarding it with suspicion.
DeleteThe "secret Santa" rumor is one example. What JonBenet may or may not have said in this regard is beside the point as far as solving the case is concerned, because we have nothing to attach it to. It might mean something but we will never really know what it means, because it's just an isolated piece of information that leads nowhere. On the other hand, it's a perfect example of the sort of "evidence" a defense attorney can stress to elicit reasonable doubt: "Hey, folks, until we know exactly what JonBenet meant by that visit from Santa, or who told her about it, we can't rule out an intruder."
Similarly with the DNA evidence. In itself it tells us nothing, because we have no way of attaching it to any possible suspect. But it works perfectly as a red herring, because the defense could always argue that we can't rule out an intruder until we find that all important DNA match. And since no match has ever been found, then there may never be any way to prove conclusively that JonBenet was not killed by the carrier of that DNA.
You have been consistently playing the role of such a defense attorney, bringing up odd bits of evidence and odd interpretations of the evidence to build a case for reasonable doubt. And that's all you've done. Nothing you've contributed to this forum can help solve the case. It's just a series of red herrings dragged into the case to foster a reasonable doubt defense. So it doesn't surprise me when you raise the possibility of that one juror who remains unconvinced.
The problem is that red herrings of this sort can be trotted out in any case, even the most cut and dried. It remains the responsibility of the prosecution to expose such arguments for what they are and encourage the jury to differentiate between what is truly reasonable and what is just tossed out there in the hope that it will stick to someone gullible enough to take it seriously.
And sure, there might be such a juror and the case could end in either exoneration or a hung jury. That's the challenge for the prosecution in any case. And in this respect, the Ramsey case is no different from any other.
Fair points on the "red herring" aspects of many clues and mixed together they certainly muddy the waters of an already confusing crime. I also realize some clues are hard to decipher on face value and can mean different things to different people. Even the suitcase suffers from this like I mentioned earlier. Its presence at the crime scene morphs into different theories and especially when Smit ran with it for IDI.
DeleteSome of these loose ends might have been able to be tied up had LE taken a much closer look at some of them at the time.
"A red herring to me is a "clue" that serves a devious purpose by directing our attention away from what is meaningful. "
Which would mean the ransom note itself is the biggest red herring of all.
"It might mean something but we will never really know what it means, because it's just an isolated piece of information that leads nowhere."
I think it did mean something but almost 20 years later, we are very unlikely to find out exactly what it was.
" It can't really help solve the case because we are unable to place it in any sort of meaningful context."
That's where this stuff gets dicey. Clues will be tossed aside or have much emphasis placed on them depending on which theory is on display. For example, I'm sure you've noticed that just about any PDI or BDI theory places a lot of emphasis on that pineapple while others have it in the background, that's if they even bring it up at all. I understand why people do this but its almost by necessity as it would be nearly impossible to create a scenario where they all factor in to the equation.
You make a valid point. One person's red herring could be another's meaningful clue. But it's up to the person who sees it as meaningful to demonstrate how and why it's meaningful. In the case of the ransom note I believe I've done just that. You can't just bring something up and claim it's a meaningful clue just because it exists and can't be explained. If you can't demonstrate how and why it's valid then it's nothing more than a red herring.
DeleteDoc I realize there's a ton of chaff to separate from the wheat in this case. Some of it leads into rabbit holes. Comparing her words to acrobat midgets is over the top though, and so is saying I cant be taken seriously simply because I brought it up. You're better than that Doc.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to bog this discussion down into that one clue because there's certainly a lot more to the case than that.I will say this about it..
On the surface it certainly appears to be a clue leaning IDI but can actually go either way. John could've just as easily told her about this Santa as anyone else. The ONLY thing that makes her comment interesting is the fact she was murdered in the time frame of this supposed visit. In hindsight it can appear that Jonbenet is unwittingly mentioning her own imminent death. What better way to entice a child at Christmas time than a special visit from Santa himself?
I haven't read all your posts Doc but I've read enough to know the general points(and then some) on your theory. I can easily buy into John doing it over the abuse and even the crime being premeditated to an extent. Either way we slice it, it wasn't some random murder out of the blue.
The timing of her murder is intriguing on a couple levels. Christmas itself and also the fact she was murdered hours before the family was making that trip. This is actually the main reason I cant lean much towards IDI because how does an intruder luck into this weird timing for the family?
I've always wanted more information on what the Ramseys did in Michigan besides just the fact they had a vacation home there.
The 'secret Santa' thing can actually fit into your theory quite nicely(if taken as coming from John) and its nowhere near such a leap as some other scenarios you bring up, specifically that long drive John was supposed to take with the body had the cops left.
Tracy, please see my response to Blue Note, just above. The secret Santa "clue" leads nowhere because we have no way of knowing what it means. But the part of my theory involving John's plan to dump the body under the guise of delivering the ransom does lead somewhere, because it provides a plausible explanation for both the note and also John's odd behavior both before and after finding the body. Without such a theory we are left clueless as to why the note was written in the first place and what its writer hoped to achieve by writing it.
DeleteThe main thing the note achieves(in any scenario) is that it buys some time. If John really is the killer, hard to imagine what was going through his head when he initially had a houseful of cops, friends, victim advocates,etc. to deal with knowing her body is in the house. He had around seven hours from police entering the house until John discovered the body. I also believe that whether or not he murdered her, he certainly saw her body at an earlier time than 1 pm, probably earlier than the 11 am time he let slip out after he talked to JAR, Melinda,etc.
DeleteYou mention his odd behavior and it certainly raises red flags. I wish someone with more experience had been in that house dealing with the unfolding scene. When 10 am passed and no one is pointing out that something must be wrong, the house should have been searched high and low at that moment( obviously it should have been searched at 6 am). If the parents of a supposed kidnapping victim aren't too concerned about the time a kidnapper should be calling, its easy to assume they know where she is.
--
Doc you're theory is solid in places certainly but the dumping of the body later on is where it starts to lose me. Did John really expect LE to just walk away from the scene of the crime? In the early stages the FBI are in the mix due to the kidnapping itself, which according to you was likely instigated by John. The FBI certainly aren't going away in a legitimate kidnapping scenario, so how long is he willing to wait? John did not have the benefit of hindsight to guide him in his actions. He couldn't possibly know that LE would immediately allow the crime scene to be tainted and certainly didn't realize they wouldn't even do a proper search of the house. He would've had to assume that Jonbenet's body could be found in minutes. If her murder was premeditated and your theory is close to what happened, he didn't have the slightest clue as to what he was doing and was merely winging it at that point.
I'm sorry Tracy but Anonymous was right. Had you read Doc's theory in its entirety you would know John expected Patsy to let him handle things. He did not expect her to call 911 and have LE on the scene until the 27th. mb
Delete" John expected Patsy to let him handle things."
DeleteIF true, he was already in over his head. Like I said, he was winging it from that moment forward.
"He did not expect her to call 911 and have LE on the scene until the 27th."
It is absolutely impossible to assume that. Its pure speculation.
"Had you read Doc's theory in its entirety you would know..."
I already stated "but the dumping of the body later on is where it starts to lose me."
"I'm sorry Tracy but Anonymous was right."
