From time to time I see new comments appearing under old blog posts, which is not a good idea because those comments can very easily get lost and ignored. If you have a comment on any aspect of the case, please place it here, or under one of the more active recent posts. Otherwise most reading here will probably never see it.
Also: Very often I see comments by newcomers pertaining to issues that have already been addressed, either on a blog post or in other comments, and I don't always have the time or patience to respond yet again to these same issues. If you are fairly new and have a question about a particular aspect of this case, please use the search mechanism first, as the answer may already have been posted here. Thanks.
Doc, to me it seems possible that one or more of the officers who inspected the Ramsey house were involved in the murder. The ransom note mentioned that the kidnappers were familiar with law enforcement countermeasures. The movie, "Ransom" was playing at theatres. In the film, the ring leader was a cop. It's possible that a Boulder police officer could have seen this film and tried to copy cat it. What do you think? - WF
ReplyDeleteA long long list of possible suspects has been offered by various sleuths, and yes, it's been suggested that a police officer could have done it and then manipulated the evidence to point elsewhere. It's not a bad theory but as I've argued many times, ALL intruder theories fail when tested on the basis of the facts. If you reread the first two posts on this blog you'll learn why.
DeleteAnonymousFebruary 26, 2016 at 9:27 PM
DeleteJohn Sr. used the paint brush to try to foil the prior sexual abuse. He killed her because the school was onto the fact that someone was abusing this child. He killed her when he figured out that she would eventually tell on him. The rest of everything else that happened was just Senior John Ramsey trying to make it look like everyone else killed her...the things from John Jr. The suitcase at the broken window. I think he found her urine soaked, in her bed, as her parents had often found her, and it was a chance for him to possibly even make it look like his wife snapped. Here the wife has this perfect child...the perfect projection of herself, as a performer...a model...and she can't get her to stop wetting the bed. John, knew how much this angered Patsy Ramsey. He pointed it at Patsy that way...he also used Patsy's paintbrush...which pointed it at Patsy. Patsy woke up, found the ransom note, called 911, after everything else was done...I imagine John spent the rest of the night convincing Patsy that she would go down too/die if she didn't play along...after all, she was the strict mother who wanted the child to win and compete so much. The mother adored the child...a perfect projection of what she wished she would have been. She wouldn't have killed the child that was everything she had dreamed of. Burke was looked at as possibly the jealous sibling...and John new that so they had him shipped off which also brought on suspicion. Imagine being Patsy. She had just lost her "pride and joy"...JonBenet. Then Burke was shipped away. Then John Sr. was threatening her life too. Losing children wasn't something new to John because he had already lost a daughter in a previous marriage. He knew he could survive losing a child because he already HAD...but he couldn't handle being accused of sexually abusing his daughter. He would have lost everything. His fortune, his family...his name. His freedom. At least with this murder, he had a chance of getting away...and he did. His money kept his freedom. I bet he told Patsy that he would kill her too and nobody would believe her...just like nobody believed he killed JonBenet. She seemed distant and uncaring about her daughters death because she was in shock and feared that she too might be killed. People can perform a beautiful show when their life is at stake. I'm not done researching...but I can almost hear John Ramsey trying to reason with JonBenet, in my intuitive mind...he probably tried to convince her that it was ok about him having sex with her...but the nurses, at school, showed her that it wasn't right when they made a fuss about it...he couldn't reverse it then. He couldn't make it seem ok. Both parents groomed this child...the mother groomed her to follow in her own footsteps...the father groomed her to keep her mouth shut while he had his way with her. Like I said, I am not done researching...I will be back with more as God shows it to me...doesn't anyone find it odd that John Ramsey is with someone who makes clothing/costumes? He is the one infatuated with the whole performing/glamour idea...that's why he kept saying to the child "focus on the talent"...he was embarrassed of his feelings for admiring JonBenet's beauty. He has been keeping up with people's ideas of "who done it" and doing things all a long to throw people off...like the tied up Barbies in the front yard...everything he does is counteracting "the point of view" off of himself. He will mess up though. God doesn't allow this type of person to get by forever...Personally, I hope he hangs himself and they bury him far, far away from his first daughter that was killed, Patsy, and Jonbenet. He truly should be burned slowly, at the stake, but we are much to passive on barbaric people. Everyone that has killed, and allowed the killers to get away with murder, for money, are going to face the hardest wrath of God. It is written. I am signing this : I only work for Jesus Christ
P.S. I am terrified that John Ramsey is married to a woman who has children and grandchildren and he has access to all types of pageant girls because she designs clothes/costumes. : I only for Jesus
DeleteYou and God got it wrong because the school ddid not know about any abuse and Patsy did not seem distant and uncaring about her daughter's death she seemed out of her mind with grief and heartbreak.
DeleteYou get credit for originality, WF. I've certainly never heard that one before.
ReplyDeleteDoc,
ReplyDeleteI just finished Kolar's book and he included something very important that I haven't seen in your blog anywhere. I know you read the book too, and I don't know if I'm confusing details, but according to the book, the chair in front of the train room was placed there AFTER Fleet White inspected the dark room. Meaning that John had to have done this. The biggest red flag IMO, is that John thought the intruder was still in the house after the murder, and hours after investigators did four sweeps of the basement. I feel like this detail alone proves John's guilt. How could investigators buy all the silly nonsense John said in interviews and interrogations? The fact that they believed his unbelievable window break-in should have been enough to cast suspicion his way. I don't understand how investigators could be so incompetent.
I must admit that the whole issue of the chair in the basement puzzles me. I've never been able to get a handle on it because it just doesn't make sense. Unless I'm missing something. Perhaps you're right that it implicates John, but I'm not sure what his motive would have been in placing it there.
DeleteI do agree that the investigators were incompetent when evaluating John's story about his window break-in. As I see it, he was telling them what they wanted to hear, because they were short-sighted and too unimaginative to realize that this was an alibi.
I'm basing this off of nothing but a guess. Maybe by putting the chair there and locking the door investigators would realize an intruder couldn't have been in there, and wouldn't search it. John was obviously pretty worried about the story of the window, and didn't know if he properly unstaged the window so he was hoping he could fix everything when investigators left. But even that has holes in it because they would search the whole house anyway. How was this not suspicious to investigators? Especially when you factor in Fleet White's testimony.
DeleteI know you said the chair puzzles you, but what's your guess as to why John put it there, and locked the door?
First of all, the door was not locked. Secondly, there was never a chair blocking the door. This is a classic yarn that the Ramsey lawyers spun after they carefully reviewed the police reports that the DA's office so inexplicably provided them. Why wasn't this fairy tale shared on the day of the murder or even during the first interview in April of 1997? It was not until June of 1998 that John Ramsey gave birth to this carefully crafted ruse. The chair, of course, was introduced into this investigation in a desperate attempt to invent either an intruder or cast suspicion towards Fleet White. By the time June of 1998 came around, the Whites and Ramseys were in the midst of an escalated finger pointing duel. I can imagine that at this juncture, the Ramseys had no qualms about leaving a breadcrumb trail that lead to the Whites. The goal was to keep Patsy out of prison even if it was at the expense of an innocent friend.
ReplyDeleteHercule
How does a chair outside the train room constitute a "carefully crafted ruse", when in the next setence JR says you could move it aside and walk right in? And how does it point to Fleet White or indicate an intruder?
ReplyDeleteCC
CC, I never said the chair made it impossible to enter the room. The mere presence of the chair suggested that someone must have put it there after Fleet White inspected the basement. Couple that story with Fleet's description of the window differing from John's account. . . Abracadabra! We have a murderer who must have come from outside the family. This killer must have either hidden in the basement and slipped away like a phantom through the window or out the open butler door (another lawyer concoction) or was in plain sight to begin with; a la Fleet White.
ReplyDeleteHercule
But John admitted to having been in the basement before Fleet, when he closed the window. He would have moved the chair and boxes then in order to get in. Fleet didn't mention the chair at all, iirc.
ReplyDeleteI don't see that mentioning it to LE serves much purpose at all, unless it was a rather feeble attempt to suggest it and the suitcase, both out of place according to John, implied a stranger had been in the basement. Hardly a "carefully crafted ruse".
CC
I've been keeping up with Jonbenet Rasmey's case since I was 6years old and it still puzzles me that after all these years they don't have the killer of this beautiful little girl behind bars or on the death penalty or even caught. My own opinion on this case is that fingers point in the direction of the mother a lot, especially with the ransom note. Maybe she had help from a male cop staging this murder because obviously the cops did a very poor job in the first place by letting people walk all over evidence. I believe if they didn't have something to do with it, they would have done it right in the first place. No disrespect to anybody but I feel as if maybe the mother was a little jealous of her little girl getting all the attention and that might have caused her to do something she really didn't mean to do out of anger and jealousy. After she realized what she did she needed help making the murder look like a kidnapping or sextual assault case which is we're the cop comes into place. Just my opinion but What do you think?
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is all over this blog. You need to read here some more, especially the first three posts.
Delete"But John admitted to having been in the basement before Fleet, when he closed the window."
ReplyDeleteJohn admitted nothing. Do not forget that when Fleet analyzed the window it was closed and NOT latched. John's account described the window as opened approximately an eighth of an inch before he closed and latched it.
Hercule
Sure he did. He admitted to bothThomas and Smit in separate interviews that he'd been in the basement between 7-10, and had closed the window.
ReplyDeleteCC
Kolar estimated White's trip to the basement occurring between 7:30 and 7:45 which is well within range of John's time frame, and not before. Also, John not only closed the window but latched it as well. The window was closed but unlatched when Fleet observed it.
DeleteHercule
Doc would know better than I, but I seem to remember John suggesting Fleet as a suspect after their set-to at the funeral in Atlanta. I don't see the chair or the window as breadcrumbs leading somehow to Fleet, but whatever.
ReplyDeleteCC
The idea was to make everyone look suspicious. When the Whites became aggressive in Atlanta, it forced the Ramseys' hand. Since the Whites refused to support them, the Ramsey lawyers knew it was a golden opportunity to cast more suspicion on Fleet. All they needed were the police reports to concoct an intruder/Fleet scenario.
DeleteHercule
The Whites were declared "not suspects" in a Koby press release dated 4/16/97. The DA gave Ramsey attorneys copies of police reports on 4/21/97, and the Ramseys were interviewed for the first time on 4/30/97. PMPT
ReplyDeleteCC
Yes, and the chair story was not introduced until June of 1998 most likely because the priority for the Ramsey lawyers in the first interview with police was getting their stories synchronized. The importance of how the Ramseys should answer each question (which was often vague at best just as their lawyers had coached them) trumped any other agenda. Time was short and their answers had to harmonize. Fourteen months later, the simple, yet brilliant insertion of the chair blocking the train room door all of a sudden took precedence.
ReplyDeleteHercule
I'm still not getting it. What about the chair leads to Fleet White, particularly as he'd been publicly cleared of any suspicion? What makes the chair such a brilliant coup?
ReplyDeleteCC
CC
Hunter did not want to clear the Whites due to Fleet's aggressive behavior following JonBenet's murder. He instructed Koby to announce that they were not suspects instead of clearing them, which Fleet did not like at all. The only reason that Koby said anything about the Whites not being suspects was because they did not want to lose their most important key witnesses.
ReplyDeleteThe chair is connected to Fleet White because, according to Fleet's account, there was no chair blocking the train room door. By inserting the chair into the investigation in June of 1998, in which John had to move the chair AFTER Fleet had been down there suggests that either Fleet or an intruder placed it there - thus creating more reasonable doubt in favor of the Ramseys.
Hercule
Hercule,
ReplyDeleteYou've been making a lot of excellent points. Who do you think killed JBR? What do you make of the DNA evidence that cleared the Ramsey's?