I cant believe you would even attempt to go down that road again after that crap a few days ago. On second thought I do believe it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThanks mb. Like TracyB has said, we each have a busy life and rehashing certain basic assumptions or even known facts does prevent us from moving forward with new questions. It is not anyone's place to challenge someone for why they haven't written something or engaged in a certain thread of discussion.
Delete@TracyB - the sarcasm is not nice. Surely you can tone it down; it just makes people think less of you and not want to hear anything you have to say. I often have to tell my teens this.
Surely you knew that this discussion has hinged heavily on not just the handwriting (John being ruled out), but the fact that Patsy called 911 when the note very specifically said JB would be beheaded if they involved the authorities? It is NOT pure speculation that the author of the note did not want anyone calling 911. -LE
I don't understand. You claim a serious interest in the case, say you're looking for a friendly forum, yet you're unwilling to take the trouble to read the entire blog. All this has been discussed and debated by folks who have and who read every book, article, interview, etc many times. I don't know about Doc, he's pretty patient, but it's very hard for me to take you seriously.
ReplyDelete@Blue Note
ReplyDelete"I didn't order Kolar's book for the same reason. No doubt he has some interesting details but I work too hard for my money to spend it on a book where the conclusion is BDI."
I'm gonna go ahead and give it a try. If he starts going in Burke circles I may put it down. Hopefully there's a lot more info in it and he's not like Thomas with his Patsy obsession.
I was reading the section on acandyrose titled the Bonita Papers and I read this about Burke..
"He said that the only thing he asked his dad was "where did you find her body", a highly unusual query from a child considering the possible questions a child might ask about the death of a sibling."
Other details about Burke but I have a feeling a lot of BDI people really zero in on that. It's definitely an odd question to ask when your sister has been murdered in your house. I think the only thing the comment really shows is how highly dysfunctional that family really was.
The psychologist also said Burke got agitated when she brought up "uncomfortable touching" and he wouldn't say anything. She felt there should be a followup on this but we know how that went. IMO Burke most likely knew of the abuse going on in the house(if not participating, hearing it) and couldn't deal with it, especially with a stranger.
This quote:
"Dr. Bernhard asked Burke if he had any secrets, and he said, “probably, if I did, I wouldn't tell you, because then it wouldn’t be a secret."
Chilling.
"I don't understand. You claim a serious interest in the case, say you're looking for a friendly forum, yet you're unwilling to take the trouble to read the entire blog. All this has been discussed and debated by folks who have and who read every book, article, interview, etc many times. I don't know about Doc, he's pretty patient, but it's very hard for me to take you seriously."
ReplyDeleteIt's called having a life. This blog has thousands of posts going back YEARS(you know this already) and I cant spend that much time reading THOUSANDS of peoples posts, and on top of that, catching up on the thousands made after I've read all those. You're delusional if you think anyone finding this blog is going to read the entire thing before commenting.
If I need to sit on my ass 24/7 reading old Jonbenet discussions on blogs and forums to get you to take me seriously, then you're just going to have to not take me seriously.
I can tell by your comment you're one of those people who literally lives on these JBR sites and thinks there's something wrong with someone who is not as invested in the communities as you.
It's possible to be interested in this case and want to join in on discussions without the need to spend years nonstop thinking about it.
For the record, this isn't aimed at most of the people reading this. Just at this specific type who clearly need a breath of fresh air.
Yes, we've all read this about Burke. We've discussed BDI many times. Apparently your point, if you have one, is to take random potshots at Doc's theory by bringing up IDI and BDI and random unconnected facts like Santa. Serious discussion welcome, but you really need to get caught up.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing "Anonymous", since it's all been discussed and debated before, I assume you will now be leaving since there's no reason to discuss it anymore.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think so.
Or do do you have some entirely new JBR topics that have never been discussed before? Let's see em.
I've raised new points. Plenty of people have here, but you'll never see them because you won't do the reading. Maybe we do all sit around doing nothing but JBR, but that's our prerogative, and who are you to drop in and criticize?
ReplyDeleteSome feed back please--Lou Smit, I passed by anything he had to say after the stun gun thing and his quote " JB got a piece of the killer" referring to debris under her finger nails--
ReplyDeleteNow I question his role in this case-- Quote from one of the investigators "Things are not what they seam to be". .Consider L Smit to be a double agent, WHY-- No cop is that dumb , From what I have read LS was a very good investigator.
This is a game LE plays with retired cops , by for example put them in the same jail cell with a suspect in order to gain info.
Lou S. really had nothing to lose by this and could care less what the public though .
Then there was the court order for him to have the Power Point presentation to the Grand Jury . Why the formality ? Well (IMO) His presentation was all a lie and every one knew it. including himself. But in order to carry on the surad ,as a lie to a GJ this had to be addressed , even the jurors knew of it. -- Okay , I am ready for a beating--- Robert
I totally disagree with Lou Smit's take on this case. But I can understand why he felt it necessary to defend the Ramseys by any and all means. As an experienced detective he realized there was no evidence of Patsy's involvement. And since John was "ruled out" it was all too easy for him to assume John must be innocent as well. And judging from at least one statement he made when interviewed (no time to find the exact reference at the moment), he found it impossible to believe that "the Ramseys" would call the police while the body was still in the house unless they were both innocent.
DeleteSo I don't think we need to assume he was being paid off or anything like that. I think he was sincerely convinced that no other explanation was possible aside from an intruder, and so he managed to convince himself that someone broke in via that window in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
You don't need to read very far into this blog to see where he went wrong. But everyone investigating the case went wrong, so I don't see him as any worse than any of the others.
"Yes, we've all read this about Burke. We've discussed BDI many times. Apparently your point, if you have one, is to take random potshots at Doc's theory by bringing up IDI and BDI and random unconnected facts like Santa."
ReplyDeleteNow you're merely trolling. I've already stated I find Doc's theory intriguing but definitely think it has some holes in it.
You've discussed BDI and Santa before? I'm shocked! How dare I bring up something on a JBR blog that's been discussed more than once.
You're being incredibly disingenuous as you've obviously spent years on these communities and certainly are not immune to discussing these things on a regular basis. Someone new to the blog starts posting and you put on this act. You're not fooling me.
"I've raised new points. Plenty of people have here, but you'll never see them because you won't do the reading. Maybe we do all sit around doing nothing but JBR, but that's our prerogative, and who are you to drop in and criticize?"
I've read sections of the blog. I'm not going to say that again. I said I wasn't going to read the ENTIRE thing.
You raised new points? Where? Post a link and I'll read it.
"Maybe we do all sit around doing nothing but JBR"
HAHAHA I knew it. It comes through in your posts.
"but that's our prerogative, and who are you to drop in and criticize?"
That's funny. You jump all over me and say you cant take me seriously because I don't have the time to obsess over the case 24/7, then have the colossal gall to say I'm criticizing you.
Obviously it's a fascinating case and I'm not surprised that people love discussing it. Having said that, there is an outer fringe of these communities that go too far and you're definitely in that group. I've been posting a few days and I've already got you criticizing me for absolutely no reason at all.
Instead of ignoring my posts or starting your own brand new, hot off the presses JBR topic, you feel the need to criticize me for mentioning something you've discussed hundreds or thousands of times and will discuss thousand of times after this.