John blamed any and every one, not just White. Three or four Access Graphics employees, the housekeeper, a house painter, a gay guy who made gingerbread houses, Bill McReynolds, Chris Wolf, Karr. Anybody but him.
ReplyDeleteThe chair is just a chair and one of the many unexplained loose ends in the case and claiming it was a part of some elaborate plan doesn't get us any closer to whodunnit and didn't make the cops suspect White.
There's no proof if John was in the basement before or after FW, and in first interview he just says closed the window in second they ask him did he latch it and he just says pretty sure. I agree it does not matter to case and if it was a John plan it was not a very good plan because it did not point to intruder or anybody else.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that the chair story has always puzzled me because, first, it doesn't seem to make any sense, and second, I can't see how it helps the intruder theory or any other theory. All we know for sure is that John was the only one who reported encountering this chair, thus it can't be taken seriously as evidence. Who knows what was on his mind in reporting it, but I don't see any reason to accept it as a fact.
DeleteHercule does have a point, however, in associating it with Fleet, because there IS a question as to which of them was down there first, after the police arrived, and maybe John concocted that story in order to imply that Fleet was lying. That does make some sense, I suppose.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you do a search on "panties," "glass" and "notepad" you should find the answers you seek. And yes, LE did search the house very carefully looking for evidence but John would have had ample opportunity to get rid of anything incriminating.
Delete"Who do you think killed JBR?"
ReplyDeleteBasically, by examining the facts, behavioral clues, and evidence, I deduced that Patsy Ramsey, acting alone, was responsible for JonBenet's death.
One could make the argument that Patsy planned this murder weeks in advance based on the strong evidence that she purchased the duct tape and nylon cord from McGuckin's on December 2. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, although the evidence leans more to an "accident leading to murder" scenario.
I believe there was an accident involving a head injury, most likely related to JonBenet soiling herself and Patsy's aggressive attempt to clean her in the bathtub. Not realizing, initially, the severity of the injury, Patsy convinced herself that JonBenet was simply "knocked out" and calling 911 would be premature thus subjecting her to the embarrassment and subsequent ridicule from family, friends, or acquaintances from the Boulder community.
Patsy was proud of the glamorous and flawless reputation she had worked so hard to create. She could not accept the responsibility of such a debilitating mistake nor could she face her peers, who would be armed with that knowledge. What would Patsy's mother, Nedra, think of her perfect daughter now? The idea that Patsy had to be perfect at everything was instilled in her by Nedra from an early age. The stress that this produced had to have been agonizing. Patsy's mind was in a constant state of having to please her mother and not necessarily herself.
In contrast, JonBenet was a free spirited girl that often challenged Patsy's authority. Because JonBenet did not adhere as Patsy did for Nedra, her behavior not only puzzled Patsy, but was downright frustrating. A sample of recurring thoughts from Patsy would have been, "Why doesn't JonBenet show me the same respect I showed my mother? What makes her more special than me?" Over time, this endless source of frustration would take its toll on Patsy. Many people who believe Patsy was the murder often prescribe to the theory that she jealous of JonBenet because of the attention she was getting from her accomplishments. I instead believe it to be more likely that Patsy was jealous of JonBenet's willingness and courage to express her own beliefs and be her own person.
The other dynamic that propelled Patsy's fatal decision was the refusal to admit to John that she was the reason why he lost yet another daughter. When JonBenet's pulse became undetectable, a desperate cover-up ensued.
Much has been made on this blog about Patsy coming across as more upset about JonBenet's death than John. Of course she would be. She made the devastating decision of not seeking medical attention for JonBenet, instead opting to cover for herself to keep her image intact. It was a decision that I'm sure she immensely regretted. I think Patsy was disappointed with herself, but most likely put a lot of the blame on her mother's upbringing. This would alleviate her guilt somewhat, as did the prescribed medications.
"What do you make of the DNA evidence that cleared the Ramsey's?"
In my opinion, like many others, this is not a DNA case. The strands found under JonBenet's fingernails were most likely the result of contamination from the nail clippers used at the autopsy. The other sources could have just as easily been transferred from the packaging plant that housed the panties. If this DNA had belonged to the killer, logic suggests there would have been a lot more of it found on JonBenet and inside the house.
Hercule
Anybody believes that, I got a bridge I want to sell you.
ReplyDeleteSo Hercule, if my six year old daughter got hurt in the bathtub -- let's say she was struggling with me and bonked her head on the faucet, passed out with amazingly no blood drawn in spite of her skull being split from end to end by a faucet -- I think that the last thing on my mind would be "oh my goodness, people are going to find out about this!" Rather, I would a) call to my husband who would come to help to revive her, b) assume he and I would jointly agree we needed an ambulance, c) explain to the medical attendants that she was thrashing about because she didn't want to be washed off and she bonked her head, d) not discuss this incident with family or friends assuming JBR got proper medical attention, other than to say she had an accident in the tub and bonked her head, e) not assume that the whole city of Boulder would know about the accident unless I chose to publicize it. Now, if I paused at all before seeking any kind of help, and she lost her pulse, I would have freaked out and called 911 myself. Regardless of my standing in my community, I would trust that my friends and family know that I love my daughter very, very much and would never intentionally hurt her. Not only that, my friends and family would already know that my child is precocious, like many 6 year olds can be. As far as your belief that JBR was already so rebellious that it was causing Patsy psychological angst - I think that's baloney. My daughter started having opinions about what to wear at age 5. She was quite headstrong and sometimes I had to make her dress properly for school or church instead of wearing some of the getups she chose. But she was a little girl! It was sometimes frustrating but just part of parenting, same as getting through the terrible two's. It is not something that makes a mom think "oh, I'm going to be a social pariah, going to disappoint my mother...blah blah blah if she's precocious. Now maybe during the teen years, when a daughter gets rebellious, drinks, stays out, and does really defiant things, will a parent start to think that they will be judged by others for being a bad parent...but at age 6? Sorry Hercule, this theory of yours is just psychobabble. John, on the other hand, would definitely be a social outcast, and likely go to jail, for molesting his tiny little girl. And we know that there were signs that JBR had been sexually molested. Something you consistently choose to ignore or may be you pass off as Patsy having wiped her too hard. -LE
ReplyDeleteYou, like many others, are making the mistake of comparing your rationale with Patsy Ramsey's. You have no idea what you would do if you had been Patsy. No one does. You also forget that if JonBenet had been revived she could have easily told everyone how the incident transpired, which would have been a huge blemish on Patsy's reputation. I am not interested in what you would do or how you would have handled the situation. It is of no consequence nor does it have any bearing on this case. It is clear to me that Patsy Ramsey was psychologically damaged and as a result, made a terrible decision that she later agonized over when she regained her composure.
ReplyDeleteHercule
You say that no one knows what Patsy would have done. Then how do you know? You have no evidence that she "psychologically damaged" whatever that means. You don't know what decisions she may or may not have been faced with. Why do you think you have a special understanding of her psyche? And with that special ability, what do you see in John's psyche? Why won't you address the molestation evidence? You can dismiss me if you want, Hercule. I would be a normal type of juror, and I would not buy such a ridiculous case about Patsy if presented to me -- unless there was evidence to support it. You have none. Strangely, you choose to ignore the evidence as it relates to John and his actions and behavior. I've given up trying to relate to you, to be honest. I want to reply because the person above, Amek, asked you what you thought happened. So for Amek's benefit, your case is fantasy because the truth is, you cannot convict someone because you "think" they are some kind of person because their mother put them in pageants, and that makes them damaged, unable to raise a child without struggle, and even capable of covering up a death.
DeleteOne more thing. JonBenet could have told a doctor that mommy bonked her over the head, assuming she remembered it happening that way. But Hercule thinks this was some sort of accident and even a 6 year old is not likely to concoct a story about being hit if the event was really an accident. Hercule can't make up his mind. Patsy and JBR were involved in a an innocent accident, or JBR was the victim of a disturbed, selfish mother who would be rough with her child and would rather have her child die than be humiliated or shamed in some way. Regardless, if JBR had gone to the hospital, later claimed that mommy hurt her, there would have been an investigation, the issue with bedwetting would have been explained, and given the Ramsey's standing in the community and no further evidence of child abuse, at worst Patsy would have been forced to get some parent counseling. These things are private and none of their family and friends would necessarily know about it. -LE
DeleteHercule ~ How was Patsy damaged? Why do people think a 39 year old mother was jealous of her 6 year old daughter?
Deletewhat exact facts do you have? Not attacking want details.
Why would PR need a three page ransom note chock full of details that only served JR's purposes? Why not just "We've got your kid. We want $1M. Don't call the cops or else"? Why not simply block print it in all caps?
ReplyDeleteYour theory is no more logical or sensible of the facts this time around.
CC
Thanks so much for the sensible responses to Hercule's fanciful concoctions, not so much a theory as a desperate attempt to find some reason to pin the tail on everyone's favorite donkey, Patsy Ramsey. What's important to remember is that Hercule's theory, as zany as it might seem here, is essentially no different from convictions dearly held by the great majority following this case. Very depressing to see how so many could get so far off the track once the only logical suspect was "ruled out."
ReplyDeleteDoc, I say this tongue in cheek -- people love to blame the woman when it comes down to picking between a woman and a man; just ask Eve, ha ha! Women and their emotions...good grief!
DeleteWell, this is why I've had such success with women. I always blame myself. :-)
DeleteDoc,
DeleteI hope you use this case and all its details and subtleties as a pickup line lmao
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen with this case if the touch DNA evidence came across a match in a database to someone who was working in a factory where the panties were manufactured? Would the case reopen?
ReplyDeleteExcellent question. Actually that could very well be the source. The "touch" DNA could have gotten onto her longjohns when JonBenet herself touched them after touching her panties. That could explain why it was found in three different places.
DeleteIf that's the case it's really unlikely that a match will ever be found. And if one is, I doubt if it would make a difference since no one in a position to prosecute would have the guts to reopen such a controversial case with nothing more than a DNA match leading nowhere.
I guess I'm unknowledgable about touch DNA transfer. The sample found on JonBenet was microscopic. How could she transfer it to three different places? I could see if it were blood, or a sample with a high profile mark, but I don't see how this is possible.
DeleteI dont believe I've seen this brought up on your blog but why were the Ramsey's acquitted by DNA evidence? The media and sources always bring up the unknown male DNA, but never mention that there were six profiles found. Not to mention that the male sample was so small it had to be amplified considerably. There would be more evidence of this "unknown" person if there actually was an intruder. If this touch DNA wasn't on JonBenet, and John picked another pair without any samples on them, I feel like investigators would take the inside job more seriously. John must have been floored by his luck. Especially that inconsequential DNA ruled him out. I bet he never saw that coming.
Please do a search on "DNA" in this blog. I've done a fair amount of research on this issue and reported on it at length.
DeleteThe initial finding of unsourced DNA was found mixed with JBR's DNA in a blood stain on her panties. What it tells us is that her panties must originally have contained this DNA, but it tells us nothing about how much there was originally or where it came from or how old it was. If it came from the factory where the panties were manufactured, then it could easily have been transferred to JBR's fingers, and from there to her longjohn's, as she pulled them up from both sides.
The opposite is also possible. It could have gotten onto her hands in any number of ways, for example from petting a dog or handling a water fountain at school. And once it was on her hands it could have been transferred to her panties and longjohns both.
You are correct when you say that an intruder would have left much more of his DNA than those miniscule amounts that required very sensitive and complex methods to identify. The DA who exonerated the Ramseys on that basis was, imo, simply looking for an excuse to get them off her back, as she was probably being threatened with a lawsuit by their bulldog of a lawyer, Lin Wood.
You'll have to find another motive to ascribe to Mary Keenan, Doc; DAs are immune from liability unless they engage in malicious prosecution, which she did not.
DeleteCC
Zack F, the Ramseys were not acquitted by DNA evidence. They can't be acquitted if they're not charged, and they were never charged with any crime, nor will they ever be.
DeleteThe two matching pairs of touch DNA are notable though. The people obsessed with the Ramsey's guilt are deluded to think they are meaningless. But I've seen this before. They believe whatever is necessary for their pet theory to be true. If the conditions were different, the touch DNA would prove the case for them. For example go over to an Amanda Knox killer blog where touch DNA convinces everyone Amanda is guilty.
With all that being said, I think it's as likely John Ramsey did it as he didn't do it, and the crime theory here is the most sensible explanation for any Ramsey involvement (unlike say, the tabloid reading masses with idiotic theories about Burke or that Patsy tortured her daughter because she wet the bed ). But a good theory and evidence beyond reasonable doubt are extremely different things.
You should actually hope and intruder did it and they one day match the DNA to him. It is the only way this case will ever be solved.
Doc,
ReplyDeleteDid Fleet White accidentally dial 911 at the Ramsey's Christmas party on the 23rd or was that just a rumor? I read that he was trying to call his hospitalized mother, but the first 3 numbers could not have been mistaken for 911. If that's true, how could that have happened? If it was intentional, why would he have done that? To me, it would appear more likely that a child did it since it would have been easier for someone like Fleet to stop the child and take responsibility for making the call. - BA
Questions like that are part of what I have called "the morass." Once you start worrying about every miscellaneous thing that happened or might have happened then you are condemned. The entrance to the morass should be labeled with the same label placed on the gate of Dante's Hell: "Abandon hope ye who enter here."
DeleteApparently a call to 911 was made at that party. Why it was made isn't completely certain and it's connection, if any, with the case will probably never be determined. My strategy is to focus on the facts and keep an eye on the big picture without wasting my energy and my time on all the many inconclusive side issues.
Thanks for your reply, Doc. I found the source for that information:
ReplyDelete(DOI, pg 101)
"During the party Fleet White used our phone to make a series of calls, trying to get some medicine to his mother in a hospital in Aspen, Colorado. Apparently he dialed wrong and got 911. The police called back, but after checking with Fleet and the rest of the people in the house, Susan Stine informed them that the call was a mistake. The 911 call remains somewhat of a mystery." - BA
"The two matching pairs of touch DNA are notable though."
ReplyDeleteTo be accurate, there were actually three matches of the aforementioned DNA strands.
"The people obsessed with the Ramsey's guilt are deluded to think they are meaningless."
On the contrary, we find them to be very meaningful. Since this particular DNA was not found anywhere else in the house it only strengthens the RDI assertion. So yes, I find it meaningful. Furthermore, there were five other unknown trace DNA samples found on the body, cord and garrote that do not match each other. This all points to cross-contamination.
What I find to be most relevant is the fiber evidence. Fibers from Patsy Ramsey's jacket were found in her paint tray, ligature around JonBenet's neck, the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in, and the duct tape. Could the fibers have been transferred innocently? Of course. I would have been surprised if those fibers had not been found in one or two of those locations - But FOUR? That is simply too much to dismiss as innocent.
Then there were the dark blue fibers consistent with a cotton towel that were found by Dr. Meyer in JonBenet's vaginal area. He stated that it appeared she had been cleaned or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. I will borrow Doc's terminology for a moment - The "inference" here leads me to believe JonBenet was cleaned after having a bed soiling accident the night of the murder. Who was the one who came to JonBenet's aid on a routine basis whenever these accidents occurred? That's right. Patsy Ramsey.
Okay folks. We have evidence, lies, and inferences that all point to Patsy as the murderer. The "fanciful concoctions" as Doc likes to say, are based on physical evidence and facts that are connected to Patsy's profile as it relates to her historical background and past behaviors; hardly a concoction.
Hercule
Why are 4 locations too much? The killer must have touched all 4 locations after touching the body and JBR's clothing and hair. The killer could easily have transferred the fibers to all four locations from the body. The fiber evidence is completely meaningless as it could be from secondary, tertiary ....transfer.
DeleteUnless both JR and PR killed their daughter, and participated in most aspects of staging, there must have been some secondary transfer because we have red fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater/jacket (and also reasonably consistent with what PW wore) we have John's Israeli shirt fibers, and we have other unexplained fibers.
They all lived in the same house. 4 fibers could be innocent so could 40. There is no historical background or past behavior or profile on her that would make her a murderer. You saying you think so based on your deductions and no evidence does not cut it and saying it over and over does not make it truer.
ReplyDeleteJBR's little dog crapped all over the house. BR crapped all over the house and was fond of smearing it around. JBR had such accidents. This apparently had gone on for years without PR turning a hair, but for some reason you would have us believe that on that Christmas night PR loses it, knocks her little kid around in a fit of rage and kills her.
ReplyDeleteYou're full of night soil.
Let's be fair, this is largely Steve Thomas's theory of the case. You can disagree but do you want to say ST is full of night soil?
DeleteWe have 3 professional detectives who have 3 different case theories, none of which are JDI. Some one is wrong, perhaps all of them are wrong. Perhaps DocG is wrong. We don't really know.
Anonymous may not, but I will: Steve Thomas was full of shit. Passionate, dedicated, probably well meaning, but full of shit nonetheless. He completely bought into JR being ruled out by the handwriting "experts", knew it had to be an inside job, and fixed on PR because she was wearing the same clothes she'd worn the night before, and because she "peeked through her fingers" at someone the morning of the 26th; hardly an acute investigative conclusion.
DeleteCC
You overlooked the fiber from John's Israeli-made shirt found in JBR's underwear. The other fibers can be innocently explained by PR's casual contact, but that particular fiber in that particular place seems significant.
ReplyDeleteCC
Settle down folks. Hercule has some valid points. I have always considered myself a devil's advocate, and I must say I find Hercules points something to consider. And this wouldn't be the first case that shocked me if Patsy was, in fact, the murderer. Seemingly normal people can sometimes have a very dark side to them.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, however, I have to ask Hercule about the evidence of sexual molestation. Not the external signs of irritation that could be explained by continued rough wiping, but the internal erosion of the hymen which points to ongoing, previous penetration. This is the one thing that, in my opinion, points to JR. What is your explanation of this? Do you think Patsy could be the molester?
bb
The biggest hole in the PDI theory is that she called the cops with a body in the house. Doesn't make any sense if she wanted to stage a kidnapping. Makes way more sense for the body to be there if John's plan didn't go, well, according to plan.
ReplyDeleteAs for the blue towel that was used for wiping. Much of her body was wiped down as Doc mentions several times throughout this blog. Most likely to remove semen something Patsy Ramsey would not be able to create....I'm sorry Hercule but nothing you bring up is something I haven't already heard about Patsy Ramsey and I don't believe you have special insight to her personality. I will say if she was wiped down with a towel from the house it was probably removed with the duct tape and rope. It would however make sense for it to match other towels in the house as most people buy towels in sets.
ReplyDelete-SM
Actually the body was most likely wiped to remove blood as no trace of semen was found. Yet traces of blood were found. IOWs the body was wiped well enough to remove semen but not remove blood? Seems unlikely.
DeleteJust to clarify there is no blood on the wiped areas but chemical testing can verify that there was blood. There are similar chem. tests for the presence of semen.
Also found an interesting article about gaslighting which has been discussed on this blog. If anyone is still having trouble understanding. I know someone close to me who has gone through this and I found it to be pretty spot on. I also can very well imagine this type of relationship between John and Patsy but of course that doesn't mean much as I don't know them.
ReplyDeletehttp://everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/things-wish-known-gaslighting/
-SM
That was an interesting article, but I found it unpersuasive as it relates to the Jonbenet murder. It seems as if it's a frequent tactic, not a one time tactic. It seems there is a pattern by the victimizer. Is there any reason to believe John had altered Patsy's reality in past instances? Was there a pattern of this victim/victimizer relationship? But I guess there has to be a first time, so maybe this was it.
DeleteAs others have pointed out, John is not only trying to get Patsy to agree that she forgot about, or never knew about, a broken window that got broken when she was away in Michigan, but he's trying to get her to agree that she forgot about a window after she herself supposedly picked up the larger chunks of glass. The glass that couldn't be sucked up by the vacuum.
Patsy wouldn't remember a broken window she was never aware of, but how could she forget a broken window she was aware of? She had to be aware of it if she swept up the glass. That is, she'd know she must have been aware of it at some point. How could she have forgotten about it after she'd swept up the glass? She must have asked herself such questions.
How could it have gone unmentioned by LHP or John himself, or the kids, or workmen, etc. ? All of these things would have been part of Patsy's reality as well.
I agree with whoever said it would be more plausible if John never tried to convince Patsy that she helped clean up. If she never participated there'd be a good chance of convincing her she was never really aware of the broken window, though there is still the problem of convincing her that everyone else in her life completely ignored it too.
Convincing her she participated in something that never happened seems like exactly the wrong tactic.
Additionally we have LHP's denial of knowing anything about vacuuming up glass, which ought to make it even harder for Patsy to accept, rather than easier.
Since the window was broken the night of the murder, and since John must have cleaned up the glass himself, why try to convince Patsy that she cleaned it up after returning from Michigan? Why not tell her it was cleaned up long before she returned from her trip ?
At least that's my take after reading the long drawn out discussion of the topic.
I admit that Patsy's story about cleaning up the glass is THE weak link in my chain of reasoning. I have no doubt John's story is a fabrication. But Patsy's willingness to back up that story suggests she could have been in on the staging after all. Only there are far too many reasons to seriously doubt that.
DeleteSo we are left with a bit of a conundrum.
As I see it, the clue to gaslighting is the inclusion of Linda in Patsy's little story. If she'd been deliberately lying I can't imagine why she'd include Linda, since she'd have known that Linda would not corroborate her story. (Of course the investigation was so inept Linda was probably never asked.)
To me that makes gaslighting a distinct possibility. If cleaning up the glass had been an induced false memory then it makes sense that she'd include Linda, because Linda was always the one cleaning up all the messes. If it were a lie, then including Linda would have been a huge mistake.
We must also factor in Patsy's vulnerability and her strong desire to believe in John's innocence, which would have made it extremely difficult for her to resist him. Now as for the rest, a false memory is a false memory, so if the gaslighting worked, she would have believed she cleaned up the glass regardless of whether she did or not.
As for John's motive. I believe he realized how shaky his story was and must have felt he needed a witness.
There's a snippet from the NOVA special called "Memory Hackers" available on YouTube you may find germane.
DeleteCC
The beauty of the gaslighting theory is that it's unassailable. It's 100% conjecture, 0% fact, so no one can prove it was or was not gaslighting. You're home free.
DeleteThe beauty of the gaslighting theory is that it's the most convincing theory anyone's come up with to explain Patsy's testimony about cleaning up the glass. If she were lying she would not have included Linda in her story. And if she were telling the truth, then Linda would have confirmed her story. Do you have an alternative explanation?
Delete"I have to ask Hercule about the evidence of sexual molestation. . . the internal erosion of the hymen which points to ongoing, previous penetration. This is the one thing that, in my opinion, points to JR. What is your explanation of this?"
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, as I've said before, the determination that a child was a victim of sexual abuse on more than one occasion CANNOT be diagnosed as such by physical evidence alone. A psychiatric evaluation must be conducted in conjunction with any physical trauma that is present on the child.
Secondly, it is not uncommon for a child to break her hymen while bicycling, performing gymnastics, horseback riding, dancing, etc. Jonbenet was a very active child involved in a variety of activities. Once the hymen breaks, thus begins a slow process of erosion on its own. JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, reported that JonBenet often suffered from vaginitis due to possible improper cleaning or the bubble bath liquid that she used. In this instance, it would not be a stretch to say JonBenet could have administered the ointment to herself at times when she was itching and unsupervised. She could have easily attempted to spread this ointment too deeply without anyone's knowledge, which could have further complicated her issues.