It really says a lot about you.
"Anonymous", that is the last thing I'm saying on the matter. I know what you're doing and I'm not falling for it. I like Doc's site and I'm not going to play out a troll game with you and ruin the discussion. If you feel the need to reply, send me an email if you're willing to come out behind your anonymity.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you've worn out your welcome elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteRobert
ReplyDeleteThat would explain a lot if Smit was not on the up and up. Unfortunately we can only speculate on that. No proof.
The problem with IDI is not that it's at all likely, but that at least one juror might think so.
-Blue Note.
@Robert-
ReplyDelete"Some feed back please--Lou Smit, I passed by anything he had to say after the stun gun thing and his quote " JB got a piece of the killer" referring to debris under her finger nails--
Now I question his role in this case-- Quote from one of the investigators "Things are not what they seam to be". .Consider L Smit to be a double agent, WHY-- No cop is that dumb , From what I have read LS was a very good investigator."
It really is unfortunate that Smit wouldn't look in other directions. He focused too much on that damn window and of course the so called stun gun evidence. Watching him climb through that window didn't prove anything. All it proved was that he could climb through a window.
Even if they were looking for IDI, I'd rather someone other than Smit have been brought in. He seemed out of his depth IMO but that can be said for pretty much all LE on the case.
"This is a game LE plays with retired cops , by for example put them in the same jail cell with a suspect in order to gain info.
Lou S. really had nothing to lose by this and could care less what the public though .
Then there was the court order for him to have the Power Point presentation to the Grand Jury . Why the formality ? Well (IMO) His presentation was all a lie and every one knew it. including himself. But in order to carry on the surad ,as a lie to a GJ this had to be addressed , even the jurors knew of it. -- Okay , I am ready for a beating"
Well you certainly wont get a beating from me but I highly doubt it was "all a lie". I think Smit truly believed what he was saying. That's why he was so stubborn and wouldn't give an inch on his theory.
My Opinion was that he didn't give an inch because his theory was a lie,and he knew it. he had to make the Ramsey's believe that he was on there side. He knew better himself ,but had to carry that out. (IMO) Smit didn't truly believe what he was saying ,even in part.-- robert
Delete@Robert
DeleteWhy did Smit have to carry this out? Why intentionally lie? If he didn't truly believe what he was saying he was certainly convincing in the role.
Is your theory that the Ramseys bought him off in order to push an IDI agenda?
One more thing Robert from your previous post...
"Quote from one of the investigators "Things are not what they seam to be"
Yeah this was said but wasn't it one of the first comments made on the scene? How does this tie in exactly with Smit?
Like many on other forums being far removed from the case and only guess at what is fact unless it comes from the ME or see the actual RN and other sources , I tend to ask could it be this way or that. Lou Smit's role is one of those, nothing in fact or proviable , but put it out there in case someone really knows or can convince me otherwise , Looks like I am convinced otherwise on Lou's role so far.
DeleteWhy did Smit have to carry this out--I am answering your question as if he was a double agent-- He would have to in order not to be exposed.
There is no theory on my part of the Ramsey's buying Lou S off. I see LS as being an honorable man in that regard .
Things are not what they seam to be, may have been said at the time of the crime, the one I was thinking of was many years later by Tom ? one of the detectives or investigators . and it was my own application to that and a Lou Smit fall guy for the BPD.
So to be clear , Lou Smit was actually working for the BPD, things are not what the seam to be. -- I am thinking less an less of this possibility , but thanks for your time. robert
@CC
ReplyDelete"You expressed an interest in prior sexual abuse and it's role in the murder, and to that end you may want to read the last three or four threads, in which some of us make a case for JDI and premeditation."
Yeah I've read some of the old pages on Doc's theory. I was waiting to see how this new discussion was going to flow instead of attempting to steer it in a specific direction.
Here's another quote of Doc's I am in full agreement on...
" The murder and the sexual assault are clearly related, so if we are looking for a motive, then obviously the most likely motive is a perceived need on the part of the assaulter to silence the victim. And of the three survivors in the house that night, John Ramsey is clearly the most likely one to have committed that assault. And if he's the guilty party, then I see no reason to assume he would have wanted to confess what he had done to Patsy, for whom JonBenet was clearly the most important thing in her life. Nor do I see any reason for Patsy to want to help him stage a kidnapping by sitting down to write a phoney "ransom note". To me that makes no sense at all, but to a great many it seems the only possible explanation."
I'll actually go one step further...even if John isn't the killer, I still believe her murder is related to her abuse. It's even possible she had multiple abusers. I'd throw JAR into that mix as well.
I also agree with Doc when he said this about Patsy..
"For one thing, what possible motive could she have had to kill a child she obviously doted on?...Also, penetrating her daughter's vagina, and then strangling her with a garotte seems like absurd overkill. Nothing in Patsy's past suggests she was psychotic, so how does she morph from social butterfly/housewife to a character from grand guignol? Even if we assume she was covering for Burke, it still seems seriously out of character."
Jonbenet was her world. Would have easily been a teen model and certainly a Miss America contestant(dare I say winner?). PDI just doesn't cut the mustard IMO. I think Patsy's grief was genuine and it doesn't surprise me she has made some contradictions in her statements since she was so dependent on pills at the time.
". . . nowhere near such a leap as some other scenarios you bring up, specifically that long drive John was supposed to take with the body had the cops left. "
ReplyDeleteIt's five minutes up either Boulder Canyon Drive or Baseline to the Front Range of the Rockies, ten minutes to some seriously rugged mountain terrain - sheer cliff faces and drop offs inches from the road. One of the trailheads, Boulder Falls or some other landmark would have been a plausible place to claim to be directed by the kidnappers, and he could literally drop the body over a cliff on the way.
Doc made no great leap.
CC
Doc, I haven't had much to contribute to the theory lately. I've mulled over your entire case and indulged in my own speculations to fill in gaps for which we have no facts. As I've commented before, I believe you have nailed this case and have done a brilliant job of communicating your case effectively. I do enjoy reading the comments from others, with the exception of those that insult others or presume to know what type of person is blogging here. Hercule and TracyB are going to be the reason I stop reading. And it is not because I don't think they have anything to contribute, but this forum has been conducted with polite, seemingly educated and reasonable people. There is no need for the defensiveness and the picking apart of every paragraph written by someone in order to defend one's own points. I'm sure we all have a life (I know I do), and its offensive to suggest that we don't. The recent sarcastic comments are out of line. I admit that I have gotten frustrated with Hercule's reasoning (and put downs) but have continued because CC, -H, and others have provided some good reasoning and food for thought. Can we ask those who feel the need to be so sarcastic to tone it down? Thanks for all you have done. I have high hopes that JR will be indicted one day. -LE
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder, LE. I've already sent out a warning that personal attacks would not be tolerated, but have been lazy in carrying that out. I keep hoping those involved will get tired of the feuding and return to discussing the case rather than picking on one another. From now on I'll try to be more diligent. So, to those of you who find yourself getting caught up in a flame war, don't be surprised if your posts get removed.
DeleteLE - Always the voice of reason and moderation! I, for one, would be very interested in hearing your bridge-the-gap speculations.