Furthermore, after spending a lot of time examining JonBenet, Dr. Beuf witnessed nothing unusual about JonBenet's behavior, nor did family, friends, teachers, or acquaintances. No red flags. Of course, many will point to the bedwetting or bedsoiling as definitive proof that she was a victim of prior sexual abuse. You need a lot more than that. A child who is a victim of sexual abuse simply behaves much differently than did JonBenet. They are socially withdrawn, angry, moody, sad, and often afraid to be left alone with certain people. Just because bedwetting can fit into a theory does not make it conclusive. You must delve deeper.
Even if it could be proven that JonBenet was a victim of prior sexual abuse, you still cannot definitively say that John was responsible. In fact, one could argue that people such as Fleet White, Santa Bill McReynolds, Nathan Inouye, Burke Ramsey, Fleet White, III, the Stines, the Fernies, etc., had just as much opportunity to molest JonBenet, especially since John Ramsey was often at work or traveling. Unfortunately, child molestation is not uncommon. Anywhere from 12 to 25% of girls ages infant to 8 are victims of sexual abuse in the United States. The possible molestation and murder could quite simply be unrelated.
If we look at all of the evidence and not just the accusations of prior sexual abuse, it leads us to one person. The lies, deception, fiber evidence, historical personality traits and behaviors, and ransom note analysis all point to Patsy Ramsey's involvement in this crime. Because an innocent mother would never cover up the murder of her child in favor of her husband, she must therefore be guilty.
Hercule
Fiber evidence means nothing because they all lived in same house. Lies and deception were mostly John's, Patsy on the window was just her backing John up because cops were out to get 'the Ramseys.' Ransom note fits only John's needs. NO HISTORICAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND BEHAVIORS except in your mind and you have got zero evidence, just your opinion, worth nothing. Saying it over and over does not convince anybody.
ReplyDeleteI was addressing bb's question that was posed to me. I gave her my professional opinion. By the same token, your opinion on this case and disdain for mine does not make you anymore accurate than before, no matter how many times YOU disagree with me.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Now your qualified to give a 'professional' opinion on hymens too?
ReplyDeleteI have read almost all of the posts on this site and find it a very interesting theory that Doc has come p with and would like to thank him for hours of great reading . However ....basing a whole theory on the hypothesis that bc Patty called 911 she couldnt have been in on it is quite a stretch ....people kill other family members all the time and call 911 when they are the 1 who killed them ..this hardly is evidence of "not being involved . I have followed , read and studied everything written and studied everything ever published on it and my opinion has always been that there was never any thought by the Ramseys to "dispose" of the body . The note was nothing more than the Ramseys saying hey, law inforcement you need to look outside of the people in this house bc there was an intruder....saying this is concrete evidence is a very far stretch . Also I have studied all handwriting samples ever published as well and while you can pull out a couple of letters and say they are similar to a couple of Johns , you can more than say that some of Patsys look identical and Patsys has some very identical markings that are very odd and would be very hard to copy if you wanted to . Like Steve Thomas said Patsy changed her handwriting like a class of 6th graders i see that as well in her samples that are public ...the London letter looks nothing like some other samples . When an "expert" or anyone else for that matter pulls her handwriting sample out of seventy some other samples then I think there has to be something there that should be looked at further for sure . What I have not seen much about on this site is any mention of the released depositions of John and Patsy and how much lying Patsy does during her deposition . Approximately half of her answers are I cant recall ...Im mot sure and I dont remember . And when given handwrotong samples that are her own she sees no similarities and says it is not her writing ....when you cant recognize your own handwritimg then that to me is a HUGE red flag .......
ReplyDeleteIf you've read just about everything on this blog then I guess I have nothing more to say to you. However, I urge you to reread the post titled "Patsy's Role," which provided many more reasons for concluding that Patsy could not have been involved. Your post is full of assumptions and you are ignoring significant evidence. Thomas's accusation that Patsy changed her handwriting is based on the claim that she stopped using manuscript "a" after the murder, but that's not true. Her London letter contains many manuscript "a"s. It's not difficult to cherry pick all sorts of similarities when looking at individual letters, as we see in the video comparison of Chris Wolf's writing with that of the note. If Patsy's writing was so obviously the same as the note, she'd have been arrested at once and put on trial. It isn't. It's completely different. I could go on and on but I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
DeleteI know you have seen both John and Patsy's depositions and you do not fnd it odd and self incriminating that Patsy could not identify her own handwriting ??? When her letters got matched up with her old letters you can see complete avoidance and lying as to if the letters looked the same ....oh those are both small bs...I have read Patsys Role and here is where we disagree. There is no way in hell that someone could kill someone , stage the whole thing all night and then play it off to a spouse who was home all night that they had done nothing ...their would be behavior clues among other things that as a spouse of many years that you would pick up on . If they werent in bed all night...if the handwriting looks like theirs ...the list could go on forever . As far as anyone being arrested and the many factors on that ...we both know that their was more than enough evidence circumstantially to arrest wither John , Patsy or both but when you have corruption and idiots like Lou Shmit , Mary Lacy and Alex Hunter working against you then you end up where we are now .
DeleteIt's not clear that this was her handwriting. Aside from a couple notes written in cursive, these were labels for photos in an album and could have been written by a grandparent or an uncle or aunt, or even John -- not necessarily Patsy. The initial set of exemplars sent out by Darnay Hoffmann was ridiculously inadequate in any case. Aside from the cursive samples, which are totally unlike the note in every conceivable way, we have very brief photo captions of a few words each, plus a couple posters consisting of just a very few words. Yet on that basis, all his "experts" concluded Patsy must have written the note.
DeleteThe examiners called in by LE saw many more exemplars that were known to be by Patsy and they concluded it was "unlikely" she had written the note. Your certainty in that regard is a reflection of the widely held belief that only Patsy could have written it -- based on John being "ruled out." Careful comparison of Patsy's writing (NOT individual letters, but her overall style) reveals a style totally different from that of the note -- as I've demonstrated on this blog with direct comparisons.
Your suspicions about what happened that night are based on assumptions, not facts. Patsy claimed to have slept soundly all night long and there is no reason to doubt her. If she had gotten out of bed to check on John then she too would, in all likelihood, have been murdered.
If the two of them had been in on it together, then the 911 call would not have been made with the body still in the house; they'd have gotten their story straight from day one and had no problem being questioned on day one; there would have been no reason for them to deny any knowledge of feeding her pineapple. Also, we have to ask ourselves why anyone would be willing to take such a huge risk to cover for a spouse if that person had just murdered a beloved child.
If we concentrate on the facts of the case and try to avoid making assumptions then the conclusion, as I see it, is crystal clear.
I doubt Patsy's account of having slept soundly all night for two reasons: 1) It was custom in the Ramsey house for Patsy to get up around midnight to check if JonBenét needed to have her sheets changed (the housekeeper would often arrive to find the soiled sheets already in the wash). Conveniently on the evening of her daughter's demise, Patsy did not wake up to check on JonBenét. 2) Patsy had no good reason for putting on the same clothes as the night before, especially since they were going to be meeting family in Michigan that day. She likely never went to bed.
DeleteIgnoring the handwriting and getting back to the premise that Patsy would never have made that 911 call if she knew the body was in the house, it's a premise that need not be accepted as true. If there were a joint plan to murder and, or, cover up, then the original plan to dump the body might have been abandoned, probably because it was deemed too risky. Anonymous at the top is correct in saying many murderers have called the police with the body in the house.
DeleteSo why didn't they destroy the ransom note, or display the body as if it had been left by a sex killer? Since we don't know the timeline of her death with any accuracy we must allow the possibility that they simply ran out of time to do anything with the body. With the body hidden the note still serves to make the Ramseys "believe" there had been a kidnapping. We might also consider that they were so clever that the realized conflicting evidence actually made them safer than if there had been a coherent "story" being told by the staging.
The note gave them the perfect excuse not to call the police. So they would not have run out of time. They'd have had all day to stage their kidnapping and could then have dumped the body the following night, claiming that they were delivering the ransom.
DeleteAnd if for some reason they changed their mind about staging a kidnapping, they would have destroyed their ransom note.
From Hercule's post above:
ReplyDelete"Secondly, it is not uncommon for a child to break her hymen while bicycling, performing gymnastics, horseback riding, dancing, etc. Jonbenet was a very active child involved in a variety of activities. Once the hymen breaks, thus begins a slow process of erosion on its own."
Even as a devils advocate, this statement is preposterous. Suggesting that child activities such as riding a bicycle, dancing, etc. could cause this type of internal damage to a girls hymen is just too far fetched, imo. I can almost entertain your theory of this being an accidental death due to a bedwetting rage (even though there are many, many flaws to this theory), but I cannot buy your explanation of the damage to her hymen and possible sexual abuse. If you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras.
"Furthermore, after spending a lot of time examining JonBenet, Dr. Beuf witnessed nothing unusual about JonBenet's behavior, nor did family, friends, teachers, or acquaintances. No red flags."
I am not convinced that every case of child molestation has its behavior "red flags." I work in a school and we are given yearly trainings on identifying child abuse. One of the reasons we are given this training is because it is often very difficult to detect in young children or teens, especially when a family member is the perpetrator. Of all the cases I have seen in my personal experience, it is only when the victim confesses that we are made aware of the abuse. Also, being a victim of child abuse myself, it wasn't until I told my mother about the abuse that it came out. No one EVER saw any red flags or signs of the reoccurring abuse. So I can't buy that theory either. JBR had a lot of positive things going on for her, so any abuse at the hands of a family member could have easily been disguised. She may not have wanted to tell anyone because of fear of "betraying" the loved one doing it, or she simply accepted it. I can say personally that both were my reasons for not telling for so long.
bb
Those are very good points, bb. Thank you for sharing that. I sympathize with you regarding the horrible experience you had as a child.
ReplyDeleteEvery child reacts differently to any kind of strife that he or she faces. The main point that I was trying to get across is that there are other possibilities out there, not just "John Ramsey must have molested JonBenet". I look at all the evidence, and because it leads me to Patsy as the murderer, I feel that there has to be another explanation. There are only about 1 to 2% of mothers who molest their children in the United States. While it is certainly possible, I think it is more likely that if JonBenet were sexually abused on prior occasions, it was unrelated to her death. Assuming that it had to be John Ramsey is an incomplete and unfair assessment in light of all the evidence in this case.
Hercule
Hercule, you always ignore the main points that someone tries to make with you. Your comments about girls breaking their hymen doing physical activities is indeed preposterous. You want to believe Patsy is a nut and she did this. You have no case, just a theory about a pageant mom. You talk as if all the other possibilities of what could have happened have not even been discussed here. As if Doc dismissed them all out of hand. That has not happened. If you had a real theory based on the facts of the case it would be considered. You ASSUME that Patsy was a whacked out type of person and did this. Just like the police, you cannot make the case against Patsy.
ReplyDelete"Your comments about girls breaking their hymen doing physical activities is indeed preposterous."
ReplyDeleteWhat I discussed are facts. Do some research and educate yourself. To be more accurate, "tearing" is a better way to describe what happened to JonBenet's hymen (as opposed to breaking) nevertheless, my point remains the same. Certain types of physical exercise can explain a torn and weathered hymen. In fact, some girls are born without a hymen and some only have a small fringe of tissue. I think a lot of people (men mostly) have misconceptions about the hymen.
According to Carol Roye, professor and nurse practitioner who specializes in adolescent primary and reproductive health care:
"The hymen is not a flat piece of tissue covering the vagina, which is punctured during intercourse."
She went on to say:
"It is not so easy to tell whether a girl is a virgin, because hymens are so varied. If there is not much of a hymen I have no way of knowing what happened to it. Was it a boyfriend or a bicycle? Or, perhaps, this girl did not have much tissue there to begin with.”
Educate yourself before lashing out.
Hercule
Hercule, you are a jerk. First of all, I am a woman and I am educated. Your theory is out there, and you know it. Women of my age know all about our physiology, and don't need a crack psychologist to "educate" us. Every time someone questions you, you insult them. You did not answer BB's point, and when I prompted you to explain yourself, you respond with smugness, arrogance, and insults. What is wrong with you? There is no evidence that JBR damaged her hymen in the way you suggest. As has been said before, anything is possible. You simply cannot use the very, very remote possibility that JBR, at age 6, had damaged her hymen in the way you suggest, to support your case that Patsy did this and John did not not.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Carol Roye is an abortion advocate. Her research is politically motivated and I personally would not rely on anyone who makes the case that its ok to kill babies. That's just me...all lives matter, including JonBenet's, unborn babies, and all human lives. People like Carol Roye, who write under the guise of protecting the health of women but are really pushing an agenda, are the worst kind of person's to use as a medical expert.
DeleteOK, stop right there. I won't allow this blog to morph into a debate over the morality of abortion. As I see it, there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue, but this isn't that sort of blog. And the potential for things getting out of hand very quickly is very real. Please confine your comments to the Ramsey case or I'll have to delete them.
DeleteDoc,it is not a debate about abortion...I said: "Its just me, but....". The point is, there is no need to use controversial people as experts. Regardless of one's point of view, a jury would never be subjected to such a controversial expert, assuming the person named is an expert. I was insulted, and I really think you need to delete the insulting comments, because having an opinion and asking questions is not the problem. Insults are the lowest form of communicating one's position and should be deleted immediately. For starters, Hercule thinks anyone who questions his statements is lashing out (his words). I think you are reacting to the wrong person here! I've been extremely polite on this blog for years. You have allowed far worse than my reaction to Hercule. He continues to be rude and I suggest you not allow the rudeness. But...if its allowed, I will certainly go away. I support your theory and reading more is probably not going to change that.
DeleteSorry that you missed my point. I think all of us would agree that in referring to people as experts, we want unbiased medical experts who are not controversial. I prefer relying on forensic doctors, and I made my comment because I do think it odd to use someone as a reference that many people would discredit based on her being involved with political opinions. I shy away from activists of any ilk when looking for unbiased opinions. Doc, I would think you of all people would see that most of the commenters here care about this case because the life of a little girl was taken from her so unfairly.
Delete"You simply cannot use the very, very remote possibility that JBR, at age 6, had damaged her hymen in the way you suggest, to support your case that Patsy did this and John did not not."
ReplyDeleteI suggest that you read my responses to bb again. I never said that JonBenet's hymen was definitively torn while exercising. I have repeatedly tried to make the point that the condition of her hymen could have been caused by other means. The facts that I have presented have been called "preposterous" more than once. I think it is only fair that readers on this blog understand the facts before making erroneous claims.
You want to accuse me of the very thing you are guilty: making assumptions of the evidence. Accusing John Ramsey of molesting JonBenet and then lashing out at me over my accusations regarding Patsy is undoubtedly hypocritical.
For those of you who do not find Carol Roye a credible health source then feel free to research the subject. You will find much of the same information.
Hercule
I have to side with Hercule on this one. The evidence of prior abuse is debatable. It is certainly not a proven fact. Nevertheless, we have to consider it as a very like possibility, imo, especially in the light of what Dr. Wecht and other experts feel convinced to be the case.
DeleteAgree - the hymen argument is pointless if its meant to argue that JR did not murder JB and write the ransom note, or meant to prove that Patsy was the murderer. Women who are reading/blogging here certainly don't need a lesson found on the internet from anyone about our bodies. We have our own doctors, nurses, educators and to suggest we don't understand when/how a hymen can be torn, worn, ruptured, whatever -- all of that is an insult to our intelligence. Heck, we are taught about these things in Girl Scouts, health classes, and other sources besides our own medical professionals.
DeleteI did not accuse JR of molesting JBR, where did I say that? I just don't buy into your theory about Pasty because you don't have any facts to support it. I do believe JR killed JBR, that is true. I have no proof of his motive for doing so, but feel that incest is a viable theory that should not be outruled, given the medical observations and other known things about the behavior of JR.
ReplyDeleteI bet at least 3/4 of the people on this blog came to it thinking PDI, I did. The difference is we read Doc with an open mind and saw the logic of his theory. Hercule sees only his own logic based on some goofball psychology idea that he can not back ip with real evidence. He has not convinced one single person in a year of trying. Now he is focusing on stupid things that go no place like the window and the chair but they do not help his theory either. He should go some place and start his own PDI blog and stop insulting people that disagree with him. He really has nothing worthwhile to contribute and I think he is very offensive.
ReplyDeleteThank you! I could not have said it better! In 1996, my first reaction was that it was an inside job. Then I zeroed in on JR based on the note and his demeanor. For a while, I entertained the idea that both PR and JR covered up for Burke. That idea was easy to let go of because they would not have called 911 that early and they would have had a straight story, not stonewalled the police, not gotten separate lawyers, and would have come clean after lawyers told them them Burke could not be prosecuted for murder. Then I briefly entertained Patsy but could not see how she could have pulled this off alone, plus could not see her doing what was done to JBR, the love of her life. All along, JR seemed like a cold, calculating, unfeeling, mysterious person. Doc's case tied it all up for me. While we will never know all the details for certain, there is a case to be made against JR. Finally, I find Hercule's style of argument to be extremely offensive, but the comment I made in the last hour, explaining why I'm so offended, and why we do not need to use experts of a controversial nauture, was deleted apparently. Go figure!
DeleteI haven't deleted any comments. Yet. Sometimes comments get delayed or even lost. I'll look into it when I get some time.
DeleteTake your own advice and "educate yourself", Hercule. There's no need to rely on a nurse practitioner's views on hymens in general; rather, google "An Angel Betrayed" and read the opinions of five distinguished doctors, including James McCann, considered the foremost expert on child sexual abuse in the world. They studied tissue samples and photos from the JBR autopsy and found conclusive evidence of prior sexual abuse, including a hymen that was worn and eroded rather than torn, and a vagina twice the normal size for a six year old.
ReplyDeleteThe pertinent pages are right there on Google, free, available to anyone genuinely interested in educating himself.
CC
Thank you, CC, but I am well-versed on their opinions, which still remain inconclusive. If their conclusions proved to be true, does that mean John Ramsey must have been the guilty party? You'll need much more than that.
DeleteHercule
Hercule what is the reason or basis you have for saying the conclusions of the experts who reviewed the case are inconclusive?
ReplyDeleteA psych exam may be desirable in cases of child sexual abuse, but it is not required - physical evidence is sufficient to prove a case in court.
ReplyDeleteDrs. Meyer, Sirontak, Kirschner and Wecht agreed with the five experts I cited above, so I'll ask you yet again, to name the medical experts who found the evidence to be inconclusive.
CC
With all due respect, CC, I don't think comparing expert opinions is the point. Hercule's argument is a fair one, and we have no choice but to concede. There is plenty of reasonable doubt concerning prior sexual abuse and that's just the way it is. There is simply not enough conclusive information or evidence to tell us exactly what happened.
DeleteGumshoe
I agree that there's no way to conclusively determine John was the abuser, Gumshoe, but it seems highly unlikely so many medical experts were comfortable saying there were clear signs of prior abuse had the evidence seemed inconclusive. I could find no dissenting opinions, hence my question to Hercule about his source.
ReplyDeleteCC
I think it is fair to say that the experts you cited made a strong and convincing argument for their claim of prior sexual abuse. I could also make the argument that these experts are conditioned to see prior sexual abuse based on similar injuries from previous cases, but with different circumstances. Each case is unique. Imo, the most damning piece of evidence against JR is the ransom note. I think he is the only one that could have written it.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe
I take your point with regard to McCann and Monteleone, but I believe the rest were pathologists. None equivocated in their opinions or softened them with so much as a "may have been", and none dissented. I'd still be interested in seeing distaff expert opinions, if any.
DeleteYou already know I agree with and admire most of your very thorough analysis of the ransom note.
CC
Just to complete a little info on McCann: McCann was a doctor who trained others in what to look for and what to disregard in terms of sexual abuse. (When he reviewed the accusations against the McMartin Preschool hysteria regarding sexual abuse, he had enough knowledge and integrity to go to court and set the record straight that these children had not been abused.) While he’s retired now, his work remains a gold standard for determining abuse.
DeleteIt wasn't only the opinions of these doctors/pathologists which convinced me about the abuse. The coroner brought in a colposcope to take photos of the interior of her vagina during the autopsy. Under a microscope they determined cellular healing injuries. There was also an abrasion in her vagina. There was circumferential hyperemia, which Wecht viewed as a digital assault, something moving in a circular fashion. The 7 o’clock site of erosion of her hymen was further indication of abuse. Those things are not produced by a child injuring herself by bike riding, bubble baths, etc.
Okay, what are you guys talking about and where can I read it?
DeleteWhat if the parents were covering this murder together? People here say that if that were the case they would never have left the body in the house and called the police. I believe they could have wanted to stage this as a kidnapping gone wrong because they couldn't bear to dump her body and they felt an attempted kidnapping would be more believable than just a murder committed by some sexual molester who broke into the house. If this is true, it could have been either one of them who murdered JB. I think that's what the Grand Jury felt but they couldn't conclusively point to one parent or the other.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was not so much "they couldn't bear to dump her body" but rather they felt it was too risky. They might be seen, they might be pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, they might have realized the car's trunk would be searched for fiber/hair/skin cell etc.
DeleteI think Ive read some where here that the rope and tape was brough into the house(by intruder?) or the tape and rope was not sourced.
ReplyDeleteI am not falling for that,as there is a screen shot of a large tape dispenser right close to the WC door --robert
The rope found in the brown paper bag was believed to be the property of John Andrew since it was found in the guest bedroom that he frequently occupied. This rope was much different than the nylon cord that was wrapped around JonBenet's neck.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe
"You already know I agree with and admire most of your very thorough analysis of the ransom note."
ReplyDeleteThank you, CC. I think your theory regarding John's possible motive is spot on. I agree that there was a more invasive vaginal exam in the works and John had roughly a week to devise a plan to save himself.
Gumshoe
I meant to type that down here, but I'm new, sorry. So what are you guys talking about & where can I read it?
ReplyDeleteSo if it is not Patsy's writing on the samples in the depositions then it being from the Ramsey household and in their scrapbooks and pics wouldnt John or Patsy have to know whose writing it was ? Both claimed it was not theirs or their spouses .....almost as if they were silently implying a stranger left the samples as well ....Laughable . Doesnt this raise a Big Fat Red Flag to anyone ???? I am not a handwriting expert but what I do know is that those letters are an exact match to the ransom note ...not just a normal y that looks "similar" like in Docs comparison of Johns handwriting that you could find in anyones but of very distinct letters with extremely rare and identifying marks on them . Patsy writes in different styles and both hands which makes it even more confusing .Thomas was not the 1 who said Patsy switched her writing style and switched her manuscript A's The Whites are the 1s who stated that . When Pam Paugh was shown the practice ransom note she thought it was Patsys writing ...which does not mean much but it is just another link in the chain . I read awhile ago that Patsy had admitted writing the "practice note" but said it was for "innocent" reasons and for something else at an earlier time....this was the first time I had read that and does anyone know if this is fact or not ?I am curious at everyones observations on the depositions of John and Patsy . Mine are this : There was clearly much more of a plan to muddy , intervene and protect Patsy then there was John by the Ramseys lawyers. Her dep. was mostly a debate and argument between Wood and Hoffman as Wood interrupted and controlled the interview while they let John answer everything and rarely interrupted. I personally found Patsy to be very smug, contrived and avoided as much as she possibly could. I found it particularly interesting that as soon as Hoffman gave Patsy the document I was speaking about above Wood interrupted with an objection and illegally cited what the document was to Patsy. Also when Patsy wouldnt give any obvious similarities to the letters she was asked to other than complete avoidance and denial by saying 1 is bigger than the other .... 1 is squigglier ..when they looked exactly the same . Her whole deposition she couldnt recall ...couldnt remember or wasnt sure .