DeleteCC
Hi CC - I think I have come to believe a lot of what MWMM has suggested. Patsy was sick of being sick, worn down, and just plain conditioned to go along with a demanding/self-absorbed/probably narcissistic John. However, JB's medical problems were becoming more frequent and problematic, and I think she may have even made remarks like "It hurts down there, I don't want to go to the doctor because I don't like being touched there" or something that caused Patsy to call the doctor and want to discuss this with him. Patsy could have said to John, I need to get her in to see Dr. Beuf, she is so cranky because of the vaginal infections (every female knows that these infections make you cranky). John knew he was out of time and was frantic to shut JBR up. If he is a narcissist, his desperation would allow him to think the unthinkable. He would have justified in his mind that JB would be better off dead rather than living with what was to come when she got older and realized how she had been victimized, even if she didn't talk for years to come. Also, I think John harbored anger toward Patsy. How dare his trophy wife get cancer, stop having sex with him, stop being all about him and his company and his success? I think he resented her focus on JB and the pageants. IF something happened in the car that night on the way home from delivering gifts, such as an exchange of words over not wanting to be out driving around when they need to get to bed because of the early trip, and John came home angry, he may have snapped and decided that then was the time to execute a plan he had been thinking about. In other words, the idea of offing JB may have been in his head during December, but something made him snap and he realized it was now or never. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if another idea of his was to push her off the Big Red Boat. Anyway, my imagination may seem wild, but I've tried to think about the dynamics going on in that family with those being the victims of narcissism, the anger, the resentment over Patsy's dad being instrumental in saving his company early on and John then being beholden to employee the entire Paugh family. All of this allowed his sick mind to justify what he did. -LE
Delete@LE
DeleteWhile this is possible it's all completely speculative. As much as I respect MWMM her analysis amounts to amateur psychological profiling. (Not all of it, and she has some great insights over at Websleuths, it's too bad she hangs out there more than here)
It's not a fact that John has NPD. No amount of amateur profiling makes it true. It may be true, but we don't know that.
Why would John harbor anger against Patsy? It's not her fault she got cancer. Sympathy and fear of loosing her would have been much more likely emotions, imo.
I would be extremely surprised if he gave any serious thought to pushing her off the big red boat. Too likely to be seen.
"Anyway, my imagination may seem wild, ..."
Nothing wrong with imagination, as long as we recognize it for what it is.
"... but I've tried to think about the dynamics going on in that family ..."
With respect, trying to imagine the dynamics will lead nowhere as there is little if anything that tells us what the dynamic actually was, and even less tells us what dynamic was in play that particular night.
DocG speculates here and there but he stays away from the psychological profiling. I think he has the right approach.
-Blue Note
Yes Blue Note. Remember that I was answering CC's question about my own thoughts on filling in the gaps of what we don't know, given my support of Doc's theory. I didn't say I was trying to make a case based on ideas about John being a narcissist alone. This was just my way of working out motive. If you are around a narcissist for any time, you would realize that they do not respond with normal emotions. Life is all about them and woe to anyone who disrupts or doesn't give them what they want or need. -LE
Delete@Blue Note
Delete"With respect, trying to imagine the dynamics will lead nowhere as there is little if anything that tells us what the dynamic actually was.. "
This is a valid point of course but the family dynamic is crucial to the case, especially when it's sleuths trying to figure out what was going on. The main line of thinking here is that John killed her and it may have been premeditated, so this area is where the most speculation is likely to occur since there has to be a specific reason why he did it.
On the surface it appears to have been a dysfunctional family which likely played a role in many people believing they were involved even if they leaned towards IDI previously.
@LE
That was a great post.
" IF something happened in the car that night on the way home from delivering gifts..."
If the murder wasn't premeditated and it somehow boiled down to a domestic dispute of sorts, I also believe that something occurred in the car that lit the fuse that night. Their statements about that drive home were incredibly vague..
"In other words, the idea of offing JB may have been in his head during December, but something made him snap and he realized it was now or never."
My main issue with this type of scenario is the timing. The Ramseys were hours away from taking that trip. Do some believe that the trip itself was never fully intended to occur and its planning disingenuous? If premeditation is a factor here, then this trip was never going to take place.
" I wouldn't be surprised if another idea of his was to push her off the Big Red Boat."
Interesting. Sounds a little too risky. Also reminds me of the info from that informant who claimed JAR wanted to hire him to kill JB in a boating accident the previous summer.
Well, I certainly don't think a domestic dispute alone was the reason JR murdered JB. I just wonder, and again this is just speculation, if John was in the planning stages for doing something over the holidays, had already thought about the kidnap/ransom scenario, and that night he mustered up the guts to carry it out. Hitting her over the head like that took some serious gumption and/or anger. This guy was like a volcano about to erupt, I imagine. Anyway, my overall point is the motive. I think John is a narcissist and also has anger problems when life doesn't go exactly the way he wants it to. I'm basing this on comments about how mad he got over household mishaps, demands that the kids be quiet in the house, and the overall role Patsy apparently played in keeping them out of his hair. Maybe those accounts are not true, who knows. If they are, it goes to his personality. -LE
Delete@LE I was defending myself. I was jumped on & criticized almost immediately. Interesting that you didn't mention this "anonymous" person who started it.
ReplyDeleteI might have been harsh towards "anonymous" but I'm not interested in playing those sorts of games. Like you, I'd much rather discuss the case than get sidetracked by that stuff.
@CC @Doc I found one of those older discussions that goes more in depth regarding premeditation. It's a really long thread but I'll read it when I get off work.
@everyone Sorry for the mess between "Anonymous" and I. I'm sure it was a chore to read and kills the early flow of this new page of discussion.
@Doc Maybe just delete the exchange between "Anonymous" and I?
Hi, I didn't mention the remarks of anonymous because I have no idea whether its one or more persons, and also because I didn't find the remarks to be highly critical or to be jumping on you. That's just my takeaway, but if you feel the remarks are too personal, or could be better delivered, its probably best to take the high road and just make your points. For example, if you think JAR should be thrown into the mix, discuss that. We know he was in Atlanta on the night of the murder. Do you think someone else killed JB to cover up sexual abuse on the part of JAR? I'm just curious to know your thoughts on that. -LE
DeleteI re-read the exchange between you and Anonymous. It seems to me s/he was suggesting - politely - that you may want to do some reading before covering a lot of the same ground, but your response was aggressive, hostile and very personal. We've kinda' had a bellyful of that lately from another source, so our resistance may be down. I'm sure if you have a genuine interest and can temper your approach a bit you'll be welcome here.
ReplyDeleteCC
I'd thought about JR's sense of entitlement vis-a-vis sex, LE, and thought that may have contributed to his taking what he wanted from JBR, but I never considered resentment - or narcissism, 'til MWMM brought it up - but that sounds possible as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know I agree with you about the Dr. Beuf/reporting thing. I tend to think JR premeditated it at least a few days in advance because of the airplane hangar/computer font/ransom note, rather than that he lost his temper Christmas night. Never even considered the Big Red Boat, but you're right, I'll bet he did.