ReplyDeleteHere again, I can only restate what I've already repeated many times: I go by the facts, not conjecture. I have no idea who wrote those captions, nor why Patsy wouldn't have been able to identify them. Does her denial look suspicious? I suppose so. But if you are already suspicious then you will find all sorts of reasons to confirm your suspicions. As far as I am concerned, suspicions may or may not mean something. Facts do.
DeleteIf you watch the Chris Wolf video (you can do a search for it here), you'll see several "exact" letter by letter matches also. And the ones I've done for John are also very similar. So similar in fact that no one has yet been able to sort them out on the little puzzle I created. That's what's called "cherry picking." If you examine Patsy's actual writing as a whole you'll see that it's nothing like the note. Her style is neat, clear and consistent, the note is messy and inconsistent.
John's document is also messy and inconsistent, and looks, to me, a lot like the note. But I would never claim John wrote the note based solely on such resemblances because it is all too easy to find what you are looking for when making comparisons of this kind. And we also have to take into consideration that the note writer would have disguised his (or her) hand. The bottom line for me is that Patsy would have had nothing to gain by writing that note, and a great deal to lose. Especially as soon as she called 911 (FACT) and handed the note to the police (FACT).
The major point about this information is that Patsy obviously knew what had happened to JonBenet. If she did not commit the murder, then who would she cover for and how?
ReplyDeleteWould she cover for Burke? Absolutely, but only to the extent that it was an explainable accident.
Would she cover for John? No chance. She would bury him under the prison.
That leaves us with only Patsy. She had to protect the image that she worked so hard to build. She wrote the ransom note to protect John, Burke and the Ramsey name.
Hercule
How is it obvious that Patsy knew what had happened to JonBenet? I don't follow.
DeleteCorrection...that leaves only you with only Patsy
ReplyDelete"If we concentrate on the facts of the case and try to avoid making assumptions then the conclusion, as I see it, is crystal clear " First off I will state that I have thought John was in on it since day 1 however the more I have read over the years and after seeing the depositions the more I have to say that there is no way Patsy can not be involved . In following these facts time after time all evidence of Patsy being involved is always given excuse after excuse on this blog ...and great lengths to do so as per the gaslghting but lets go there anywys . Fiber evidence on duct tape when Patsy was supposedly never in basement that night or morning ....transfer possible but very highly unlikely. Patsy fake crying but peering thru her fingers at detectives ...you stated on this blog that is not a fact but it was stated as true. Patsy lying about cleaning up the glass = gaslighting which is impossible but just another excuse and beyond a stretch but we make up almost anything to get an excuse for Patsy here .Patsy going thru the police tape to "clean up" and destroy evidence after being told NOT to go in JonBenets room ...Patsy calling all these people and police to the house after the note told her not to...her lying about not having read all of the note during the 911 call ...
ReplyDeleteHer lying to 1 of the tabloids about 1 of the doors possibly being an entry point for an intruder when Barb Fernie saw the door broken and brought up to Patsy long before JBs death...Patsy buying the rope for the garotte a few weeks before...and she is wearing the same clothes the next day as if she hasnt slept ..and you say that is evidence of innocence and most will disagree bc its ridiculous...only Patsy knew where the hidden knife was ...the failure of 3 polygraphs by Patsy ..you have to excuse all of that away and more . That is just off the top of my head. Lets bring up the golf bag .... your daughter is just murdered and your spouse asks someone to get a golf bag out of the basement in the dead of winter and you are telling me that Patsy is so dumb that she can not add up 2 and 2 as to why he wants that golf bag ???? We are always wondering what was in the golf bag when we should be wondering why his wife never wondered WHY he would want it . Hello ! Like you said apply logic ! These ^^^ are facts . The theory about getting JBs body out of the house and Patsy not being involved bc she called 911 is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis . We dont even know whose idea it was to call 911 bc we have heard 2 or 3 diff versions on whose idea it was to call 911.Now what do we have on John as fact ? Possible staging of window ....possible unproven fiber in jonbenets panties amd behavioral clues .... I do not see how anyone in here can say the facts point to John . I am not saying he didnt do it but evidence wise Patsy has more against her from what i can see . I think most of us agree that the pineapple is evidence of some form we just dont know what but someone was up late and what we do know is it wasnt John feeding it to her bc he surely didnt wipe his prints and leave Burke and Patsys on the bowl . Evidence and fact wise what we have is more on PDI and John staging and being the brains behind the staging . This blog makes excuse after excuse for all evidence against Patsy all in the huge presumption of she cant be involved bc she called 911 and calling that "fact and evidence" ??? It is a possible hyothesis and logical but no more valid or logical than many other hypothesis
. Family kills family all the time, stage the scene with body in the house and the same person calls 911...all the time !!!! Turn on ID .
It is very hard to follow this narrative with all the ...'s and rambling. It sounds like you believe PDI and John helped her cover it up. If that was the case, why didn't they do a better job of getting on the same page and getting their story straight? I think both of them would have known exactly how imperative it would have been to get their story straight and to get the staging fully completed before either of them dared to suggest calling 911.
DeleteThere is a difference between a long laundry list of dubious "evidence" and a careful analysis of the case as a whole, based on both facts and logical inference. Every point you've raised has been analyzed here and the flaws in the reasoning exposed. You are free to call them "excuses." I call them debunkings. Just about everything you mention is colored by your predetermined conviction that Patsy must be involved.
DeleteNo one who stayed up all night doing the things Patsy has been accused of doing would be so stupid as to wear the same clothes the next day, not bothering to even shower off all the accumulated filth from the basement. She'd have been a mess and it would have been obvious that she'd stayed up all night and then went to bed in the same clothes. Of course it's evidence of her innocence. Only someone looking for anything possible to pin on her would even think of such a ridiculous idea. No "excuse" necessary.
Same with the fiber evidence. Patsy was all over JonBenet that evening, so it stands to reason her fibers would be all over her too. And that they would be tranferred via JonBenet to the crime scene. No "excuse" necessary, it's just common sense.
Common sense also that no one staging a phony kidnapping is going to call in the police with the body of the victim still in the house. And then hand a note written by herself in such a manner that the similarities are "obvious" over the police. If in fact she'd written that note it would have been the equivalent of turning herself in. None of these conjectures make any sense when examined in the clear light of day. You are suffering from what is called "confirmation bias."
My own personal belief is JBs body was never meant to leave the house ...it was only to point away from the Ramseys and to an intruder and to create confusion and doubt. I think the Ramseys were surpised that the police did not find the body right away as they expected police to find it immediately thus to continue on with their original plannned trip and to get out of dodge and away from police . It is also possible that in the police being so dumb and not finding JB that the Ramseys WANTED Jonbenets body found in order to get on with it and their trip...thus the early call. Eventually John gave up and went and gotJonbet for them bc they were taking too long. If HE WANTED he could have waited and police would have probably eventually left and the body would have still have been down in the basement and John could have followed thru with the dumping the body hypothesis. We could say this and it is just as valid as Docs hypothesis...John couldnt have wanted to dispose of the body bc if he did he wouldnt have found JBs body and carried it up .Also there are serious flaws and risks to Docs hypothesis of John had all day the next day to get rid of the body with my above hypothesis being just as possible and factual .
ReplyDeleteSo you think these two smart, educated adults would assume that they could portray themselves as innocent victims, having lost their daughter to a vicious killer, and would just skip the whole grieving, funeral, find-the-real-killer part of this act and go on their Disney cruise?
DeleteIt's possible that the premise that Patsy would never have made the 911 call if she'd known the body was in the basement is mistaken. It could be JR and PR were working together, at least on the cover up, and that they chickened out about dumping the body. It could also be that they simply expected to be able to blame the dead body in the intruder.
DeleteBut the idea that they would just let the body be found then proceed on with their travel plans is, well, ridiculous.
Right, cos the FBI would just walk away from a kidnapping and let him 'get on with.' Good thinking.
ReplyDelete"The major point about this information is that Patsy obviously knew what had happened to Jonbenet."
ReplyDeleteI think the salient point is that it was Darnay Hoffman doing the questioning in a deposition in furtherance of a $50M defamation lawsuit. Hoffman tried to insert himself into the JBR investigation by writing letters to Alex Hunter in March and May of 1997 accusing first the Ramseys and then Patsy, by soliciting handwriting experts in the fall of that year, and by suing Hunter for failing to prosecute them in November '97. He finally landed Chris Wolf as a client in 2000 and sued for libel.
Hoffman was a crackpot with his own agenda; little wonder the Ramseys obfuscated in their depositions.
CC
"Patsy was all over JonBenet that evening, so it stands to reason her fibers would be all over her too. And that they would be tranferred via JonBenet to the crime scene."
ReplyDeleteThe most damning fiber evidence against Patsy would had to have been the fibers found in the paint tote. Why would Patsy be wearing a dress jacket while she painted? Highly unlikely.
Hercule
Maybe you need to read what I've written one more time, Hercule. The fibers were transmitted via JonBenet herself. Her attacker found the stick for the "garotte" in the paint tote, so naturally the fibers were transferred indirectly from Patsy to JonBenet to her attacker. And if we assume John was the attacker, then we have a more direct form of transmission: from Patsy to John to the paint tote. Many garment shed fibers very easily and Patsy's most likely did as well.
DeleteJ's shirt fiber in JB underwear is a lot worse imo.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't there be an innocuous explanation for John's shirt fiber in JBR's underwear? It could be a transfer from doing laundry. If there's details about this evidence that make it damning, then why didn't investigators take this very seriously?
ReplyDeleteJBR'S washer and dryer were outside her room door. The third floor had a laundry chute to basement where LHP did adult's laundry in a washer/dryer down there.
DeleteThe panties were straight out of their plastic bag. They had not been washed.
DeleteNone of the fiber evidence is worth a damn, including JR's shirt fiber in JBR's underwear. In a shared home the possibilities for direct and indirect transfer make them all meaningless.
ReplyDeleteCC
Agreed. Even though John's fibers in JonBenet's panties look suspicious there is no way to know for sure how they got there.
DeleteLet's just put this subject to bed. According to Kolar in his book:
ReplyDelete"Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic, and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey’s Essentials jacket. Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor.
"Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but Trujillo told me lab technicians didn’t think that this type of transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence.
"The paint tray was reported to have been moved to the basement about a month prior to the kidnapping, and investigators doubted that Patsy would have been working on art projects while wearing the dress jacket. The collection of jacket fibers from all of these different locations raised strong suspicions about her involvement in the crime."
Unless John or Burke wore Patsy's clothing from that evening while murdering JonBenet, it's very likely that Patsy was involved based on this evidence.
Hercule
Once again, Patsy would have been a fool to call 911 that morning if she'd killed her daughter and was staging a fake kidnapping. What was found on the tape was not actually complete fibers, but 4 microscopic fragments that could have been floating in the air at the time. As for the rest, as I say, if John did it, then it's understandable that the fibers could have been indirectly transferred by him. If this evidence were as conclusive as you suggest, she'd have been booked and put on trial very early on.
DeleteThe fiber evidence is completely worthless. It may be that the fibers got there from direct transfer from Patsy as she killed and staged the crime scene. It could just as easily be that the fibers got in all those locations by secondary transfer. Absolutely worthless. Unfortunately a jury would probably believe Patsy was involved.
DeleteNeither cop suspicions and casual experiments by lab techs nor your insistence rise to the level of evidence, any more than do fibers or family members' DNA in a shared home.
ReplyDeleteCC
Here's what Steve Thomas had to say about those fibers:
DeleteTHOMAS: Well, let me give you an example, and that's an excellent point. As you know, on the adhesive side of the duct tape, which was removed from the victim's mouth, there were four fibers that were later determined to be microscopically and chemically consistent with four fibers from a piece of clothing that Patsy Ramsey was wearing, and had that piece of tape been removed at autopsy, and the integrity of it maintained, that would have made, I feel, a very compelling argument. But because that tape was removed, and dropped on the floor, a transference argument could certainly be potentially made by any defense in this case, and that's just one example of how a compromised crime scene may, if not irreparably, have damage the subsequent investigation. http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-fibers.htm
I should not be surprised to see that CC is ignoring evidence only because it points directly to Patsy. If instead all of those fibers belonged to John, CC would no doubt claim it as damning evidence against him.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Not so. See my remark at 1:24.
ReplyDeleteCC
No I do not think that the Ramseys were planning a Disney type trip or do I think they were going to skip JBs funeral etc as that would make things obvious . On that note though I do think they knew that an investigation and interrogations were coming and they may have wanted to get away from the PD for awhile as to get their stories straight and clear their heads and what not . I do not find this to be any stretch at all knowing what we already know and that John was planning on leaving right after JBs body was found anyways . Maybe getting out of town was the plan all along only delayed by the PDs ineptness in finding the body .
ReplyDeleteI of course did not mean the FBI was going to let them go when I said "getting on with it". What I meant was they were going to get on with their plan ,the staging , calling 911 and then getting out of town for awhile directly after to give them time to avoid immediate interrogation and "lawyer up" . I am sure they knew this time was crucial for them as well and already had intructions from their lawyers .
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me they managed to avoid immediate interrogation, got out of town and lawyered up just fine. Please tell me when you say they "already had instructions from their lawyers" you're not seriously suggesting they consulted them before the murder? 'Cause I'll take a lotta' slurs against my profession, and they're often well-deserved, but that's just . . . words fail me.
DeleteCC
Of course I am not suggesting that . What I am saying is that while the police were in the house or immediately after they might have already contacted lawyers and might have been instructed something like getting out of town may be a good idea or avoid police until you can meet up with a lawyer .
DeleteI do not think PDI but what I am inferring here is that there is no way that Patsy had no part / did not at the least know about it and had some involvement albeit cover up or more and thus I have stated many reasons as to why . We are now actually going to the excuse for Patsy extent that Patsy's fibers were probably transferred by John . Cmon people ...Doc has a great hypothesis but it has huge holes in it that can not be explained away ...my only point is that evidentially there is more on Patsy than there is on John . When you point out facts that can not be explained away Doc claims it is insignifigant and it is bc we are looking at Patsy suspiciously and make excuse after excuse on this blog . As I stated above if you hear your husband asking for a golf bag out of the basement in the dead of winter should that have not been an obvious giveaway to Patsy ? Of course it is ...
ReplyDeleteThere was no way John was going to get his golf bag returned before the police had thoroughly examined it. So what is your point?
DeleteThe police never thoroughly examined it bc they did not know this until after the house was turned back over to the Ramseys ...thus why we will never know what was in the golf bag . My point is this - if your daughter was killed in your house and you were in this situation and asking for a relative to get a golf bag out of the house in the dead of winter dont you think your wife would suspect that you are up to obviously up something - have something to do with the murder ? Be suspecting as to why you would have such an odd request at such an odd time ? Of course she would ...the only way she wouldnt is if she already knew why you wanted it ....
DeleteExcuse my typos , my phone is not very user friendly on this blog bc of how small the typing box and text are .
DeleteLook, we don't know. Maybe John hid some personal thinks in his bag, like coins, a joint, other things or so he told Patsy. That is what I would have told her, anyway. "Honey, I have some keys to a lockbox I use at the office and I stashed them in my bag - I'd like to get the bag and have those keys plus I'm afraid someone will steal my expensive clubs."
DeleteExcuse me, but where are you getting your information about John's golf bag. The police completely took over that house after the body was found and there would have been no way John could have retrieved his golf bag or anything else until the investigators had checked it out. The golf bag story is part of the folklore of this case and is completely irrelevant as evidence of anything meaningful.
DeleteJohn could not have done it bc he carried JBs body up when his plan was to dispose of it all along right ? Why would he do that when he could have waited until police left later on the 26th since that was his original plan and police most likely were not going to find the body in the house at all that day . Anyone feel free to disprove this hypothesis .
ReplyDeleteI believe there was prior sexual abuse (because I want to) I believe it was an accident( because I want to) I believe John done almost all the staging( because I want to)I believe both wrote the RN (because I want to) I believe in the GJ finding ( not because I want to ,but because they are fact)Patsy covered for John least they both be charged with murder ,John covered for Patsy least they both be charged with murder-- Burke is a non issue. robert
ReplyDeleteHere's a recent post from "Anonymous" that somehow got lost:
ReplyDeleteJohn could not have done it bc he carried JBs body up when his plan was to dispose of it all along right ? Why would he do that when he could have waited until police left later on the 26th since that was his original plan and police most likely were not going to find the body in the house at all that day . Anyone feel free to disprove this hypothesis .
That was not the plan I outlined. As I see it, John's plan was to call the police only AFTER the body had been disposed of.
DeleteIf John's brain were firing on all cylinders he'd have had to realize that the most likely situation was that the body would be found very quickly. 1. a turn of a small wooden block would have resulted in the finding of the body by officer French shortly after the police arrived. John could not have assumed officers arriving would not go in the wine cellar (so called). 2. The K9 unit might have been called in. Whether tracking dogs or cadaver dogs, the body would have been found in less than 5 minutes.
DeleteJohn could not possibly have planned on calling the police and also planned on the body not being found. So either the call was a mistake, or "the Ramseys" hoped that police would attribute the murder to an intruder.
Most of us subscribe to Doc's theory that John was blindsided by Patsy's 911 call. You may want to re-read his first two blog posts.
DeleteOfficer French - and indeed all the first responders - bought into the kidnapping scenario, and did only a cursory search.
Tracking dogs are useless indoors, particularly in the home of the missing person.
CC
Once the police were called there was no way John was ever going to pull off disposing of the body. Even those police could not be that inept.
ReplyDeleteThen there were the Feds. As long as there was no body it remained a kidnapping, and at some point that day the FBI would've assumed jurisdiction and locked that house down tight.
ReplyDeleteCC
Why didn't the FBI take control and lock down the house. It was a "kidnapping" from 6am to 1pm. Seems to me 7 hours is enough time that the FBI should have taken over the crime scene.
DeleteCommander Eller, in his hubris, refused help from not just the FBI but also the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Boulder County Sheriff's Department. The feds were probably short-staffed because of the holiday and were scrambling to assemble a team from the Denver Field Office - Boulder had only one, possibly two agents, neither trained in kidnapping.
DeleteCC
Hey, Doc, the golf bag conversation got me thinking about Pam Paugh's removal job, supposedly to get clothes for the funeral, but iirc Kolar said she filled a trunk and backseat with bags and boxes. Surely (one hopes), the cops kept an inventory? Has it ever been published? I'm drawing a blank.
ReplyDeleteCC
Aunt Pam's removals are also part of the folklore. I can't believe she would have been allowed to remove anything before the police had checked it out.
DeleteFor a guy who says he does not like assumptions that is a pretty big one, that they suddenly got competent.
ReplyDeletetouché! :-)
DeleteSo if I lay 73 unidentified writing samples with mine being 1 of the 73 samples and ask you to try and match 1 up to an another unidentified sample of my writing and you pull up the 1 out of the 73 that is mine then that would be pretty strong evidence that you can identify my handwriting correct ? That being said you are no expert . I just find that to be very hard to explain away . If I am not mistaken was that not the same expert (Don Foster I believe ) who tracked down the unibomber through his handwriting ? I am just trying to figure out how this could possibly happen and explain this away ....
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but you really need to work on your facts. Don Foster was not a handwriting analyst but a sekf-styled "forensic linguist" who has been thoroughly discredited and no longer plies that trade. The Unabomber's writing style was identified by his brother and sister-in-law when they saw his manifesto published in the NY Times. Doc does not claim to be an expert, the golf bag never left the house, a Darnay Hoffman deposition is a far cry from a LE interrogation, neither the BPD nor FBI would have allowed the Rs to stay in the house alone on the 26th. . . and on and on. I recognize your right to be skeptical, but it's very hard to take you seriously.
ReplyDeleteCC
I think you need to reread what I have said in prior comments ...I NEVER stated or implied that the golf bag left the house ??? I never said a Darnay Hoffman deposition was = to a L.E. deposition or implied it (although if you are implying Boulder pd would have been so much better I have to LOL ) . I never said the Rs would have been left alone on the 26th in their house , I only put that out there as a possibility as we will never know . That was a philosophical viewpoint of why would someone trying to hide a body go and find it bc that makes 0 logical sense to me . You were right about 1 thing that I did state incorrectly and that was about Donald Foster being a handwriting analyst...however I was correct about what he did to help catch the unibomber . Tracking Down the Unabomber
DeleteAccording to Amanda Beeler, writing for the Chicago Tribune, "[u]ncommon word usage, unusual punctuation and repeated misspellings might be the sign of a bad writer to some, but in Donald Foster's eyes they are dead giveaways that help solve linguistic puzzles....No two people have the same vocabulary or writing style, Foster said. 'As a result, when given an anonymous document, and comprehensive text samples with which to compare it, I can usually locate the nameless author--not because I'm so clever but because a writer's use of language is as distinctive, as inimitable, as unique, as one's DNA,' he said."
The Vassar English professor developed his computer-aided system for textual analysis for scholarly purposes, but it has also been extraordinarily useful as a forensic tool. Regularly consulted by the FBI, Foster has assisted in several high-profile cases, most notably the Unabomber case. Foster's analysis helped to identify and convict Theodore Kaczynski.
"An Authority on Authorship," by Amanda Beeler, Chicago Tribune, 4/24/99
My point was that if anyone (me , you or the pope) can match up someones handwriting out of 73 unidentified handwriting samples then that to me is saying something that can not be explained away . Who it was really does not even matter although "the experts" are surely better trained than we are . Im sure you being so bright caught on to what I was saying tho ;)
DeleteI didn't catch on to what you were saying. Your writing is difficult to parse; sorry.
DeleteTestimony by handwriting "experts" is usually inadmissible in court, as it's largely considered junk science, so I ignore all of it. To my mind the real value of the ransom note is its contents, and I suggest you read Gumshoe's analysis thereof at the end of Part Eight.
CC
Donald Foster did not identify the Unabomber. He served as a consultant on the case. All he did was verify what the FBI had already determined, thanks to the Unabomber's brother.
DeleteFoster claimed to have demonstrated that a certain poem had been written by Shakespeare, but that proved to be incorrect -- as he himself was finally forced to admit.
Foster attributed the ransom note to Patsy, but only after the Ramseys had refused his offer to testify on Patsy's behalf. In a letter to Patsy, he stated that he could demonstrate that she was innocent, and would stake his career on it.
When you read his comments on the note you see hardly any references to content analysis. It's little more than amateurish handwriting analysis, of a truly primitive kind, such as noting that Patsy liked exclamation points and that her indentations in certain documents seem to match indentations in the note. In other words: more cherry picking.
Imo Foster is and always was an attention seeking fraud. He real talent is in public relations, at which he is (or was) a master.