Thanks
CC
LE, thank you for saying what I'd been thinking. And thank you to Doc for agreeing to be a bit more vigilant when it comes to flaming. One of the main reasons I've stuck around so long is that discussions have always been civil. Almost always, anyway. The vast majority of posters here are educated and polite. I'm often impressed by the caliber of writing. I hope the recent discord is done and we can return to form.
ReplyDeleteBack to the Lou---No doubt Lawyers of John Ramsey warned him to watch what he said around Lou Smit--
ReplyDeleteI have had some rethinking on LS and maybe he did actually believe the Ramsey's innocent . I reread the Larry King interview with LS , still can't figure out why anyone would believe a stun gun was used , especially a cop--If you don;t want to wake the parents , don't target someone with a stun gun is all I have to say. Lou Smit had stun gun tests done on dead pigs-- He should have done it on live ones , then he would know how much squealing is done. robert
Doc, have a look at this comment at bottom of page,i've replied asking the person who wrote the comment to get in touch with you.
ReplyDeletethey're not hiding who they are. Maybe something, maybe not.
Read PEOPLE's Original 1997 Story on the JonBenét ...
www.people.com/article/jon-benet-ramsey-people-first-story-covers
evej when I copy that link in my browser it says the page has been taken down. Could you maybe repeat the comment for me here?
ReplyDeletedo'n know why that happened to you, i've just copied and pasted. here it is.
ReplyDeleteShawn Messick • 7 days ago
Can someone get me contact information for either Bill Hewitt or Vicki Bane the authors for this article? I possibly may have some important information regarding solving this murder. This is not a joke, I am a former police office that happened into someone who knows of the killers involvement and want them to have this information. I will gladly give them my personal information. Thank you in advance
This guy is on Facebook, if you care to reach out to him to get his input. If he truly has valuable information, why contact People writers? I wonder if he has tried to contact the Boulder PD. If he's a former police officer, perhaps he would have some cred with them. -LE
ReplyDeleteYes I saw he was on facebook, I may private message him tomorrow, see what he has to say, I'm in different time zone to most on here, I'll check in morning to see if anyone here has had any contact first
ReplyDeleteeve, I've seen so many cases of people who feel sure they know who did it or who know of someone who knows. I no longer bother looking into such theories as they invariably lead to dead ends. If this person is really on to something, he'd have reported it to the authorities years ago.
DeleteBut if you want to pursue it, by all means do so. You never know what you might uncover.
@Doc
Delete"If this person is really on to something, he'd have reported it to the authorities years ago."
Agreed. I assume that reward money itself would have been enticing enough. Anyone holding on to secrets at this point isn't likely to voluntarily give them up.
@Eve
",i don't mind spending 5 min of my time pursuing something that may or may not help. So what's the harm if any possible information could even lead to perhaps John?"
Good point.
Everyone knows of the killer (John's) involvement , So whats new with the last posts? NOTHING--robert
ReplyDeleteRobert, i replied earlier, sometimes my posts via mobile seem to disappear.
DeleteI said words to the effect of,i don't mind spending 5 min of my time pursuing something that may or may not help. So what's the harm if any possible information could even lead to perhaps John?
I have a bit of a hard time negotiating this site-- No harm what so ever in spending time looking for truth or a lead.--I've wasted plenty and gained a little-- it was the part about a cop who had info. on the case as stated in an above post that caused me to respond the way I did. (IMO) if a cop had anything of value he would go to the proper channels instead of having it printed in some mag or forum and that source seems to be old-- robert
DeleteRobert, I never said it was anything new or that anything may come out of it, there is clearly people out there that make up all kinds of stories for attention, but following up doesn't hurt 5 mins of my time. And what if by chance there was information against John?
ReplyDeleteCurious, I haven't read this in any article discussing fiber evidence, but did they ever check for carpet fibers from the trunk of John's car (or any of the Ramsey's cars) to see if there was a match on any of the clothing that Jon Benet was wearing at time of death (that she wasn't wearing during the car ride to and from the White's)?
ReplyDeleteAlso, thinking out loud, I wonder if anyone ever thought to empty the septic tank of the house to see if any evidence got in there. I know they checked the house pipes, but what about the tank itself. Any trace DNA wouldn't be able to be recovered but solids like cut up gloves or underwear might have been found. Suza
I believe Boulder has a sanitary sewer system.
Delete-Blue Note
@Suza
DeleteGood question about the car. I have a hard time with those aspects of Doc's theory but I can see why he is leaning in that direction to an extent. John did seem to have something else planned in the early hours after the crime. He first blames himself for breaking the window(previously), and then telling LE that he had locked all the doors. He was basically destroying the IDI theory himself right off the bat. Why do that? Just tell LE one door was open and there is where your intruder came and went. It was later on that he changed direction and of course Smit poured more fuel on that fire.
Placing her body in that car would've been an incredibly gutsy move under those circumstances. Even worse would've been trying to get it out of the car and back into the house with all those witnesses there.
Even in a best scenario with that car and LE leaving the house, he'd have to assume they are monitoring his every move.
God only knows where her body was(if it had been moved) but the fact her body wasn't seen in that cellar initially is troubling.
Thanks, Tracy! I also think you are on to something interesting in terms of perhaps an incident at the White's or on the way home in the car may have sparked the events that evening. Do you know why they haven't released the pictures of the White's party?
DeleteFor me, John's guilt was sealed when I looked at his behavior after the crime was discovered. I also am one of those who strongly feels he wanted his wife named as the murderer. The false show of loyalty and standing by her was just that, a farce, like his entire life. Take for instance that moment in Patsy's deposition with Darnell Hoffman, when Darnell asks her to read a selection from their book DOI where it says, "leaving the ransom note is akin to the murderer leaving their calling card", I was appalled. John wrote that at a time when he knew that every law enforcement officer in Boulder and the general public believed his wife wrote the ransom note. What a completely irresponsible and damning thing to write. I think he was angry that the grand jury didn't indict his wife. It meant he had to wait longer to move on with a new woman.
Also, what convinced me on Doc's theory isn't so much the 911 call (even though it's convincing) it was the pineapple. If they were both involved, then why not admit that they fed her pineapple before bedtime. No harm, no foul. But they both denied knowing anything about it, meaning one must legitimately not know while the other is guilty. With all we know of Patsy's character, I don't see Patsy pulling out one of her best pieces of silver from the drawer to let her daughter eat with. I feel the selection of that particular piece of silverware was done by her abuser who, in haste, just wanted to move along with his intentions quickly and didn't want to waste much time with Jonbenet indulging in her snack. He probably forgot to get a spoon out of the drawer in the kitchen and didn't want to go back in there, so pulled one out of the closest drawer by the dining room table. Or maybe it was already laid out from their Christmas tour. Just my two cents. Suzs
And thanks, Blue Note for the sewer system info. Just crossing things off my minds list. :)
DeleteAh yes. I see that Mr. Messick is no longer dormant. I wonder if the gun-toting Texan/musician/religious zealot/conspiracy theorist/doomsday prepper has yet another alternate theory to this case.
ReplyDeleteHercule
MR Poirot,unlike some other other posters on here,i accept everyone's opinion regardless of the fact that i may disagree with your theory, but will always listen to what you and others have to say. Most likely you are correct above, as i have had no reply, except dormant?, his facebook page is still there as is the comment he made on the page i posted.
DeletePerhaps if LE had done their job properly in the first place, my wild goose chase to help or eliminate would'nt be happening now. But ah yes, i really don't mind.
Doc, I love this blog and you have thoroughly convinced me of JR's guilt along with your supporting theory -- so much so that I find myself a bit bored with this case now.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if you are familiar with the case regarding Steve Avery which has gotten a lot of attention recently, even in the national news. Netflix started the craze with their documentary, "Making a Murderer" and Nancy Grace has put in her two cents in her 1-hour show about the same the case. There seem to be two camps: one that feels Steve Avery is innocent and framed by corrupt police out to get him, and the other that feels there is overwhelming DNA and forensic evidence proving his guilt. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this case if you're familiar with it.
bb
The Avery case does interest me but I know little about it. I subscribe to Netflix so will probably be viewing the documentary sometime soon. I'm very curious about the DNA evidence that supposedly ruled him out in the first case, but won't have anything to contribute until I've learned more.
DeleteI hope you have time to watch it. There are 10 episodes total, so it may take awhile to get through. I am still watching it myself and have yet to come to an opinion on the case. I think you will find it fascinating.
Deletebb
The 12/26 and 12/27 search warrants both list the family cars. The fibers found on JBR and her clothes were from PR's jacket and an Israeli-made shirt JR wore Christmas night, and whatever was used to wipe her down, presumably a washcloth.
ReplyDeletemb was correct earlier this morning about the RN and the call to 911.
CC
Thank you, CC! Suzs
DeleteTracy, I do not appreciate being accused of being a member of some sort of cabal, or "select group" that is out to get you. And as someone who discovered Doc's blog last summer and read it in its entirety before posting, as well as all the ancillary material I could find, I don't agree that doing so makes one delusional or lacking a life.
ReplyDeleteCC
Unfortunately I've had to delete some posts that were getting overly personal. You know who you are! Please try to control your emotions, folks and avoid getting seduced into flame wars.
ReplyDeleteI recently commented to Doc that because he has convinced me who killed JonBenet and because I am convinced his theory is correct, I have become bored with this case. But I failed to mention another thing that has turned me away from this blog lately: the mean spirited comments that have recently appeared.
ReplyDeleteDoc has put a lot of time and effort into this blog and has kept it going for years. People, please reframe from all the negative, personal comments. It's a real turn off and they belong on those "other" blogs where targeting one another is a common and welcomed forum.
bb
Meant to type "refrain". Poor spelling.
Deletebb
Doc, there's been bits and pieces I have not been able to work out.I see you posted on a handwriting site where Brenda believes the rn was written to point the blame to patsy. The rn does echo male and female use of words. Do you think as someone else suggested that John was using Patsy's phrases, but his own came into it too to point towards Patsy. It occurred to me that patsy wouldn't have added those strokes at top of her " a's, but someone trying to frame her would. I have struggled with jdi for the length of the rn, Le seem to think it was written after the crime, but in my view, it would appear to be written in advance.
ReplyDeleteI know that in the eyes of many the content of the note sounds feminine, but I simply can't agree. There are far too many terms associated with masculine interests, and also references to the sort of movies that mostly interest men. The notion that the note somehow expresses "motherly concern" because of the injunction to be "rested" strikes me as almost comical. The only thing in the note that relates to Patsy is the "southern common sense" bit, which is apparently the sort of thing Patsy would sometimes say. But if that's something she was known to say, why on Earth would she want to include it in the note?
DeleteIn any case, I don't think John intended the note to be attributed to Patsy because the whole point of his plan was to point to an outside intruder. Once the note became associated with Patsy in the public mind, then he came under suspicion as well, since both seemed in it together. I think his intention was to construct an intruder/kidnapper who had a personal grudge against him and his family, which would explain the personal references.
"I don't think John intended the note to be attributed to Patsy because the whole point of his plan was to point to an outside intruder."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Doc on this point. IMO, John's goal was to create a number of possible suspects with the ransom note. The use of: "Victory! S.B.T.C" was always something that fascinated me and one of the reasons that I feel like this murder was planned at least a week ahead of time. I am convinced that these initials have a great deal of meaning and were chosen because of ambiguity.
These letters could have stood for "Small Business Technology Council" which does in fact exist and has connections with not only computer-based businesses, but also with the Navy. For more info can you visit www.sbtc.org. And yes, there is a Subic Bay Training Center in the Philippines, despite rumors that it does not go by that name. John Ramsey was also an avid Star Trek fan and even offered his opinion to detectives that S.B.T.C. could stand for "Star Base Technical Command". Equally interesting is the fact there was a Star Trek internet role playing game called StarBase 118 that was founded in 1994. And like S.B.T.C. the number “118” IMO was to be used with ambiguity. These numbers could have also represented the estimated amount of John’s bonus but there is another connection that ties in the numbers with the initials.
The following information is from www.acandyrose.com “Sandra and Bud Henderson started Henderson Technology in 1984, sold telecommunications equipment and bought supplies from CAD Distributors of Boulder. Sandra became the operations manager at CAD Distributors, which was owned by Jim Hudson. CAD merged with John Ramsey's Atlanta company and CAD Sources of Piscataway, New Jersey. This is the combination that became known as Access Graphics with John Ramsey as president. Henderson Technology ordered equipment from Access Graphics, which Henderson then sold. Sandra paid the bills and kept the books. In 1991, without prior notice, Access abruptly placed a credit hold on Henderson Technology's account and told Bud Henderson he owed the company $145,000 for invoices that his wife hadn't paid. He was shown a promissory note with his and his wife's signatures. Henderson had never seen it and said his signature had been forged. Henderson later said that his wife had agreed to pay off the debt over the next twelve months, made only one payment, and then defaulted. Within a week Access Graphics fired Sandra Henderson when it was discovered that she had altered Henderson Technology's account at Access. Henderson said that his wife tried to delete the balance that was owed. The company that bonded Access Graphics employees paid the firm $100,000, leaving a balance of about $40,000 to be paid. The Hendersons made one payment of $4,000 before they divorced in 1995. In family court, their outstanding obligation of $36,000 was divided into two notes for $18,000 each. By then, Henderson believed that John Ramsey was furious at him and his ex-wife.”
What makes this interesting in regards to “S.B.T.C.” and the numbers 1 and 8 is that the initials could have stood for “Sandra Bud Telecommunications” since they sold telecommunications equipment from the business that they owned. And of course, they each owed $18,000 to Access Graphics. So I think it is likely that the initials and numbers were carefully selected well in advance by John Ramsey while planning this murder. (Contd)
Gumshoe
Contd:
ReplyDeleteThe movie references in the ransom note are also intriguing, particularly from the film, “Ruthless People”. The description of the movie is as follows from IMDb: “A couple, cheated by a vile businessman, kidnap his wife in retaliation, without knowing that their enemy is delighted they did.”
Also worth noting is that the couple, played by Judge Reinhold and Helen Slater, kidnapped the wife and held her captive in the basement of their home. Slater’s character was named “Sandy” which could have been short for Sandra. Danny Devito, who played the role of the rich businessman was named “Sam” and his wife, played by Bette Midler, was named “Barbara”. Another “SB” connection.The film was released in 1986 and likely was shown quite often on television in 1996 since it would have been the 10th anniversary. Here is the ransom call taken from the script of the film:
“Mister Stone. Listen very carefully. We have kidnapped your wife. We have no qualms about killing and will do so at the slightest provocation. Do you understand? I have no patience for stupid questions, Mister Stone, and I don’t like repeating myself. Do you understand? You are to obtain a new, black, American Tourister briefcase. Model number eight-one-o-four. Do you understand? In it you will place five hundred thousand dollars in unmarked, non-sequentially numbered one-hundred dollars bills. Do you understand? Monday morning, at eleven A.M., you will proceed, with case in hand, to Hope Street Plaza and wait for a phone to ring. You will receive further instructions then. Do you understand? You will be watched at all phases of execution. If anyone is with you, or if any action is not carried out to our complete satisfaction, it will be considered an infraction of the rules, and your wife will be killed. Do you understand? If you notify the police, your wife will be killed. If you notify the media, she will be killed. If you deviate from our instructions in any way whatsoever, she will be killed. Do you understand?”
Eerily similar. There are other films quoted as most of you already know (Dirty Harry, Speed, Ransom) but there was also a Star Trek film that had been released in November of 1996 called “Star Trek: First Contact” that used the word “faction” on more than one occasion:
Lily Sloane: Who are you?!
Picard: My name is Jean-Luc Picard.
Lily Sloane: No, who are you with, what faction?!
Picard: I'm not with the Eastern Coalition.
Picard: There's a new faction that wants to prevent your launch tomorrow.
I apologize for the length of my post but I just wanted to drive home the point that yes I agree with Doc that John wanted investigators to think there was an intruder but also I think there are too many coincidences with the ambiguous initials and numbers relating to former employees and films which could only suggest that this crime was VERY well planned.
Gumshoe
The similarities in the two ransom notes are amazing. John could have used it for his sample note. Though its obvious to me that the murder was planned, John could have used this as a sample for what he wrote.
DeleteI agree with you that this was very well planned, and that almost every line of that RN served a purpose for JR, but the SBTC stuff is way too Byzantine for my simple taste. I get what you're saying, though, and I admire the way your mind works and the amount of thought you put into this.
ReplyDeleteCC
Thank you. I also appreciate your opinion on this case as well as everyone else's. I feel like the more people that participate in this blog the more understanding and awareness this case will have until hopefully one day it will be reopened.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the initials and numbers may or may not be significant and hold very little water when it comes to the cold hard facts of the case but I find it encouraging that it supplements the JDI theory and may help us understand why the murder unfolded the way it did.
Gumshoe
Wow Gumshoe that was very interesting. The similarities between the two ransom notes is very chilling. I guess I've been having a harder time lately even imagining Patsy writing the note through her hysteria. Someone calm and with a steady hand wrote that note most likely in advance or someone not worried about being interrupted. -SM
ReplyDeleteYes I just think there are too many coincidences in regards to the initials and numbers from the ransom note. The kidnappers in the film were not only a couple but also so similar with Sandra and Bud when it came to motive. I think it is more than conceivable that John would have planted well-thought-out clues for police to suspect the Hendersons since they had stolen money from Access Graphics, leaving John furious with them. John, however, was intelligent enough to pick initials and numbers that could also point to other people like Jeff Merrick. What if Sandra and Bud had rock-solid alibis on the night of the murder? Such straightforward clues could backfire on John. He had to keep the clues ambiguous to cast suspicion away from himself. Merrick amazingly was also connected with the sum of $118,000 as explained by Lou Smit while interviewing John Ramsey:
ReplyDelete12 JOHN RAMSEY: See, when he first demanded
13 what he wanted, to leave without making a fuss, I
14 think it was $250,000. And I forget the logic, but
15 if you took that number and subtracted what he
16 actually got left, a hundrerdish thousand about.
17 LOU SMIT: That's what I was wondering about,
18 because it could have been 118 that you owed him
19 or something. And he just figured that.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember exactly.
21 I remember coming up with around a hundred.
22 (INAUDIBLE) but I don't remember any kind of 118.
23 We gave him the severance. We paid for outsource
24 or outplacement counseling. There were a number of
25 things that we did in that up to the $250,000.
I find it interesting that John plays dumb about specific numbers: "I remember coming up with around a hundred". That's exactly what I'd expect a guilty person to say.
The ransom note also mentioned two gentlemen watching over JonBenet and they didn't particularly like John. This looks like another connection to Merrick and two other disgruntled former employees. Also, I can't imagine John hastily killing his daughter on the spur of the moment and then being able to mathematically tie in Merrick to that number as he frantically devised a plan that included a very long ransom note.
There is simply no other person who would have needed to use the strange sum of $118,000 except for John Ramsey. Why would anyone use a ransom figure that could be tied to them? The Hendersons or Merrick would not even attempt such a kidnapping stunt being intelligent enough to understand they would never get away with it. That sum could only have come from one person. This should have been blatantly obvious and a dead giveaway to law enforcement while determining the identity of the killer.
Gumshoe
It is a strange sum, and it's always plagued me - why not just an even hundred? I like this possible explanation much better than the tie-in to his bonus, which seems too obvious.
ReplyDeleteCC
Either way the important thing about it is it's an amount John could part with without feeling any pain unlike $1million or so. mb
ReplyDeletebb wondered what I thought about the Steven Avery case, and some others here may also be following it. Thanks to bb's prodding, I started watching the Netflix documentary two days ago and have been binging on it since. I think I have three more episodes to go. My reaction ranges from fascination to boredom, especially when we hear the same things out of the same mouths over and over.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction so far:
1. I don't think much of Mr. Avery. Judging from his history, including an episode where he sadistically tortured his own cat, and ran a woman off the road at gunpoint, I have little sympathy for him as an innocent victim -- though technically that might the case, at least as far as his first incarceration is concerned -- though I'm not 100% sure on that one either. If it's possible the police planted DNA in the second case, then why couldn't someone have planted those hairs in the first? Interesting that the details of the first case are not being discussed at all in the media, apparently.
2. What bothers me most is the documentary itself, which is clearly biased, reminding me of the biased "reporting" in Michael Tracy's "documentary" on the Ramsey case, shamelessly presented as a whitewash. Also I have little respect for Avery's lawyers. The older one especially reminds me too much of Joe McCarthy's lawyer, Roy Cohn, during the "Commie" witch hunts of the 50's, who also specialized in character assassination, guilt by association, etc.
3. For me the ambiguity ended when the blood sample was tested and showed no sign of the additive present in the notorious vial with the hole in the lid. The lawyers contested that finding, of course, but there are only so many red herrings you can toss out there before your credibility is shredded. If that's Avery's blood in the victim's vehicle and it wasn't planted, then he's guilty, no question. And when we add that to all the other evidence and the circumstances, including the calls he made to the victim prior to the attack, then sorry, but I don't see any room for reasonable doubt.
I'll watch the rest with an open mind, but I doubt I'll learn anything that's going to change my mind. It amazes me how easily the public is swayed by media presentations such as this. So many people in this country are ready to see a "government conspiracy" everywhere they look.
Bottom line: Avery's "defense" is the same as the defense of a great many other criminals caught red handed: "It was a setup, I'm being framed. The system is dishonest. They are all against me." Yeah, sure.
Two interesting tidbits I found online after doing my own binging: Avery's DNA was under the hood latch of the victim's car; and the victim called her employer at 2:27 to say she was on her way to Avery's. They made note of it because she had complained of his harassing her on her two prior visits.
ReplyDeleteBiased doesn't begin to describe this program.
CC
Doc critiqued the defense, so here's my two cents on the prosecutors: that pre-trial press conference was way, way out of line.
ReplyDeleteCC
Doc sums it up for me. The 1st case is obviously supressed ---robert
ReplyDeleteGreat blog, and the most coherent theory I've read. However I'm struggling to find an explanation of the bizarre content of the note. If it was ultimately meant to convince the police (even if it was only meant to be seen later, it was meant to be seen at some point), why the hell is it so rambling and weird? What was JR up to? Of course That points more clearly to a loony tune intruder than any member of the family, which drags us back into the rabbit hole again. If not for that one element, I would favour your theory for sure though.
ReplyDeleteIf you read it carefully you'll see that it's actually very well organized, with a clear beginning, two middle sections, and a concluding paragraph. It starts with the "kidnappers" introducing themselves, and informing John that they have his daughter.
DeleteNext section is the ransom demand and the instructions for raising the cash.
That's followed by a series of warnings as to what will happen if the police are contacted or if John alerts the bank authorities, marks the bills, etc.
And it ends with a personal message where John is addressed by name, making clear that everything is up to him.
The only thing that could be considered rambling are all the warnings, but that's understandable when we realize that these warnings are intended to scare Patsy to death, so she won't call the police.
Doc, I've got two questions for you.
ReplyDelete1. Did either of the officers report a broken window or a suitcase underneath it when they inspected the basement soon after arriving on the morning of the 26th?
2. Upon his immediate return from searching the basement that morning, did Fleet White notify anyone that he discovered a broken window?
No to both.
ReplyDeleteA more accurate answer would be: we don't know. It's easy to assume that every detail of what happened that morning has been reported to the public, but that seems unlikely. We don't even know the sequence of events: when Fleet was down there, when the police were down there, when John was down there.
DeleteFleet was in the basement searching for JonBenet, so he might easily have overlooked the broken window and suitcase. You'd think the policeman would have noticed the broken window and reported it -- but the absence of broken glass on the floor may have led him to assume it had been already broken prior to the previous night.
I believe John had set things up so that his young son, who was reported to have played doctor with his sister, would always be J's excuse if JonBenet's molestation ever was found out. Patsy may have discovered 'something' in December. Just my opinion.
ReplyDelete-Joe
I've read every book and the transcripts of LE interviews, never seen a reference to JonBenet and Burke playing doctor. Where did you find that?
ReplyDeleteThis is not information which is in the public domain in interviews or books. Colorado has laws protecting children under 10 in connection with sexual behavior or a crime. It was spoken about long ago by former friends of the R family, also allegedly described once or twice by the housekeeper. I recognize this is hearsay, but proof from a legal authority won’t be found.
ReplyDeleteMy post was not intended to bring any doubt on Doc’s theory.
What? You're saying Burke did something with JonBenet that came to the attention of authorities? I think one of the former friends would have leaked that sometime in the past 20 years, don't believe that for a minute. A housekeeper caught Burke peeing in the backyard with a friend of his and told Patsy but that was it.
ReplyDeleteNo, you misunderstand. I am not saying this came to the attention of the authorities. I do not believe anything came to the attention of anyone in CPS. However, it may have been brought up at the grand jury proceedings. No one would know. If you review who was interviewed last at the grand jury (gj) - B was interviewed in the late spring of '99. The gj also interviewed B's third grade teacher and the mother of B's best friend. It's only what you want to think about this. Personally, I believe they did look at B, for what I don't know.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a former friend leaking something, well, again, it was mentioned in forums from long ago that a couple of them did leak something, but this is not in the public domain. Keep in mind that the Rs sued several media who mentioned B's possible involvement. I'm not challenging what you want to believe, just furnishing some information as I have read and understood.
One last point. There is evidence in books written by people who study incest, that there can be more than one molester in a family. I've no idea if that applies to this family. All I know is that the detectives involved with the case absolutely confirm there was prior sexual contact.
Can't get much more public than an internet forum, so I would say if something was leaked it was definitely in the public domain at one time.The Ramseys sued tabloids that splashed Burke's photo on the front and speculated about his involvement. Burke was in third grade when his sister was killed. Not unusual for grand jury to subpoena teacher and mother of friend to appear in case he told them something about night of murder.
ReplyDeleteNot true that detectives Thomas, Kolar, Beckner, Smit the only ones who have written or spoken about case confirmed "prior sexual contact:. Not one of them did, ever.
Well, I've certainly attempted to be very respectful with you. Who knows what was said at the gj. I only referenced that I believe they may have looked at B. Interpret the appearance of the teacher and mother of friend any way you want. For all any of us know, perhaps those interviews helped them to confirm the way they voted the True Bills.
ReplyDeleteRead the Reddit interviews of Kolar and Beckner. They both confirm 'prior sexual contact'. It is also stated by Thomas in his book, in quoting the experts who believed that there had been prior intrusive contact, and I believe he may term it 'corporal abuse.' (Keep in mind he was certain Patsy was involved in those injuries.)
I do accept the statements on the part of Kolar and Beckner in the Reddit interviews.
As far as Internet forums being in the public domain, yes they are, but they are anonymous and not confirmed by any jury whether the statements are true or not. My response was to the fact that you've read the interviews and all the books. You asked where I had heard this information and I respectfully replied. And if you review Haney's interview with Patsy in '98, he specifically tells her that the reports show prior sexual contact.
If you are here to dispute any information you don't agree with, then you're talking to the wrong person. I no longer have time to present information to you.
You’d be correct that some statements about B are in the public domain if they have appeared on forums from a decade or more past, though it’s doubtful everyone has read them. You asked me where I had heard that former friends had leaked this information, and I respectfully replied. My usage of the word ‘public’ was not appropriate.
ReplyDeleteWho knows what information B and his 3rd grade teacher and the mother of his friend gave the gj. Neither of us know, so both of our opinions would be valid. Whatever information they gave to the gj, it may have assisted them in reaching the True Bills which was the outcome of the gj.
As far as no one ever stating there was prior sexual contact, if you have read the interviews from ’98, you would know that Haney definitely is asking Patsy if she knows that there was evidence of prior sexual contact. He references the reports from experts in their files.
Also, if you’ve reviewed the Reddit interviews from 2015, you’ll know that both Kolar and Beckner state there was “prior sexual contact.”
I no longer have time to present information to you. Before you post your vehement disagreement about prior sexual contact, take time to review the Reddit interviews and the ’98 Patsy interview. Wish you well.
Dr G, the person who killed JBR. It sound like pedophiles "build up" with regards to their actions. Likley, the first symptom of their problem will not be a murder, and it wont be their last. Thats why ive always believed it was some sort of unbelieveable accidnet. A sex crime would not stop after one, right?
ReplyDelete