You know how they say, "where theres smoke, theres fire?" How do we go all these years without anything new, unless only John and Patsy were the two involved? The boy would have told a best friend, girlfriend, or a close, trusted person. Or, if he were a pervert, he would have re-offended, or had warning signs before the event?
ReplyDeleteThe ransom note was bs. A kidnapper would have not cared if the girl were alive, or dead, but would have needed to have the body out of the house. In fact, a dead body would have been easier to remove.
If i were a millionaire, I promise I would go broke hiring detectives, investigators and anyone I could hire to solve my daughters murder. Wouldnt anyone? Anyone except JR. Sorry, call me rc. I cant post a name
RC Why cant you post a name? Don't bother to answer, Just having fun.
ReplyDeleteI forget her name but what about this " nanny" or house keeper I guess.. what about her ... she certainly would know the r amseys time pattern .she would know When they were home, what time they leave etc. She would have access and could have snopped around and seen aroubd how much his bonus was. She knew the house well. Fact we know she needed money because she asked patsy to borrow her money. Patsy claimed she helped her clean up the window glass . Why would patsy lie about that if she knew the nanny wouldn't back up her claims why bring her into it and cause more speculation to her. The nanny would deny it because she wouldn't want police to think she went dowb there often. As she could never recall seeing the room jb would found in.maybe the daughters boyfriend or lover was involved in helping her. To get her out her room without screaming maybe she offered her pinnapple. Maybe jb sense something and screamed and out of reaction she hit her with the flashlight.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong about Foster. Look him up on Wikipedia. You are wrong about Linda Hoffman-Pugh. She said she was in wine cellar to get the Christmas trees and any way the police cleared her. I can not understand a word of what you say half the time. You contradict your self all the time. I am with Doc--What is your point? That somebody else might have done it? We know that but you have to show some evidence as good as Doc has.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you could name the lies by Patsy that bother you I'll let you know what I think. To me there are only 2 real lies I've been able to identify with certainty, and in both cases they support John's version of what happened. Which tells me he must have been manipulating her. Which would have been easy to do once he'd been "ruled out" by the handwriting "experts."
DeleteI can't imagine Patsy agreeing to cover for John if she was aware of his involvement in this horrible crime. Nor can I imagine the two of them conspiring together to cover it up. That never made any sense to me at all.
Fear of prison?
ReplyDeleteDocG-- You identify with certainty two real lies by Patsy ,both supporting John's version,which tells you John was manipulating Patsy. That makes sense .
ReplyDeleteSo why would Patsy do that? It can only mean that John manipulated patsy into believing that she would go to prison for JBs death. And we know why John invented the intruder. I am about ready to stamp that as fact that John was a master at manipulating Patsy. robert
Patsy stated, in the A&E documentary, with John sitting right next to her, that SHE decided to call 911 and that John said "OK" and he went to check on Burke while she ran downstairs to make the call. This totally contradicts the version presented by John in their initial CNN interview, and the version presented by her in their book, where John was in the same room with her as she dialed 911 at HIS request.
DeleteSince these versions contradict one another, one of them is a lie. And a blatant lie at that. Now if the two of them were in it together, they'd have gotten their story straight and there would have been no contradictions. Which in itself, all else aside, tells me they were NOT in it together.
So why would Patsy lie about a thing like that if she were not involved? The only reason I can think of is that John must have worked on her to get her to agree that calling 911 was HIS idea. How would he have done that? NOT by threatening her with prison, because that would entail too great a risk. She would certainly have gotten suspicious and could easily have left him and gone to the authorities. So no, I don't think he would have wanted to threaten her.
I think it more likely he would have challenged her memory of what happened, based on all the drugs she'd been taking after JonBenet's murder, and convinced her that calling 911 was his idea after all and she just got confused from taking all those drugs. He could have argued in a similar fashion regarding the broken window glass, i.e., planted a false memory by getting her to question her memory of what had happened that summer, again based on all the drugs she'd been taking.
There's a known case of a father who was manipulated into a false confession in a murder case by the implanting of a false memory by the police during questioning. He became convinced he'd killed his own children, as I recall, but was eventually shown to be innocent. And as we know, something similar happened to Amanda Knox during her interrogation, when she suddenly "remembered" being at the murder scene with her boss, Mr. Lumumba.
@ Doc , I have considered the changing of the story of whose idea it was to call 911 many times and while we know that 1 of her stories is a lie I am curious how you come to the conclusion that this means that they were not in on it together? I have always thought of it as 2 people with many facts and lies to get straight and this being 1 that they didnt get straight. That being said and us calling Patsy an intelligent woman can not be said here if that were the case . If I know I am going to be a prime suspect in a murder case ill be damned if 1) the other person in the house wants me to lie for them thus putting my ass the line 2) That makes the person asking me to lie look obviously guilty 3) With those 2 things being said I think it would be impossible to manipulate someone or plant a false memory with so much at stake and something so important to someones life not behind bars at stake . We have all these things to explain away with Patsy (she lied alot more than 2 times in my opinion). Would not the simple and easiest theory be that they were both in on it ?
DeleteWith the release of those pageant videos in the days and weeks after the murder, and before the general public thought to suspect either Ramsey, Patsy was harshly criticized for recklessly exposing her daughter to potential pedophiles. I think she felt guilty and at least partly responsible for JBR's death, and those feelings made her particularly susceptible to John's manipulations.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, she seemed already accustomed to following his lead in most domestic matters - where they lived, where and when they vacationed, whether to have a Christmas party. And Linda Wilcox said Patsy's primary role was to ensure nothing annoyed her husband.
Given all that, I think she'd have been easy prey for his manipulations.
CC
I tend to respectfully disagree with you about her being easy to manipulate regarding this , her supposedly most prized possession , her daughter ,is just killed and especially during this time (the first couple of weeks) LE is looking at everyone (including the Ramseys) as suspects thus making it harder to manipulate her or anyone about such a life changing traumatic experience . During stressful more important times during your life you tend to remember those and the details better. It is much easier to manipulate / and or gaslight someone about trivial things that are not of importance to someone . Remember you put those groceries in the wrong cupboard last week or remember 5 years ago when you told so and so this ....but a 911 call about your kidnapped daughter and cleaning up a broken window in the basement pertaining to someone who killed your daughter I find to be a short step away from him manipulating her into confessing that she committed the murder . On another topic or Patsy lie that no one ever brings up here is her report to a tabloid about 1 of the back doors being broken and that being a possible entry point to an intruder when in fact Barb Fernie was in the Ramseys yard the previous summer and pointed out to Patsy that she should get that door fixed in case someone wanted to use it to break in. This is the reason that the Fernies dropped the Ramseys as friends when they saw it in a tabloid and became convinced of the their guilt. I have only read about this a couple of times and it was years ago . Has anyone else read this/know anything about it ? Just curious on the validity and legitimacy of this as I have not seen it mentioned on this blog or anywhere else in a long time .
ReplyDeleteWe did Fernie and door in last thread or one before just like we already covered gaslighting and manipulation and handwriting and broken window. Maybe read at least last 8 threads if not whole blog.
ReplyDeleteYes, we already discussed that. And as I pointed out, if you read the actual source (Kolar's book) you'll see that there is no reason to assume Patsy lied about that door. All she said was that the damage might have been done by John.
DeleteIt appears they both knew exactly what happened-- For John to convince Patsy that she killed JB would not be threatening Patsy with prison. Well if I am correct with the idea that Patsy caugh John in a sex act with JB and the rest of what maybe a theory, Patsy did "accidently " kill JB.
ReplyDeleteWe are seeing two separate types of manipulation .
If Patsy was as high on drugs as you say , She would not know what was threatening anyway-- robert
People have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit through manipulation by their interrogators. So there certainly is a precedent for the implanting of false memories for sure. Why would she lie about something like that? Well why would an innocent person confess to a crime he did not commit?
ReplyDeleteBottom line: if Patsy had been involved then many other aspects of the case don't make sense. (See my post titled "Patsy's Role.")
I Read the 'Patsy's Role" posts-- Interesting passage there within the post that I did not know or failed to absorb in the past- And that is that John within days of the crime had private hand writing analysis done to elimanate him as the writer of the RN-- And it appears the possitive outcome of that ran viral to the point he has been conpletly over looked-- robert
ReplyDeleteHercule tells us:
ReplyDelete"Unless John or Burke wore Patsy's clothing from that evening while murdering Jonbenet it's very likely that Patsy was involved based on that [fiber] evidence. " and "The most damning fiber evidence against Patsy would had to have been the fibers found in the paint tote. Why would Patsy be wearing a dress jacket while she painted?"
Why would she wear her party clothes to bed? Wouldn't John have noticed, had she done so? In her LE interrogations Patsy claimed she got ready for and went to bed right after John carried JBR upstairs. John concurred. Surely even the most oblivious husband would notice his wife wearing her clothes to bed?
This seems to me to be the weakest point - of many - in Hercule's Poopy Pants Theory, and also puts paid to the notion that because Patsy answered the door to Officer French in her clothes from the night before she must therefore have been up all night killing her child.
CC
Good point. If she really got up to "rough wipe" JonBenet she would have been wearing pajamas, not her jacket and clothes from the White's party.
DeleteAnother Patsy lie - and a very crcial 1 . Patsy claimed she only read the first lines of the ransom note, but was able to tell the 911 operator the signature of the ransom. She could have just glanced at the end of the note while on the phone; however, while she was on the phone, John was reading the note positioned on the steps of the staircase, which was four feet away. Patsy would have had to look through him to be able to see.
ReplyDeleteYes, but that version of what happened is the real lie. Contradicted by the version she provided for the A&E documentary. She said she ran downstairs to make the call while John went to check on Burke, upstairs. And yes, of course, she could have glanced at the last page of the note when asked who wrote it. Doesn't mean she read the whole thing.
DeleteMakes sense that she would read first part saying we got your kid and jump to end to see who had her. To me anyways.
DeleteI agree that it is not impossible that she "could have" read the end of the note to see who wrote it. I am curious on Doc's opinion on if she wore the bloomies that night or was changed into the bloomies post murder ? Yes I have read the blog about it already .
ReplyDeleteThen you already know answer. Please not the panties thing again
ReplyDeleteI asked because he seemed to be on the fence about it and because I wanted to ! I can assume that you are the same person who always jumps down everyones throat very rudely (and mine before) telling them that they need to go back and read the blog bc that issue has already been discussed ? 1) All issues regarding this case have been discussed many times over with different views and opinions given and nothing new has occured in this case in a long time ...yet people are still interested if that is ok with you ? 2) I was not asking you was I ? 3) If it bothers you and being as everything has been discussed many times over already then why do you waste your time coming on here, reading and commenting ?
ReplyDeleteBecause smart people like CC and Gumshoe keep coming up with new stuff but others like you just want to try and poke holes in Doc's theory without adding something new or asking a new question.
ReplyDeleteFirst off you do not know what I was asking or what i was going to add . Secondly the only thing you come up with is telling everyone what has been discussed already and to go back and "reread the blog". BTW there is "nothing new" to come up with on a 20 yr old crime but excuse me for my interest in the case . Obviously this blog should be closed then based on nothing being new ? Me and many others im sure want to thank you for 1) obviously having 0 life and 2) Watchdogging and trolling this thread constantly being annoying by letting everyone know what has been discussed and what has not. Good Job !
DeleteI realize that the DNA evidence that cleared the Ramsey's is hardly legitimate. Seeing as it didn't have an identifiable cell. But how could the foreign fragmented DNA be strong enough to mix in with her blood? This part has always bothered me. So the underwear DNA which was microscopic just so happened to touch the blood on her inner thigh? believe John did it, I just can't imagine how lucky he got with this break. It almost seems astronomically lucky that touch DNA would acquit him on top of all his other luck. He must feel invincible.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete