Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
I have watched, at least 15 more hours of evidence. Curious why I cannot find any details about water pipes or duct work on the ceilings of the basement? It appears to me that she was being strangled and she started to scream that's when JR bashed her head to get her quiet? I think he used the flashlight as there would have been damage if it had been a blunt object like said items. Something curious, in the pic downstairs bathroom is this, the tank is off of the toilet. A rag, of some sort is on the left side of the toilet on the floor, and there doesn't seem to be any water. Also I notice a window on that same wall behind the toilet. I see a baseball bat outside, that is noted to be out the basement bathroom window to the left as it is viewed from the pic taken from inside. Is it possible that JR tried to stand on the toilet, to put the bat outside the window, and broke the tank? It would explain why the toilet is dismantled. It may also explain why the neighbor heard a metal clanging noise, if the tank fell? Even if he did not use the bat to strike her, he might remove anything that might be considered the murder weapon from the scene or perhaps to add more confusion as to what the murder weapon actually was. So, in my minds eye, he is strangling her...it seems she might be hoisted up over a pipe or duct work? if the rope around her neck is long enough because of the way the rope appears to have rolled up her neck and because of the depth. I can't imagine someone, even JR being able to hold up weight long enough to cause strangulation without being exhausted. I can't find exact length of the rope anywhere from neck to paintbrush anywhere? If he hoisted her up in a hanging position, it might explain why the knot had to be so perfect as not to slip off of the brush? It appears that he made handle to keep from burning his hands on the rope?? I feel like the rope end, inside the knot, around the brush, that isn't frayed is the end or the beginning of the rope. It would explain why it is not frayed, perhaps? In one of the pictures, it looked like a blue pencil, with an eraser is in the art carrier, where the paintbrush is said to have been pulled from. That blue pencil appears to be broken on the end away from the eraser...the end that is down towards the inside of the supply carrier. Could someone have broken the blue pencil to test it's strength before the paintbrush was pulled? Everything seems to be so calculated. He took the time, I feel, to go back upstairs and get clean underwear that just happened to be a pair that was too big. He probably had the flashlight with him because he planned on taking her in the room with no windows?? The testimony I saw from Arndt seems to be heartfelt and I think she shows much more compassion for the deceased child than the child's own family members. She said that she and John had an unspoken eye contact, at one point when they were both near JonBenet's body. She knew then. She knew he killed her and I feel she was removed from the case because she could not be swayed or coerced about the death of a child. It seem's that everyone around the case, that was truly trying to get answers was dismissed. I hope that my ideas and feelings will help someone discover new evidence that will incriminate the only person left who truly knows what happened in that basement. I would think if he hung her over something that there might be wear on the top side of the pipes or duct work or electrical wires that might be pinched, if he did hoist her up over something. I am still praying and still researching. I am sorry for my comment of uncertainty about whoever is over this site. : I only work for Jesus
Looks to me as though you are deeply embedded in what I've called "the morass." All these issues have been discussed at great length in the various forums over many years. I don't see any point in rehashing it all over again, especially since we have no way of knowing most of the answers to such questions. I can tell you one thing, however. The photo you saw of the toilet represents its condition after the investigators were through with it. I believe they dismantled the thing in order to see if anything of interest had been flushed. The window you mentioned was carefully examined and there was no sign it had been opened.
I just started reviewing information, which I explained. It should be nice to have someone with a fresh outlook on things. I never once investigated any of the information prior to 3 or 4 days ago. You don't have to be so smug because :I only work for Jesus.
P.S. I just read your "Case Solved" and I agree with all of that except that Patsy didn't write the note. She wrote it. JR forced her to write it. He threatened her life and the life of Burke if she didn't help him cover up. His urgency to kill JoBenet probably came from the fact that there was a hang up 911 call and the cops showed up prior to Patsy making a 911 call...I think they were having a party? If the cops showed up to your house or my house saying a called had been placed, wouldn't we investigate who called? I also think someone may have put Jonbenet in that suitcase considering the evidence. Either JB couldn't lift the suitcase or the suitcase wouldn't fit through the window perhaps?? He had every intention of killing her though. It was the only way he could be certain she wouldn't tell anyone about the abuse and maybe next time the 911 call she made wouldn't be a hang up? : I only work for Jesus
Doc wasn't being smug; he was being kind. A fresh outlook would be welcome if it was predicated on facts. Yours is not, to-wit:
JBR was not hanged but strangled with a garotte. She was likely struck on the head prior to being garotted, as her brain had swelled and hemhorraged. Linda Arndt was not dismissed, but sued and then quit the department after being criticized for her handling of the crime scene. Fleet White mistakenly made the 911 call during the Rs party. There was no evidence JBR had ever been in that suitcase, which was determined to be too small to contain her body. CC
doc g,have you already answered to this review on amazon here on the blog ?
"I only needed to read as far as Doc G's presentation of "the facts" to know that whatever conclusion he has come to about who killed JonBenet must inevitably be wrong. Doc G clearly has a poor understanding of the DNA evidence since presents as "fact" a description of it that is simply "NOT fact". He states that the DNA found on JonBenet's panties was "touch DNA" and therefore nothing to do with the murder. In calling the DNA "touch DNA" Doc G is clinging to a fantasy the DNA was deposited in a much smaller amount than it actually was, either during the manufacturing process or as secondary transfer from some other item. He cannot in all seriousness think he can get away with presenting the DNA as "touch DNA" can he? He has been told over and over by people who know better than him that this is NOT a fact. The DNA was NOT "touch DNA".
The unknown male DNA found at the crime scene which has never been matched was primary deposit DNA and was contained in saliva deposited on the child's body the night of the murder in a much larger amount than Doc G asserts. DNA deposited in a body fluid can NEVER be called 'touch DNA" and the DNA deposited was in a much larger amount of saliva than could have been deposited by way of a hypothetical sneeze by some factory worker. To deny this Doc G is only displaying his ignorance of not only hygiene practices in Chinese workplaces but also of DNA and DNA testing. The fact is that the crime scene DNA could only have been deposited by some male (yet to be identified) who must have had contact with the child the night of the murder. This is a fact that Doc G is in denial about and it's existence totally negates his conclusions about the case and makes complete rubbish of his theory."
It's considered bad form for an author to respond to negative criticism in an Amazon review, so I've avoided doing that. I have no problem responding here, however. And anyone here who feels inclined to respond to any of the reviews on that site is welcome to do so, and with my blessing.
The reviewer is seriously misinformed, not only about the case but about my book, which is completely misrepresented.
"He states that the DNA found on JonBenet's panties was "touch DNA" and therefore nothing to do with the murder."
A complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. As my book makes clear, two DNA samples were found at different times. The first was in a bloodstain found in JBR's panties and mixed with JBR's DNA. Some speculated that it could have been from a sneeze from someone at the panty plant, but no one can say for sure. Then, some years later, touch DNA that matched the earlier (incomplete) sample was found on her pullups. And because the samples matched, the DA concluded that it had to be from her attacker.
The problem is that the methods used to detect touch DNA are so sensitive that it's easy to find DNA transferred from an innocent source that has nothing to do with the case. My problem with the new DNA evidence was not so much that it was touch DNA as that it could easily have gotten onto JBR's hands from some innocent source (such as petting a dog that someone else had petted, for example) and spread to both her pullups and her panties when she put them on, via indirect transfer.
I'm certainly not the only one to have serious reservations regarding that DNA evidence. So did James Kolar for example. I discuss the technical aspects of this issue in an extensive appendix, which the reviewer obviously didn't bother to read or else was incapable of understanding.
The reference to the "much larger amount of saliva" is totally wrong. No saliva was found at all, only some incomplete bits of a DNA molecule mixed with JBR's DNA. The author of this review is the one who's in denial.
I am wondering if this case is connected to two little girls who were murdered in Utah. Terry Lee Black was arrested for murdering a 6 yr old girl in West Jordan, Utah in 2012 https://www.ksl.com/?sid=21194209 Police also suspect that he is responsible for murdering another child, Rosie Talapia. (not sure if that is spelled correctly) This was also similar. These two children were pulled from their bedrooms and killed. I watch a lot of TV, especially Investigation Discovery and while watching the Barbara Walters report today it hit me, "I wonder if the same guy killed Jon Bonet Ramsey too?" If it is the same monster then compare his DNA and this case can be closed.
There were actually six unidentified DNA. samples found on JBR and her clothes. The best thumbnail analysis I've found is on Reddit, "Excerpts from James Kolar on DNA", or somesuch. It gives types, amounts, number of genetic markers, etc, quotes Greg Lafarge, the tech who performed the tests, and is fairly understandable. CC
I hate to be that guy, but I'm posting my comment from the previous thread since it didn't get answered. I would really appreciate an answer :-p.
I 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? If it's so microscopic I don't see how it would be strong enough to transfer at all. I 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. I mean, without this stroke of luck the Ramsey's would most likely still be under scrutiny.
You are confusing two different samples. The earlier one had no identifiable cell and was represented by not even one DNA molecule, only bits and pieces found mixed with JBR's DNA in some blood. It was obviously a very weak and most likely very old sample or more of it would have been found. The later one came from a skin cell, which is what touch DNA means. But again, this would have been an extremely small sample because otherwise other examples of the same skin cells with the same DNA would have been found during the initial search. Methods of identifying "touch DNA" have become so refined that even the slightest bit can now be recovered. The problem is that we have no way of knowing how old that sample could be. Nor can we easily assess its significance, because indirect transfer is so likely.
John's "stroke of luck," as you say, was getting Mary Lacy as the DA, someone easily intimidated by his very aggressive lawyer, Lin Wood. Also, of course, his getting "ruled out" as writer of the note, a huge mistake.
Add something to this-- If John premeditated killing JB , He would not have gone for one last encounter, one would think. No need for a cleanup as some evidence suggests . robert
If John Ramsey did kill JBR I don't believe it was planned. Call me nuts I believe the theory that Burke did it and John covered it for him. I agree with DocG Patsy was a basket case she didn't know what happened ~ maybe John told her later on but not at the beginning. LG
There appears to be no history that I am aware of where a parent would strangle their child in such a way. It is more common for children/teenagers to harm other children in such a manner. Also deranged adults. I've seen conflicting stories on all the events of that day - I do believe there was a cover up by the family but I also think it is not out of the realm of possibility that because the house had an usual layout, is it possible that someone hid in the house around that time waiting for the opportunity and had taken the pineapple out to eat (again conflicting reports on the pineapple that we knew was in her stomach). Is it possible this person could have been a teen friend of Burke's? Maybe this friend was also sexually abusing Jonbenet? The ransom note also seems to be written kind of like someone trying to appear to be adult. It seems that Jon benet did attempt to cry or scream and that is why she was hit over the head. The perpetrator my have already had the garotte on her but had not fully tightened it until post mortem? Also, retrieiving the blanket from the dryer may have been just a coincidence in that the perpetrator was looking for something to cover her up in as that person cared for her and was remorseful afterward. All these things could also pertain to the son as well - maybe he let a friend in and he and a friend were involved. All the other appeared "staging" points to the parents but adding the garotte to the "staged scene" just does not make sense to me.
There also seems to be a lot of questions about the redressing and the wrong sized underwear being put on JB. To my knowledge no one has actually said where that underwear came from, the brand, was it a pair from the Ramsey household. No matter who killed her the oversized unexplained underwear makes no sense.
I'm having trouble with the fact that John premeditated the killing, also the fact that it was spontaneous. If it were premeditated why did he pick the night before a trip to kill her? Seems like a bad night since they had to be up early and he wouldn't have had the optimal time opposed to maybe another day. If it was a spontaneous occurrence it seems unlikely that he would have been able to pen the note. The level of trial and error would be very time consuming. I side with it being spontaneous but I'm conflicted.
Q. Our information that we developed 3 from the grand, well -- after the grand 4 jury, actually, were you unaware of any 5 incident where JonBenet had any accidents at 6 school where she would have to go into the 7 extra panty box that most grammar schools 8 keep for young kids? Do you have a memory 9 of an incident that is contrary to that? 10 A. At school? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. No.
No, these size 12-14 panties were brand new panties, from a gift package which Patsy said she bought for her niece. They were Bloomingdales Days of the Week panties. They were in the basement and likely J changed her panties because of forensic evidence. This package disappeared from the home, not found even after a search by detectives. It’s possible they managed to remove the package or hide it somewhere somehow.
You say John likely changed her panties because of forenic evidence.--Assuming this means semen ,I am asking the question , Would John take one last sex encounter if he was prepearing to murder her? robert
Can you provide a reference for the disappearance of the package of new panties?
Robert, you make it sound like planning a murder is the same as planning a business meeting. Murdering someone is an extremely emotional and in many ways irrational act. Who can say what John was thinking or whether he'd be fully in control of himself at such a time?
It was initially a rumor. Later confirmed in a newspaper quote by their Atlanta attorney LW who referenced that they had sent the package of the remaining Bloomie panties back to authorities in Boulder. This occurred after Lacey took over the case. 'Supposedly' the package had been found in an unpacked box.
Digital penetration leaves DNA. There was no DNA found in her vagina postmortem, so it's likely there was no molestation that night other than with the paintbrush, which imo was intended to cause enough damage to mask prior assaults. CC
As I've said many times, the injuries were not consistent with penetration by a paintbrush handle. The coroner's report stated digital penetration, meaning the insertion of a finger. If the finger were covered with a glove there would have been no DNA. If the finger had been in contact with the paintbrush handle, then fragments of that handle could easily have been transferred to the vagina via the finger. Even if no glove had been used, retrieving touch DNA from such a location would not be a slam dunk by any means. It's not the same as retrieving DNA from sperm.
This from the man who argued a few posts ago about the hyper-sensitivity of touch DNA testing?
In fact, the process is exactly the same - vaginal swabbing.
You're only partially correct. Some injuries were possibly consistent with the paintbrush, hence the blood. Some were believed to be the result of chronic, digital abuse, hence the damaged and healed hymen, a vagina twice normal size for a six year old. CC
It's highly sensitive in that even a very slight trace can be detected. But not in the sense that it's a sure thing and that every single trace will invariably be detected.
I don't recall seeing any reference to a paint brush handle or anything like that in the autopsy. The injuries, both acute and chronic, were, as I recall, attributed to "digital penetration." A paintbrush handle would have produced much more drastic injury and drawn far more blood.
An assumption, as you've no idea with how much force it was wielded. The autopsy did not speculate, but there were fragments from what could have been the paintbrush found in her vagina; no way to be certain.
My theory works just as well as yours, and is no more or less conclusive. It does have the advantage of providing motive and providing a simple explanation for the panties. CC
The DA never had the power to exonerate them. Legally there is no such thing. One is exonerated only after being acquitted in a court of law. Please correct me, CC, if I'm wrong. The DA chose, in effect, to remove them from the suspect list. And that was her decision. No future DA has to go along with that.
New evidence is required for an appeal, but not in a situation like this. Realistically, however, there will be no indictment unless there is some dramatic development, most likely coming from the media, I'd imagine, rather than law enforcement, which would rather forget the whole thing.
The Rs were cleared by Mary Keenan Lacy when she was DA, and while that may be held up by JR as evidence of innocence it's a non-binding opinion and would not prevent Stan Garnett or whomever succeeds him from bringing charges based on the existing evidence. CC
There were six unknown profiles found on JBR, but how strong were they individually? I know the sample that cleared The Ramsey's was extremely weak, but I'm interested in the strength of the other samples.
Zack, I googled " Excerpts from James Kolar DNA Evidence" and the Reddit reference I gave a few days ago popped up in second position. It has the info you want. CC
I can almost hear mrs ramsey say, "John, if they arrest Burke, we will lose both of them."
John says, " No time to argue. MAKE A RANSOM NOTE. Burke, go back to bed. We know you did not mean to hit her with the flashlight. Go to sleep. We will take care of this."
And they did. A real murder, pervert, or other would have reoffended, or offered something else to build up to this.
It wasn't me. Burke might easily have been charged had he done the deed. In fact, the prosecutor could have elected something called direct file, and chosen to try him as an adult. CC
John wipped down the body . Who knows why in the case of premeditated murder. I would say Patsy knew why--but didn't know the details of Johns preperations of the body. robert
I think John went to school on the OJ Simpson trial and John Douglas' s "Mindhunter", and wiped her down in an abundance of caution.
I dunno, Robert. Like many people I came to this blog with an impression that Patsy had some involvement, but I just can't make it work with the available evidence, embracing either Doc's theory or mine. I'd be happy to be persuaded, but it's going to take cold, hard facts. CC
What feels strange, for me, is most of the evidense after the blow to the head.
The ransom note, garrat, panties, and dna all point away from the Ramseys, but not to to a specific person.I can almost jear John say, " put 118,000 in the note. That will point to someone I worked with." Almost like when Buggs Bu`y put his hands up, with fingers point both directions and says "he went that way."
Then they take a few hrs to reason this out. Patsy, he says, "The accident killed her. I just ended her misery."
My impression is JDI and it was premeditated. I don't think any parent, even John, could accidentally or suddenly kill their little daughter and then stay composed enough to do all of that staging. And then sit down and write that very detailed and long RN. PMS
That possibility has occurred to others as well. And though I'd ruled premeditation out initially, I eventually came to take it seriously as a distinct possibility. For my reasoning, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/07/premeditated.html and the subsequent discussion.
I believe JR was a very intelligent, controlling businessman and a narcissist. I just cannot accept that he felt the need to kill his daughter out of fear she would tell somebody that he was molesting her. As I have said before on this blog, I feel certain that he had more control over her than others give him credit, and he would have had many ways to keep her quiet. She was only 6 years old. And if he was able to control and manipulate Patsy after the crime, which I believe he was, I feel certain he was also capable of controlling his 6-year old daughter from exposing him.
Based on this, I don't believe this was premeditated. I believe he did molest her that night which explains why she was wiped down. I agree with poster Robert above that if this was premeditated, he most likely wouldn't have been in the frame of mind to sexually assault her first. I believe the blow to the head came when she either screamed or ran away, or both. Judging from the location of the head injury, it seems logical that he hit her from behind, perhaps when she was running away (to tell mommy?). Once he hit her, he knew he could not explain to Patsy what had happened and he knew he had to make sure she was dead and then stage the crime to point to an intruder.
Sometimes I think people overthink this case . . . analyzing everything from the oversized panties to the DNA. I have chosen to look at it in a much simpler way and look at what logically makes sense. Who knows why she was redressed in oversized panties, or why the ransom note asks for $118,000 or whether the paintbrush was used to penetrate her? I do believe that there was never an intruder that night and that leaves just 3 people in the house who could have done this. And since I also believe she had been sexually molested, logically, I think it was JR who did it. All the other unanswered mysteries of this case are the product of the coverup he - and he alone -- masterminded.
I just discovered and have been reading this blog all weekend and have found it a very Interesting read. I just do not see how Patsy could not have been in on it and then she still has no clue for 10 yrs ? That is a little more than unbelievable. This is a great theory but kind of fits the facts in as it goes. Logic does not equal facts and no matter which way you go this case has no logic. I find the pineapple to be a very telling on this case because someone was up with JB and not because of the fingerprints on the bowl but whose fingerprints are NOT on the bowl. No one will ever be prosecuted in this case and that is very very sad. C.J.
Glad to learn you've been reading here and that you've found it interesting. As for Patsy, what makes you think she'd have been more likely to figure things out than either the police or the DA's office? John had been officially "ruled out" as writer of the note, which placed all the suspicion on her. If she didn't write it, then she'd have had no choice but to assume it must have been written by an intruder. And since John had become her principal supporter, she'd have been foolish indeed to say anything that might make him look bad.
Several things ...for instance just imagine that you live with someone who just killed a family member in your home. Do you think that they would be able to hide that ? The lies and all the behaviors that go with it...They know each other very well as you would know that person very well. Im curious as your take on the pineapple. We know that whoever was up feeding JB pineapple does not want that known bc they would be the last to be with her so that being said we know Patsys prints could be on there for ither reasons but how did John wipe his prints off and leave Patsys and Burkes ?
John's prints weren't found on the "ransom note" either, though he certainly held it in his hands. According to LE people I've spoken with, it's not unusual to find no prints even when someone has been known to have handled something. Same with DNA.
I wouldnt have thought that he would think of that ...I just think that when living with someone it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to hide that kind of thing from a spouse (not just in this scenario but any murder). With all the the lies that have to be told and body languages given off on top of other things. If this is what did happen then I have to say that Patsy is a very very clueless and unintelligent woman.
It has been a much discussed topic on this blog -- I would suggest you go back and read some more. After John was ruled out, there was a lot of focus on Patsy, as well as criticism for entering her daughter in pageants, dressed as she was. She had to have been very afraid of becoming the prime and only suspect. If she did not kill JB, and JR was ruled out as the writer of the note, was gaslighting her memory of past events, paying for her lawyer, consoling her, conveniently making sure she had plenty of friends to support her and plying her with sedatives, then of course she is going to buy the intruder theory- hook, line, and sinker.
I have read the blogs ...and there is no of course she is going to buy anything ...if this did occur as Doc has proposed it would take a very special kind of stupid for it to fly. As many clues as we have she had at least 3 times as many and the drugs wore off at some point over 10 years so that does not make a bit of difference in this scenario as it would only serve to prolong anyone with a bit of common sense.
Patsy was not known to be stupid. We really don't know what "facts" she digested, but we can intelligently guess at the level of fear she must have felt over being the focus in the media and by the questions she was being asked by police. If you have never believed your husband to be the kind of man who could or would do something like this, it would be hard to allow your mind to think such an unthinkable scenario, especially after JR was ruled out for writing the note. Could she have had some questions over the years after she learned more and had time to put together some observations? I think its possible. But in the end, she never came forward to accuse her husband, so she either never fully convinced herself, or she was afraid of him, or she wanted to protect Burke (or all 3). One thing is for sure, you don't have to be a "special kind of stupid" to be human and act on your feelings, emotions, and fears.
So everyones beliefs are that Patsy believes/believed this: "an intruder breaks in, wakes her daughter up out of bed and takes her downstairs, cuts up and feeds her pineapple,sexually assaults her, hits her over the head and then waits 1-2 hrs to decide to finish her off by garroting her, writes a mile long ransom note (at some time during the night) wipes down the body, redresses her, puts her favorite blanket over her and then cleans and wipes down all evidence of themselves out of the house"? Patsy looking at how long all of this must have taken, how much intimate inside knowledge must be known and how much risk an intruder would be taking roaming around the house for hours if not all night with the rest of the family sleeping right upstairs as absurd. Would it not be logical to assume that she would have no choice but to suspect the only other adult in the house ? Then you throw in that the other adult is having you lie about whose idea it was to call 911 and later about a broken window as well as observing that the person you suspect disappears for an hour while waiting for kidnappers to call only to later be the 1 who discovers your daughters body and then immediately plans a trip out of dodge minutes after discovering her daughters body. She has no choice but to suspect John or know John did it and she would have no choice but to view an intruder just as absurd as we do. C.J.
She clearly wasn't in on it or she'd never have called 911, so what does it matter that she may have eventually grown suspicious? What's your point? CC
Because while I had come to believe that John was in on it alone yet I like to keep an open mind. After rethinking things and putting in Patsys position I just do not see it as possible that she did not know. I read in this blog where Doc states that right after JBs body was found and John made that call that he lied and said he had a business meeting he could not miss ...we all know that was a lie because he was going to Charlevoix. That being said then Patsy has to know that is a lie as well.... as far as the 911 call and the body while I am not disagreeing it is logical it is by no means concrete. It would not be the first time a murderer kills someone and calls 911 with the body in the house. It is possible that there was never any plan to dump the body ....
A LE officer overheard J call his pilot 30 mins. after bringing up the body and told him he couldn't go, that's when J said he had a business meeting. P was in other room with minister and girlfriends and Arndt and never even heard that story or J told her it was to get her to Atlanta to be with her family. J had plan to dump body, alright, it was right there in the RNote.
C.J., what you write is understandable. But you need to remember that 1. a great many people have convinced themselves there was an intruder, Patsy was certainly not alone; 2. the notion that John could not have written the ransom note was universally accepted by literally everyone investigating the case, so why would Patsy believe differently? 3. there is a well known tendency for people to believe what they want to believe or what it is in their interest to believe, even in the face of very strong evidence to the contrary.
As I see it, and regardless of how sensible your argument sounds, the only scenario that consistently makes sense when we consider all the evidence is that John killed his daughter and attempted to cover it up by staging a phony kidnapping -- manipulating an innocent Patsy into supporting his version of what happened. While certain details of the case might suggest Patsy's involvement, closer scrutiny makes it extremely unlikely, based on both the evidence and the psychology of the case.
C.J. you have to understand that Doc's theory depends on Patsy not asking herself any questions. You're right of course, there is no way she could avoid having suspicions of John.
I am sure I have read about the stun gun on this blog but I am going to bring it up again because I recently saw some autopsy photos. I had always thought that Kolar was correct and that a stun gun was not used but after seeing a couple of photos there is definitely a blue line going from 1 mark to the other mark on JB. Could the train tracks possibly do this even if it was electrified ? Would they not have to arc off of another form of metal to cause the blue line on JB ? Also doesnt the pineapple kind of negate the stun gun theory ? At least Lou Smits theory of it becomes irrelevant. After Patsy had found out about the pineapple evidence in JBs stomach you would think that if she knew she did not feed it to JB then she would have to suspect the only other person capable of cutting up a fresh pineapple ? Even she would have to find it absurd that a stranger broke in and fed her pineapple ? Just some thoughts .
Patsy had cut up the entire pineapple and stored it in a plastic bag. Anyone living in the house could have spooned some into a bowl, including a six-year old.
Stun guns were extensively tested on pigs after Smit floated his theory and left two round burn marks, no blue line of which I'm aware. Doc? CC
I have never read that about the pineapple being previously cut so thank you CC. I knew about the trial on the pigs and that no stun gun markings lined up and the experts said no to the stun gun. What I did not know and (I dont think Kolar mentioned this is his book? but I may be wrong, it has been awhile) was about the blue line bc I saw it and it is there. I know Kolar said he thought someone used the train tracks as electricity on JB ....however now thinking about that I do not think that is possible because when I was younger I had a similar train track and I could take the tracks apart and the ones still attached to the electricity I could touch either prong without being shocked. However when I dropped scissors on 1 of the prongs sparks then flew. My parents caught me showing my friends this and I got my ass whooped lol. My point though being that I do not believe that you can just take a piece of electricified track off and touch someone with it and electrocute them. I do believe the track has to touch metal ...
I have not looked to see if I can see a blue line, but I well--and I don'think there could be any shock from the track, maybe a little tingle. My reasoning being that the train track was the item used that made the marks was that John suckered Patsy into believeing that JB was dead (wheather she was or not) and there was no use in calling 911. Just a little more on the Train track electricity-- House power is AC current-Train is DC current after plugging it in the power goes into a transformer that converts it to DC current ,the same used by weilders that don't get shocked yet makes a spark-much like what you have posted. robert
Kolar never claimed the train tracks had been plugged in. He simply demonstrated that the spacing of the track ends seemed to fit the spacing of JBR's wounds. I personally doubt both Smit's and Kolar's theories, because there are any number of ways those marks could have gotten onto her body. Just because something seems to fit doesn't mean it was actually used.
I've never taken Smit's theory seriously enough to even bother to investigate it, because it's meaningless on its face. There is no reason to assume a stun gun was used -- or train tracks for that matter. But we know train tracks were found at the scene, which makes Kolar's theory at least plausible, while there is no basis for Smit's theory whatsoever.
Kolarsaid that he could not say exactly what he believed the train tracks were used for. Thus my thinking what he was inplying was that A) Someone was shocking her to see if she was dead or B) Part of some sick sex game was what I took out of it. Im pretty sure he said or at least implied that he thought they had eectricity running thru them. I may be wrong about the electricity but not him atating he couldnot comment on what he believed the use was for . I think it was in FF so I may have to go back and find thise statements as its been awhile .
Kolar neither states nor implies that the train tracks were electrified or used for a sex game. His entire experiment consisted of jabbing a fellow officer with a piece of track and noting the similarity of the resulting marks to those on JBR.
Your "blue line" is probably a vein; a number of similar blue lines can be seen in the autopsy photo of her back, along with mottled discoloration from lividity.
I checked out those lines also, they are in many other places and deffinetly not related to an arc that would lieve a blue line. Also I have noted before the large roundish bruse just below the ear on her right side, and the coinsidence of if you put your right hand around your own thoat your thumb will touch in this same area. Or the same as if you was to take your right hand and put it on someone else facing you , your right thumb will be in this area on this person on him right side. robert
I did not see any other lines like that so I will have to go back and look thru the photos but that is definitely not a vein. It goes from the 1 mark on her to the other mark on herand definitely looks consistent with being part of the same injury that causes the 2 marks.
Permaps someone could rehash items (if any) that Aunt Pam took from the residence . We know she was allowed to go there to pick up clothes for those poor Ramseys who couldn't afford new clothes for the funeral. Crime scene photos show the golf bag and tape dispenser- these are images before the event of Pam's visit I assume. I am just looking for truth in the saying that John asked for his golf equipment and that Pam rounded and took stuff like this--robert
Hi. I've read your blog. I'm unconvinced. I don't wish to have a long protracted discussion so I'll just throw in my 2 cents and be done.
First I don't agree with your premise that Patsy would never have made that 911 call if she had known the body was in the house. I think the idea of dumping the body certainly crossed his/her/their mind(s) but they may have chickened out. They may have decided to blame the death on the intruders even with the body in the wine cellar. They may have reasoned it would be safer than driving a body around, especially since it would be John taking all the risk.
Second, JR would never have allowed that phone call and would never have allowed a situation in which he could not control the outcome. I realize this has been discussed at great length. IMO, there is simply no reason why he'd allow Patsy to find the note, rather than himself, of if he did allow her to find it, he'd have taken it from her, while holding her arm, and would have read every line emphasizing how dangerous it would be to call the police. No, he could not prevent a phone call if she were determined, but he'd take steps to make sure she wasn't determined to call. I'd note that you say you think Patsy may have been a bit afraid of JR at that moment, then you go to great lengths to convince us Patsy is completely naive as to who killed JonBenet. IMO, either John would have prevented that call or Patsy very well knows who the culprit is.
Third, patsy is telling some lies which she wouldn't do if she were innocent. She lied about the window, and I'm sorry but I don't buy your gaslighting explanation. I could not help noticing that you had a different explanation originally but when someone pointed out that it really didn't make sense you gravitated to gaslighting. No one can really prove gaslighting, it's not fact based, so we just have to ask oursleves whether we think it's likely or not. I don't see it as very likely, especially the way you have explained it.
The panties are a puzzle and I think Patsy may be lying about putting them in the drawer. They weren't there. For your theory to remain true and consistent with Patsy's claim, JR would have had to remove the entire package of panties from the drawer and used one pair to redress JonBenet. However, if his plan was to dump the body, why bother redressing? Why bother with panties at all? The missing pair can be blamed on the intruder, and that's true whether the body is found in the wine cellar, or in the woods. I see no reason for JR to have put panties on her at all. If nothing else, JR always has the end game in mind. He'd know there was no need at all for panties. So if JR didn't need the package of panties, and they weren't in the drawer when police searched, Patsy is lying. I know you think the size 12s were meant to forestall a search for the missing size 6s, but in my opinion the size 6s would have been destroyed immediately after the 911 call, if they in fact had JR's semen on them. This would have been more important than substituting panties.
Alas I do not have a theory of the case to present in place of yours, but I'm unconvinced that you have solved it.
Hi Tom. Clearly you've done a lot of reading here, which I appreciate. And you are entitled to your opinion, which I certainly acknowledge. So. We can always agree to disagree.
However:
I've seen many alternative explanations for why Patsy would have called 911 with the body in the house and none of them hold up. If they had thought things over and decided that dumping the body was too risky, then they would certainly not have wanted to hand a pointless and possibly incriminating ransom note over to the police. Nor would they have left the body hidden in that remote basement room.
Once the body is found, then it's clear there was no kidnapping, so the note then backfires, making it look like a staged kidnapping that somehow went wrong. This is certainly how the authorities interpreted it, and one of the main reasons why the great majority following the case still see it as an inside job. If they'd changed their minds about staging a kidnapping, because they though dumping the body was too risky, then they would have forgotten about the note and staged a breakin by a pedophile intruder. And they would certainly have done a better job of staging the window breakin before calling in the cops.
As for the rest, that's mostly what I refer to as the "morass." You can speculate all you like about whether or not John would have been able to prevent Patsy from making that call, or why Patsy answered questions about the oversize panties the way she did, or why she would have lied about the phone call or the broken window glass, but this is all just speculation. The bottom line is the fact that Patsy is the one who called 911, and simple logic, if not simple common sense, tells us that she would not have done that if she was staging a kidnapping. Simple logic tells us also that they would have had no problem cooperating fully with the police from the start if both were in it together. And the most basic understanding of human psychology tells us how unlikely it is that an innocent spouse would be willing to take such a huge risk in covering for the murderer of his/her own beloved child. Sorry, but "family honor" doesn't cut it.
It's possible that the Rs realized that having a confused "non-linear" crime scene was actually their best defense.
Had they done the expected, tore up the note, left the body in the open, they'd simply have a hokey story about an intruder. They'd likely have been charged, or at least questioned. As it is, they have a "kidnapping" that "went wrong" with a hidden body, and evidence of sexual assault.
It's because there is no linear story that makes sense that they have escaped justice.
No Tom didn't mention family honor, but Kolar did. And more or less the same motive was suggested by Steve Thomas.
As far as creating a "non-linear" crime scene I'm sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. I don't even know what that means. And I've never heard of anyone deliberately staging a failed kidnapping, that strikes me as ridiculous. If that was their intent, then a few scribbled lines would have done the trick, not a detailed 2 1/2 page ransom note filled with very specific instructions and warnings.
It's obvious that the note was intended to be seen as evidence that JBR had been kidnapped. And if her body was still in the house, then she obviously had not been kidnapped. Assuming they are both in on it, then at that moment the note works against them, not for them. The only interpretation that makes sense is that something went wrong with the original plan. And the only thing I can think of that could have gone wrong was Patsy's 911 call. If you can think of something else that could have gone wrong, please share.
A linear story is one that makes sense from start to finish. For example, if JB has been kidnapped, her body should not be in the basement. Or as another example, if she were murdered by a sex killer, there's no reason for her body to be wrapped and hidden or for a RN.
Non-linear then, obviously, is the opposite; a confused mish-mash of clues that don't tell a sensible story of kidnapping, or sex killing.
All I'm saying is that the Ramseys may have been clever enough to realize that confusion was their best weapon.
Had they left the body out in the open, and naked, would the police be more likely to buy the intruder theory? I don't think so. They'd have been arrested.
So, if they chickened out about driving around with a body in the car and were figuring out a plan B, they may have realized they didn't need to stage things so they "made sense".
A kidnapping gone wrong doesn't really have to make sense. IOWs it doesn't have to follow a linear story line. By it's nature, it wouldn't.
I might better have described a linear story as one that is internally consistent. Having multiple inconsistencies, they create confusion and it's hard for the police to get a handle on the case.
If they chickened out they are stuck with a body no matter what the staging. They can try to make the staging tell a nice short linear story, or they can make it tell a non-linear story that sows confusion as to who did what and why.
A kidnapping gone wrong still needs a RN. It doesn't have to be long, but then again there is no reason it needs to be short. If they already had a RN why not use it w/o change? It shows that there was a kidnapping plan, and that sometime after the note was left on the stairs things "went wrong".
I don't see that they'd be in any different circumstances if they had destroyed the original RN and wrote a shorter one to go with the "kidnapping gone wrong".
In the end, if they aren't going to dump the body, they are stuck explaining who killed her. They have to blame it on an intruder.
"All I'm saying is that the Ramseys may have been clever enough to realize that confusion was their best weapon."
I can't agree. A confused crime scene is a suspicious crime scene. The more confused, the more suspicious. It wasn't the confusion that prevented the Ramseys from being indicted, it was the impossibility of telling who did what, plus the fact that the person most likely to have sexually assaulted the victim was "ruled out" as writer of the note, and there was NO evidence linking Patsy to the crime.
What the confusion would have told competent investigators was that this was a staged kidnapping that went wrong. Obviously a real kidnapper who for some reason was unable to remove his victim from the house would not have left his ransom note lying around for no reason.
"Had they left the body out in the open, and naked, would the police be more likely to buy the intruder theory? I don't think so. They'd have been arrested."
They could not have been arrested because there would have been no evidence linking either of them to the crime. And if they'd completed the window staging, there would have been evidence consistent with an intruder.
By handing over the note, however, they provided the police with exactly the sort of evidence needed to put them on trial. Why on Earth would they have wanted to do that? The only thing that stood in the way of their indictment was the very odd decision to rule John out. If they hadn't ruled him out he'd have been arrested for sure, as all the evidence pointed to him -- with or without Patsy's involvement.
Amek, see my response to Tom, above. I see only two instances where Patsy obviously lied, and both lies are in support of John's version of what happened. She's been accused of other lies, but as I see it these are most likely the result of simple confusion -- either on her part or the part of the questioners. The bottom line on any of these alleged lies is to ask oneself WHY she would want to lie. I can think of no reason for why she'd want to lie about either JBR's top or the oversize panties.
I CAN see why she would want to lie about the phone call, because it would obviously weaken their case if they were to get into a dispute over what really happened. Same with the broken window. If she had insisted that window had never been broken until the night of the crime, then their mutual defense would have been blown out of the water. And since he'd been ruled out and she had not, then she would have been far more vulnerable than he, if it came to a dispute between them.
There was apparently no evidence the body had ever been in the trunk of the car, but even if it had I don't see what difference that would make. Once the 911 call had been made, there was no way they could have gotten the body out of the house. The time to do that would have been prior to calling the police, not afterward.
But it would not explain the 911 call. If you limit yourself to inconclusive details, then you can convince yourself of almost anything. If you concentrate on the facts, clear inferences from those facts, and concentrate as well on the big picture, then as I see it, the identity of the guilty party emerges quite clearly. While some of my arguments might seem overly complex and far-fetched, I can guarantee that any theory based on both Patsy and John conspiring to stage a phony kidnapping will be far more complicated and absurdly far-fetched.
In almost any case, there will always be certain aspects that will never be explained -- because life is like that: complicated. Even when no crime has been committed.
I agree with the above posters as well . Concessions are made to an almost extreme extent regarding Patsy. What evidence and facts do we have that prove John committed this murder anymore than Patsy did? There is 0 evidence against John doing anything other than staging and that is not even solid. As far as it being fact that bc Patsy made the 911 call so she had no part and John wanting the body out of the house that is pure 100% skepticism. It is played on this site as if because it is logical it is fact. People call 911 with the body in the house all the time .....something that is almost denied on this site. If it were a well planned out hit on JB by a professional than that would make much more sense but that was definitely not the case here. Whoever did do it made plenty of mistakes and were nost likely only saved by the incompetence of the police the day of the murder. Also another lie that I have personally heard and is disputed away to save Patsy on this site is that Burke was not up when 911 was called . I have heard an enhanced version where clearly there is a young male awake and speaking and if it is not Burke than it is another young male .
I heard the 911 call years ago and on the 1 I heard it was clear as day and it was Patsy saying Oh jesus oh jesus then a young male says something that I would consider inaudible in the version I heard and then the most audible part is John in a very very loud and very angry voice reply back to this young male We are not speaking to you ! I would like to ask Doc about Patsys deposition and her being shown scrapbooks and pictures from the Ramsey house with writing under them and she is asked whose handwriting it is ? She is clearly lying when asked and shown these ....she cant recall and claims to not know whose it is. These are clear lies and you can tell by her fidgeting and looking at her watch during depo. I dont want to get into the analysis of the handwriting again but they are more than similar. My question is this ....maybe it is her writing maybe it is not but point being who does not know who is writing and titling the kids pictures and scrapbooks in their own home ???? So the question here is not who wrote it but the question is WHY is she lying ?
She had a mother and two sisters who were very involved in her life, particularly while she was being treated for cancer - who's to say they didn't caption some of those photos? Again, the questions in that deposition were being asked by a lawyer suing them for $50M, and one whom the Ramseys knew was out to get them, not by a member of LE out for facts to find the killer of their daughter - I'm sure they were both as intentionally vague as possible. Perhaps Burke's voice was on that enhanced call , but all that proves is that they wanted to protect their son from involvement in an ugly situation, surely a normal parental response. CC
Thank you, CC. I agree. And despite a serious effort on my part, listening to that recording over and over and enhancing it with my own software I have never been able to hear anything that sounds like a young boy or John either. I do hear Patsy saying something that sounds like "help me Jesus," but that's all. And even that is a stretch. If anyone has an enhanced copy of that recording where the voices of Burke and John can be identified, I'll be happy to give it another try. All I hear is crosstalk, i.e., noise.
It has been years since I have heard it but I can give you my word that on the version I heard there is no chance of reading into it as crosstalk as it is pretty clear what was said and you can even recognize PR and JRs voices. Patsy is saying help me jesus just like you heard ...the young male part was inaudible to me other than you could tell it was a young male and the most crystal clear part of it was John probably because he was so loud and very angry and he says We are not talking to you!I will see what i can do to try and track down this version of the call....it still unfortunately doesnt give us any more clues than what we already knew.
A normal parental response? Why would it involve Burke, other than having to possibly testify at a trial, to say he was awake? It would be strange if he had not woke up with Patsy and John running around and looking for JBR and looking in on Burke. It must have been noisy. John would have had to play it "for real". The fact is they lied about Burke being awake, and at the time they told the lie they didn't know there would ever be any evidence to the contrary.
I've never heard the enhanced version, but I cannot beleive Steve Thomas
Tom, AmeK and Anonymous: I recognize your right to be skeptical, but can't help but notice that none of you propound an alternative theory other than, seemingly, your beliefs PDI. Can you do so? I, for one, would be happy to entertain it, provided it accounts for what little evidence and few facts are available with a minimum of baseless speculation. CC
This is Tom. I said very clearly that I have no alternative theory. I don't consider the case to have been solved by anyone espousing any theory. I simply don't think DoctorG has solved it.
If by "solved it" you mean explained every single detail then no, I have not solved it. There are many loose ends that haven't been explained, no question. However, if you mean I've put my finger on the killer of JonBenet Ramsey, then yes I do believe I've solved it. The many questions raised by all the different details and testimony and possible suspects and various bits of evidence that might or might not mean something will probably never be answered. As I see it, all this is beside the point. If we take the evidence presented in the first three posts on this blog and combine it with my analysis of John's broken window story, the identity of the guilty party should be clear. As for the rest, we'll probably never know.
I do not claim to know ...there are many theories I could propose. I just asked a valid question tho that I suppose either A will not be answered or B it will be that John brainwashed her into not being able to recognize anyone in the house handwriting. As far as me speculating feel free to tell me what on bc I am posting only facts ....unfortunately they go against Docs theory and book so it is calledbaseless when in fact it clearly is muchore valid and factual than basing a whole theory on bc someone called 911 with the body in the house they couldnt be involved and making and ignoring all of the facts that do not fit that story .
That's not quite fair. I think every effort has been made by a number of people to answer your questions and refute your points for several weeks now. CC
No it is a straight up lie. I do not think calling straight up facts speculation is fair. I did not make up some story out of nowhere I was just repeating and asking what we all already know as factual. Whether or not her sister or mom or whatever family member was captioning them in her house she should surely know who it was and/ or be able to recognize their handwriting. This is common sense not speculation. It is just another avoidance of what is clearly obvious. Of course saying or admitting anything against a theory that you wrote a book about would kinda ruin the book.
I don't agree that PR necessarily lied in her deposition. I'll tell you what I tell my clients going into a depo: Tell the truth. Don't speculate. Answer only what's asked, don't embellish or volunteer additional information. If you can't remember, don't recall or aren't sure, say so. I'm sure PR got similar advice. CC
That being said then why would she lie when asked directly if she recognized whose writing it was ? Why did she not just say Nedra or Pam or John if they wrote it ? You can expect me to buy some things however her not being able to recognize her own or someone in her family's writing in her scrapbook w pictures of her daughter from her own house is quite far fetched. The most logical answer here is that it was her her handwriting ....i mean the most likely scenario is obvi not John and also most likely she had very good reason to lie. We could come up with just as many " alternative reasonings" and then some for anything in this scenario of John did it all as well. I feel this is an obvious lie however it goes against docs book so .....
I'm going to guess she couldn't be sure whose handwriting it was, and good legal advice dictated she reply accordingly.
Doc and I disagree on a few issues, and I assure you I have no vested interest in promoting his theory or his book. I simply do not think you've made any valid points. CC
So not being able to recognize your family's or your own handwriting and lying about it (as I feel common sense points that out) in this case is not a valid point ? Nor is lying about Burke or whoever young male it is. Ill bring up 1 last point ....the practice note or beginning of it was pointed out by Patsys sister to be Patsy's writing . Being as it was to be almost the exact opening to the ransom note wouldnit not make logical sense that she started writing it changed her mind about who to title it too /or needed to change the writing style or is it more logical that it just so happened to be that 2 seperate people began titling a letter in much the same way ? These are all very valid "factual" points as I think many would agree. In the totality you have to write a whole hell of alot off on Patsy. In reality I am not decided in any way but BDI fits the facts best as far as not leaving any holes in the story. He kills JBR and then before the J and P know that a 9 yr old can not be prosecuted they stage everything together. After learning that Burke can not be prosecuted it is too late to turn back because they are both already neck deep in charges and disgrace so keeping with the IDI story is what all 3 agree that they will all take to their graves. Every clue and facet of the story now "fits". Not saying this is what I think but I am saying the puzzle fits and as far as evidence goes I do not see any more evidence against John than I do either P or J yet you and Doc claim to follow only facts and evidence constantly when posters bring up very valid points. What facts and evidence bc I would love to hear it .. all I see are opinions based on the same facts me and many others are using. As soom as we drop the theory of whoever called 911 couldnt have been involved the door opens up to many possibilities. If it were that simple police could solve every in home murder with 2 people involved by just elininating the person who called 911.
The entire "practice note" consists of the words: "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. Whether this matches the ransom note is far from clear as this bit has never to my knowledge been made public. I have no idea where you learned that Patsy's sister identified it. Do you have a reference for that?
As far as Burke is concerned, I've written extensively on the Burke-did-it theory, pointing out the many holes. If you do some searches here you'll find the relevant posts.
I never said PDI ...I thought this was a blog for people interested in discussing and possibly coming to a valid conclusion but at this point I think it is more just to support Docs theory and if you dont support it even tho it is clearly specualation than dont bother posting .
Many people reading here have disputed my theory. This is not a private club, far from it. I've never censored any of them and never will. But I do think I have a right to defend my take on this case and so far I've seen nothing that seriously calls it into question.
If Patsy said she didn't recognize the writing it could have been for two reasons: either she was telling the truth and did not recognize it, which is always possible; or she was deliberately being uncooperative, which is understandable. She knew very well that Darnay Hoffmann was trying to nail her to the wall on the basis of little more than these few scribblings, so maybe she didn't want to make it easy for him.
Another possibility is that she did recognize the hand of someone else in the family but was reluctant to identify that person for fear he or she could then become a suspect.
It's important to remember that it was Patsy who offered to take 10 polygraphs if it would help the investigators, while John flatly refused, protesting that the very idea of a polygraph was "insulting."
That said, I do think you've made a valid point in bringing up that part of her testimony. I certainly don't want to dismiss it, as it's something we need to consider for sure. But I don't see it as decisive.
I'll add one more thing. The few words used as captions for those photos mean very little when compared to the many examples of Patsy's writing that the investigators had access to (and Hoffmann did not), both historic exemplars and exemplars written out at their request. Patsy fully cooperated in that part of the investigation, so I don't see what she would have had to gain by lying some time later about those very few captions. The many exemplars she provided were carefully studied by experienced examiners hired by the authorities and they found it "unlikely" that she wrote the note. The incompetence of Darnay's "experts" is fully demonstrated in my blog posts entitled "The Experts See Patsy." Look them up.
Thank you ...I appreciate your replies Doc and CC and I do not mean to be abrasive but I am a debater/ was on debate team so it is just in me to be this way and look at all angles. I am saying that there is no way not only here but in any family home that a mother can not identify the other family members writing ...i say it is impossible not to be able to identify it and I would venture to say LE already knew whose handwriting it was when they gave her the samples . If she has nothing to hide and has no involvement in the death of her daughter then why lie ??? Wouldnt she want to be honest and find out who killed her daughter ?If it is someone elses and she is lying for them than that says that she is covering for someone .....which is possible however who do you see as most likely labeling pictures and scrapbooks not only in the Ramseys household but any ? And yes she volunteered to take polygraph but she really had no choice but to pretend like she wanted to ...she then failed 3 and was told to go elsewhere to get the answers she wanted .
OK, first of all there is no evidence Patsy failed a polygraph. And she did have a choice to refuse to take one. When asked by Steve Thomas, Patsy agreed but John refused. So yes, there was a choice.
When Patsy was asked about the photo captions, she had already been through a rigorous process that included many historic exemplars and if in fact she had written those captions, they would have been among the exemplars studied by the authorities. So clearly she would have had no reason to lie about them outright. But she might well have not been willing to cooperate with Chris Wolf's lawyers, and so conveniently "forgot" who penned them. Was that dishonest? If that was her reason, then yes, I suppose it was. Is it evidence of her guilt? Sorry, but I don't think so. If the examiners had been able to match her writing to the writing on the note, THAT would have been evidence of guilt.
Bottom line. We really have no way of knowing whether or not she recognized the writing and lied about it, but we do know that she would have had nothing to gain by lying, since the meaningful comparisons had already been made by law enforcement and she had never been accused of being involved in the murder or coverup in any way.
The GJ findings would only be half right ,with a John did it . -- Many say the GJ finding say that both Patsy and John covered for Burke . I am not sure how they arrive at that when the findings say suspicion of 1st degree murder-- any referance to Burke as being involved ,the wording would have been different . I lean toward the GJ findings being 100% correct. robert
Something I was pondering.....In order to establish a little bit of precedent regarding Patsy being willing to lie for John, read through portions of their interviews conducted by the BPD and Lou Smit from 1998.
I'm not going to copy and paste out the quotes but if you would like to read these interviews they are here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm
Specifically, John is discussing possible suspects/motives and he talks about the woman he was having an affair with while married to his first wife. He described her as an obsessed stalker who wouldn't leave him alone, even though he had ended the relationship with her. And as he is beginning a relationship with Patsy, this woman shows up at Johns apartment looking for him while Patsy is there visiting. John tells us he told Patsy about this woman's Fatal Attraction so Patsy, "as cool as a cucumber" (Johns exact phrasing) (and while John is hiding behind the door), lies to the woman and calmly makes up a lie about John not being home in order to make the lady leave. John is impressed by this (his words) and tells Lou Smit that it is at that moment he realizes Patsy will be someone significant to him. A Freudian slip in my opinion. Your ability to lie for me is when I knew you were the one, honey. Crickey.
In Patsy's interview/interrogation, this woman is brought up as a possible suspect and is described as the woman John was having an affair with during his first marriage. Patsy's reaction is she had no idea that this relationship was going on during John and Lucinda's marriage. She only knew the version of the story John told her. I mean, if she did know, why lie about that? I think it was a new revelation for her. God knows how John explained that to her afterwards.
This speaks volumes to me about Johns ability to convince Patsy of his version of the "truth." And her willingness to buy whatever BS he tells her. He didn't tell her about his infidelity and how it ultimately broke up his marriage, he just told her it was some crazy ex girlfriend, obviously to present himself in the best possible light to this young, and I'm sure a bit intimidated 23 year old that he wanted for his next conquest. And you may think, what's the big deal, this is just a man trying to keep his dirty laundry on the down-low in order to win the heart of the woman he's wooing, but it shows Johns secretiveness and deceptive nature and to me was just a huge insight into part of the dysfunctional psychology of this couple.
Also, in relation to the ransom note, weren't several pages missing from the notepad? Is it feasible that Patsy had written notes on these papers,unrelated to the murder, allowing John to copy her handwriting? Making sure just a few of his letters mimicked Patsy's consistently throughout the note would be enough to throw the scent off of himself and onto her.
One last note on my observation of the codependency I saw in this couple; what sort of decent, loving husband convinces his grief stricken, Valium saturated wife to go on CNN two days after finding their daughter brutally murdered and present a "we are the victims, not the killers" face to the world speech? Suzs
All this amounts to about the same thing as a spouse saying that the other spouse isn't home when he/she doesn't want to take a phone call. It isn't quite the same as lying about a window, or panties, or Burke being awake, all of which play into a murder investigation.
The culpability and implications are the same despite it only being a libel suit. A libel suit that could have easily landed them in a criminal case. So trying to say that she was dishonest about the handwriting just because she was being sued just does not hold any value. Especially not from 2 people so intent on clearing their names publicly and finding their daughters killer. I dont know if I am alone with my opinion but trying to convince me that a mother can not identify her own or another family members handwriting out of pictures and scrapbooks in her house is beyond ridiculous and clearly a lie. I find this signifigant and I can tell she is lying and you can tell during the depo that Hoffman knows she is lying as well. At this point Wood begins interjecting every 10 seconds and muddying up the depo on purpose. Why an innocent person with nothing to hide who is supposedly looking for their daughters killer would have ANY reason or need for any type of deception at all (libel or criminal) can only lead me to 1 conclusion. As far as her lie detector test they were backed into a corner publicly and PR saying she would take 10 and JR saying he would be insulted means absolutely nothing. Trying to portray herself as ever being any more cooperative with LE than JR in any way is false....she may have tried to portray herself that way but she never did anything not forced upon her. As far as the Poly results go you are wrong Doc ..PR failed 3 polys and was then told by the 1st examiner that she would have to go elsewhere for the results she wanted. Thomas told her right to her face on Larry King that she failed 3 polys and she did not reply and had a look of defeat. They were then referred to Gelb to get the results they desired....Gelb whose credentials include passing people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and who was caught fraudulently falsifying his credentials who then passed them. We keep having to come up with anything we can to exclude Patsy as not having at least knowledge of this murder when as I see it the facts say otherwise.
Here's a post by "Anonymous" that doesn't seem to have materialized in these comments for some reason:
The culpability and implications are the same despite it only being a libel suit. A libel suit that could have easily landed them in a criminal case. So trying to say that she was dishonest about the handwriting just because she was being sued just does not hold any value. Especially not from 2 people so intent on clearing their names publicly and finding their daughters killer. I dont know if I am alone with my opinion but trying to convince me that a mother can not identify her own or another family members handwriting out of pictures and scrapbooks in her house is beyond ridiculous and clearly a lie. I find this signifigant and I can tell she is lying and you can tell during the depo that Hoffman knows she is lying as well. At this point Wood begins interjecting every 10 seconds and muddying up the depo on purpose. Why an innocent person with nothing to hide who is supposedly looking for their daughters killer would have ANY reason or need for any type of deception at all (libel or criminal) can only lead me to 1 conclusion. As far as her lie detector test they were backed into a corner publicly and PR saying she would take 10 and JR saying he would be insulted means absolutely nothing. Trying to portray herself as ever being any more cooperative with LE than JR in any way is false....she may have tried to portray herself that way but she never did anything not forced upon her. As far as the Poly results go you are wrong Doc ..PR failed 3 polys and was then told by the 1st examiner that she would have to go elsewhere for the results she wanted. Thomas told her right to her face on Larry King that she failed 3 polys and she did not reply and had a look of defeat. They were then referred to Gelb to get the results they desired....Gelb whose credentials include passing people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and who was caught fraudulently falsifying his credentials who then passed them. We keep having to come up with anything we can to exclude Patsy as not having at least knowledge of this murder when as I see it the facts say otherwise.
Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to help your case, Anonymous. I get it, OK? The fact is that we have no idea why Patsy claimed she could not recognize that handwriting or, even if she lied, why she lied. The judge in the case evaluated all the depositions and other evidence and decided there was no reason to conclude that Patsy wrote the note, as Darnay and his team so strenuously attempted to show.
If it were so obvious from her testimony (or any of the other evidence Darnay presented) that she must be involved then the judge would have concluded that. The fact is that Darnay failed to prove his case. I happen to disagree with Carnes regarding the intruder theory, which she accepted, but it's obvious from the transcript that Darnay did a terrible job and failed to make his case effectively.
You are entitled to your opinion on this matter, but yours is not the only one. Continually insisting that we have to alter our entire view of this case simply because Patsy claimed she couldn't recognize the handwriting on captions that were probably many years old is absurd. As I see it, she probably didn't want to make things any easier for the lawyer who was suing her than absolutely necessary, and since no one could prove the handwriting was hers decided to simply deny it. It's possible she was being deliberately devious but it's not evidence of guilt as far as the case itself is concerned.
I'd appreciate it if you could share your references to Patsy's failing to pass an earlier test, as that is something I don't recall reading about.
As far as Gelb is concerned, I completely agree. The test he gave them was certainly questionable.
I saw years ago but I will look for it. I read somewhere also that Patsy had admitted writing the practice RN but for a different innocent reason . Not sure if this is true ? but I will refind it and post.
I'm new to this site and relatively new to the JBR case, period...I've only looked into it once every few years, but when I do, I get totally wrapped up in it for a few days, trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense.
DocG, your JDI theory makes the most sense of any I've ever come across because it makes more puzzle pieces fit than any other.
But that damned ransom note handwriting. I can't let it go mentally. I'm not any kind of expert, but I am an avid reader and a writer, and I'm naturally intuitive regarding the gender of an author. From the first time I read the note years ago, it practically screamed "female writer" to me. It was easy to believe the analyses of people more experienced than I who pointed out the reasons why it came across that way. Still, I also could never get past the true terror in Patsy's voice on the 911 call, which sounded absolutely 100% believable to me. So now I'm on the fence. I'm 90% invested in the JDI theory, but 10% of me is looking for alternatives that allow for Patsy to have written that note and yet still have been the one to call the police.
I know this probably isn't an original idea or question, but I haven't seen a discussion on it yet, so...does anyone think it's possible that Patsy could have been desperate enough to think that her husband and the police would believe that the ransom note was totally serious? That this faction of kidnappers was skilled and omniscient enough to literally be watching their every move and quick enough to follow through on their threats to kill JB within a minute or two of "catching" them calling 911 that morning and then slipping JB's body *back* into the house either before the police got there or even while the house was full of people?
Yeah, we know how stupid that idea is, but did she? Or even realizing what a long shot it was that anyone would buy that, did she feel like it was her only one?
It could explain several odd things. How rushed she was to call 911 despite what the note said (even the most uninformed person knows from TV that time of death can be pinpointed, and the body was deteriorating). The terror in her voice could have been real for multiple reasons. She could have fooled herself into thinking this plan might somehow fly, but faced with the reality of her husband there facing her and realizing he's definitely going to search the house thoroughly no matter what the note says and find the body of their daughter before there's been enough time passed to blame it on the "faction"... that would definitely ruin the plan and leave her alone with a suspicious and out-of-his-mind-with-grief man looking at her and only her and not even a police officer there as a buffer to protect her.
Maybe she didn't think the police would be so fast. Or maybe she thought she made the faction sound technologically savvy and sophisticated enough to be able to monitor the phonecalls, swoop in undetected like ninjas in a movie, and drop JB's body back into the house as consequence for her defying the note's orders, regardless of if the police got there within minutes.
It sounds like the sort of stupid, unlikely plan someone in a desperate spot would come up with on the spur of the moment and then realize later was so unbelievable that mentioning it to the police as a possibility would only make you sound guiltier.
I'm pleased to learn that my take on this case seems logical to you. But I must say I've always been puzzled over the assumption that the note must have been written by a female. What exactly is there that strikes you as feminine about phrases such as "foreign faction," "any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter," "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies," "you will be scanned for electronic devices," "law enforcement counter-measures and tactics," "constant scrutiny," etc.? Sorry, I just don't get it. While it's true Patsy was known to use the phrase "good southern common sense" when teasing John, I see no reason why she would want to include that phrase in a phony ransom note supposedly written by her daughter's killer.
The notion that the kidnappers might overhear her calling the police and as a result kill her daughter might seem logical. But how could they possibly re-enter the house to return the body to that basement room without being noticed? And why would they want to do that? Please! I can't imagine that Patsy would have thought the police would ever buy such an idea.
What you hear in that phone call is genuine. She is obviously in a very real panic. But that's not why I'm convinced of her innocence. It's the call itself that tells us she could not have been involved in staging a kidnapping, because the call had exactly the opposite effect.
No, she couldn't have been dumb enough to think anyone would believe the kidnappers could get the body back in the house during the few minutes between the 911 call and the arrival of the first officers.
The call is contrary to her staging a kidnapping but perhaps that's the reason for the call, if you see what I mean. The whole thing works pretty well to set up John.
Yes, CC, exactly. Patsy had no motive to kill the daughter she doted on so completely. And if it was an accident, she could easily have reported it as such. The notion that Patsy had anything to do with this crime is the result of a panic that set in as soon as John was "ruled out." If he could not have written the note, and no intruder scenario made any sense, then they had no choice but to find some motive for Patsy committing this crime, no matter how unlikely it might seem. Once we rule John back in then there is no reason whatsoever to suspect Patsy.
I don't know. Like DocG, I think starting with the RN and the timing of the 911 call is a good idea. I think those things had a mostly rational purpose and goal, and DocG's theory regarding them makes the most sense to me because it accounts for that.
My question is just if anybody has any other similarly rational theories that would allow for Patsy to have both written the RN and made the 911 call when she did. I gave the only somewhat-logical one I could come up with.
I firmly believe the murder was premeditated. So you think the RN was written by a woman? Well maybe there was a woman, other than Patsy, helping John with all of this. Who helped him write it and penned it. Before the murder day. If PDI it would have been an accident situation. No way would she then go into action with all that staging, including writing that very long RN. She would be rolling on the floor in shock and horror and grief. She would have needed medical attention.
Absent a motive, I question whether this is a "rational theor[y]" or "somewhat-logical" , but I applaud the effort. I think a lot of us - possibly including Doc - are bothered by some of Patsy's behavior. The problems arise when you try to plug that into a theory of murder that makes sense. CC
I'm not bothered by most of her behavior afterwards. Well, at least, I can understand most of it and don't see guilt in it. The RN remains my biggest source of doubt.
What I'd really love is like an English 111 paper from both of their college careers to peruse at my leisure. Something long. A thesis. Something. Are there any longer historical writings floating around the net for either of them, typed or otherwise?
Huh. The RN bothers me not at all. Thanks to Doc and Gumshoe there's an explanation that satisfies me. I get a little frisson over the window clean-up with LHP. CC
Yeah, that one made me go "huh", but I didn't get any kind of frisson for a couple of reasons. 1) I don't think she'd be stupid enough to count on LHP for backup of a memory she *knew* was totally made up. I think JR told her she and LHP cleaned it up, and she trusted him. 2) Even had she known it wasn't true - which, again, would make her really stupid for bringing LHP into it - I can understand white lies for your husband if you really believe he's innocent. I might even tell those sorts of white lies for my spouse if I thought he might get framed for a horrendous crime I didn't believe he committed.
Sounds like you're teetering on that fence. Let me give you a gentle shove: read Gumshoe's analysis of the RN at the end of Part Eight and let that percolate for a while. CC
Okay, the Ruthless People similarities were uncanny.
While I'm letting that simmer, one more question still along the lines of PWI (er, Patsy Wrote It but didn't do it)...
1996 was before the FBI's rules were amended, allowing them to take part in a kidnapping/suspected kidnapping investigation before a 24-hour waiting period had lapsed. The 24 hour waiting period was still in effect. It had previously been 7 days but I think was shortened after the Weinberger kidnapping, but I'm not sure many parents knew about that. I am, however, sure that many parents heard about cases like the Lindbergh kidnapping and missing persons cases that turned out badly because the authorities refused to do much of anything until the child had been missing for a day or two or three. And Patsy did supposedly ask someone to call the FBI that day, didn't she?
Does the ransom note not read like it's almost designed to push for faster FBI jurisdiction/involvement?
Even today when the FBI no longer has any waiting period, the misconception that it does or that only missing child cases involving ransom notes or other specific factors is apparently still widespread enough that their webpages regarding kidnappings state multiple times that these are just myths.
I apologize if the questions I'm bringing up are ones that have been discussed ad nauseum for ages already. Thanks for bearing with me :)
It's my understanding that since Lindbergh the FBI can involve itself kidnapping, no waiting period, with or without a ransom note. They may not always choose to do so, but I believe that's still their mandate. CC
It looks like unofficially, they could as early as 1983, even though the 24 hour rule wasn't officially dropped until the late 1990s (1998, I think I read?). Still, that doesn't mean that parents know that. I didn't know it. I, too, still thought there was a waiting period. The kind of mom Patsy was, I could see her wanting them there "now". Like right now, no matter what it took. Throw in potential international terrorists, whatever...just get them there. Whatever gave JBR the best chance of being found, especially considering that most parents have heard that if the child isn't found within 24 hours...
I read (I think in an excerpt from Death of Innocence) that she asked repeatedly when the FBI would get there on the 26th. In some other account, I read that she asked Priscilla White to call the FBI.
This article from 1983 when the FBI unofficially changed the rules...I thought paragraph 3 was interesting: http://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/03/02/FBI-told-to-act-immediately-in-kidnap-cases/5392415429200/
I can think of some reasons why she may not have come clean about it after the fact, too. Linda Arndt said Patsy was "imprisoned by secrets," and I wonder if that could be one of them. Speaking of Arndt, whatever happened to that memoir she was going to write?
Several things bother me ...When she was on TV and said hold your babies close there is a killer out there was fake as hell. Hopefully a DA with some balls who wants to make a name for himself will just drop a murder 1 on John and get him and Burke talking.. .there is nothing to lose ar this point as no one will ever be prosecuted so why not ?
She is without doubt sedated....seemed very rehearsed to me but I may be wrong . Another thing I read somewhere was that after the police tape went up Patsy crossed the tape to JBRs room and started cleaning up evidence in JBRs room. I read that long ago yet it is not of the the pieces of evidence I have read or seen often. Does if anyone knows if this is true or not ?
ant--You asked on a post above -- If anyone has any other similar rational theories that would allow for Patsy to have both writen the RN and made the 911 call Here's one-- Patsy caught John as she was checking on JB with the flashlight in a sex act. Patsy went ape and accidetally hit and killed little JB. The instinct to call 911 was stimied by John for obvious reasons. John proved to Patsy that JB was dead with the train track and delay calling 911, and further his assersion that Patsy killed JB and could be charged with murder. You say you understand the writing and voice of a woman- Here is a question for you--What is most likely 1st words from a woman calling 911-- "WE Have a Kidnapping"or " Our dauther is gone" I left the word "rational " open for attack- robert
Eh, that theory has all the same problems that any of the they-both-were-in-on-it theories carries. There would have been no reason for the rush to call 911. They could have taken their time with the staging.
I also just don't see them staying together after that. I'm pretty sure Patsy would have left or killed him in his sleep at some point after.
I'd probably say, "I just got up, and my daughter is gone, and there's a ransom note". I don't think I'd say "we" unless my husband was standing right there, and I think I'd fit in "ransom note" or "kidnapping" somewhere near the beginning to make sure it was taken seriously and not treated like any old "my child's missing" call.
And supposedly, the first officer there still said something like, "Don't you think she just ran away?"
What other problems are with the they-was-both- in -on -it theory? The death was around mid-night plus or minus 1 or 2 hours -- They obviously did take there time to stage until around 6AM-- Someone knew she was dead at around mid-night and obviously didn't rush to call 911 untill around 6 AM Doesn't that fit with the GJ findings ,That both were in on it? 1st degree murder that John drilled in Patsy , Patsy had lots to lose by turning on John, Maybe afraid to kill John and have two counts of murder on her. She died in her Fathers home in Georgia ,what with that--- robert
From what I have read JR was crushed by his first daughters death that it changed him forever. He seemed like a normal loving father as well and had no history that we know of before or since of abuse sexual or otherwise so insinuating that he had more motive and Patsy had none is all insinuation and skepticism. We have no evidence for motivation by either parent so sayong Patsy had no reason to kill JB is more skepticism. We do not know and probably never will. C.J.
Filicide is such a senseless, unconscionable act in 99.9% of cases that I think a solid motive isn't totally required to make a solid theory. Seemingly normal and loving parents do kill their children sometimes.
And seemingly normal, doting fathers molest their children sometimes, too. The molestation is often compartmentalized away from the rest of the parent/child relationship, which frequently appears even more loving and idealistic than a typical one.
But I agree that a probable motive alone isn't enough to make or break a theory.
Thanks for the link. This is hardly an unbiased source. And there is no reference in it to back up the allegation that Patsy and John failed. The first examiner reported only that the tests were "inconclusive." For my take on the polygraphs, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/passing-polygraphs.html
This was not my original source as I read it years ago but you can find it in many places. Right on national tv (larry king) Stwce Thomas tells Patsy that she failed 3 polygraphs and Patsy does not reply. I am sure that you have seen it ?
And then she was taken to another 1 I believe she failed as well but we can bot be sure of that. Did you read all the way down that article where it talked about Johns employee at Access Graphics taking a polygraph ? That I had never heard or read before.
I never said that polygraphs were as good as DNA.....they are however pretty accurate. Sure mistakes are made but when retested that is usually corrected and would be extremely rare yet possible someone to fail 3 and the polygraph to be wrong all 3 times. Inconclusive is the same as failed = couldnt pass and showed deception.
Not wrong but feel free to reiterate ...and when you do post the statistics as I already know. Next you will say that polygraphs are correct at 50% rate. As far as PRs lie detector tests I already knew Doc and CC would dismiss as not valid as any type of clue.
I have to disagree on lie detectors being junk science ....alot of crimes are solved via lie detector and if I am not mistaken lie detectors are accepted in some courts as evidence. I am surely not saying they are foolproof and sometimes people are falsely convicted on false lie detector results but I think surely they can provide a clue or a useful a piece to a puzzle.
Disagree all you like, you're still wrong; they're inadmissible and have no value other than as a tool to frighten and intimidate the unwitting who, like you, believe the mythos. CC
Sorry Anony. but have to laugh. You post that about how useful lie detector tests are and that same night ID runs a show about a murder in Denver where one guy fails, two people refuse to take it and two more pass and it turns out the two people who pass did it and fooled the machine. Pretty useful alright.
I do believe I saw that episode , the guy conditions himself and the female accomplice to think of other things and beat the machine. Again I never said it could not be beat and i never said it was 100% science. It is a useful tool to add to pieces of a puzzle. End story
Doc I have read every blog on this site over the last couple years. Great job and thank you for putting this site together. That does not mean we will agree on every aspect of this case though :) Lol
I have a question. I'll preface it by saying that I definitely believe in your theory and that John worked alone. But there's something in your theory that I can't help but feel is based off of nothing but pure speculation. It deals with John disappearing outside of Det. Ardnt's view for an hour. You claim that he used this time to go to the basement to unstage elements of the crime, and clean up the glass, due to Patsy acting differently than he anticipated. What made you arrive to this conclusion? Because it's safe to say that we have zero idea of what he was doing during this time. I certainly don't believe he was upstairs looking through binoculars for the kidnappers. (though I've read somewhere -- in Kolar's book I believe -- that maybe he was looking at a certain trashcan he may have disposed contents in) But at the same time we don't have enough evidence to properly conclude anything. Just because we don't know what he did during this hour doesn't mean that he was doing what you proposed.
I give you credit for creating a very cohesive and believable timeline for John during the hours after JBR's death, but I feel like there's a certain amount of unfounded storytelling to this aspect of your theory. For all we know he did enough staging the night before to cover his bases and convince Patsy if she ventured into the train room and found "intruder evidence." He's certainly not dumb enough to not prepare for the chance Patsy acted differently than what he anticipated. I've read somewhere in this blog that you said something might have happened to where John didn't finish the staging. Maybe he was startled by activity in the house and stopped. But someone as intelligent and cunning as him doesn't seem like the type to leave such a profound project unfinished. If he has the time to write a ransom note, (let's just assume we're not entertaining the premeditation theory here) break a window, and do everything else he did, he surely could spare a few minutes to clean up glass and make it as believable as he can. Obviously he would have more time if Patsy went through with his plan and left the house, but he surely would stage it efficiently as possible no matter what outcome occurred.
Also, how could John hide the contents in the murder away from investigators? You said he might have smashed the glass enough to flush it down the toilet, but how could he hide the rest of the contents? (What were they anyway? I believe some cord, and duct tape, even though Kolar said duct tape was found on JBR's mouth with a full set of her lips which proves that there was staging involved) That house would be on lock down, and it would be difficult to bypass investigators since the house was officially a crime scene by this point. Is there any documentation of John leaving the house during the morning of initial investigation?
Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Zack. Glad to learn you agree with the basics of my theory, if not all the details. As far as the hour or so John spent on his own, as reported by Arndt, you are right, in that there is no direct evidence that he did any staging. While I cannot therefor prove he did anything suspicious during that time frame, clearly he had the opportunity to do all sorts of things. So when people wonder about the absence of certain pieces of evidence, my answer is that John had the opportunity to dispose of all sorts of things while he was out of Arndt's sight. I can't prove he disposed of anything, but he certainly could have. He was out of everyone's sight for a considerable period of time.
We need also to ask ourselves what he was up to during that time? If he wasn't busy staging then what could he have been doing for over an hour? You'd think that the father of a kidnap victim would want to discuss the situation with the only police officer on the scene at the time. Or at least make some phone calls, to the chief of police, the FBI, associates with experience in law enforcement or security. But there is no record he did anything like that and when questioned the best he could do was make some vague references to looking out the window for anything suspicious. For over an hour?
As far as the glass is concerned, he'd have cleaned up the glass very early on, possibly before the police arrived, or if not at that time, then shortly afterward. The question is: when would he have had the chance to dispose of it? Not when the house was filled with police, certainly. So it makes sense to speculate that he could have crushed and flushed the glass during the time he went AWOL on Arndt. I can't prove it. But that was when he would have had the best opportunity to do so.
As far as the cord and tape are concerned, my best guess is that he found them among the Xmas gift detritus and simply used them up when tying and taping JBR.
As far as the window staging is concerned, I think John was unable to complete the staging because he would have to leave the house, open the window grate and crawl through that filthy window, seriously messing up his clothing and making a mess of himself. If he and Patsy were in it together that would not have mattered, because they could easily have laundered those dirty clothes. But as I've argued, Patsy was NOT in it with him, so he would certainly have been concerned about her finding those filthy clothes, covered with grime from the basement window, or wondering why he was using the washer in the middle of the night.
As I see it, therefore, it made sense for him to defer that part of the staging until the next night, when Patsy and Burke would be out of the house, staying with friends "for their own safety" (according to his plan).
Regarding Burke - Any parent here ever have their child hide, wander off, get out of your sight and you panic - what's the first thing you do, ask EVERYONE nearby - did you see so and so. Jon Benet was missing and they don't wake Burke to ask him if he heard/saw his sister, anyone? before they call the police - he was old enough to wake and ask in my opinion - they weren't sheltering him - they were keeping him out of it on purpose.
Like most of you I'm sure, no justice has been served for this sweet little girl and it just sticks with you no matter how many years go by you keep hoping their will be something concrete come up that will nail the killer.
Maybe they woke hin up and asked him and then sent him back to bed to protect him and then got him out of a house full of cops and an hysterical mom asap. That's exactly what I would do.
After reading most of this blog I am really curious at what evidence Doc is claiming he has on John or that could be taken to court against John. I see no evidence at all on John that could be presented in a hearing , the closest thing to evidence that I can see would be tryi.g to convince a jury that John lied about and staged the window and it might be tough even convincing a jury of that much. C.J.
If you've read the entire blog, C.J./Anonymous, you know Doc made his case late last year, and you know I disagree - there isn't enough for a prosecutor to indict.
You aren't being asked to make a prosecutable case, merely to back up your statements with verifiable facts and sources of information, rather than post outright misrepresentations (like Donald Foster, or the admissibility of polygraphs) or vague allegations (like blue lines, Pam Paugh's handwriting identification, the meaning of train tracks, and many, many more) that you can't back up. CC
I did not say any/everything I bring up or discuss is evidence or that I have a case against anyone. I brought up for the mere point of siscussion etc ...amlnd just because I dont have a case does not mean someone that someone else does. I misrepresented lie detectors by saying I wouldnt call them junk science and that they are admissable in some courts ??? I misrepresented Donald Foster ??? I brought up the blue line on JB and that is false as well ??? I brought up and questioned avout the train tracks and some other things ..... Apparently CC you have a perception prooblem. Everyone that brings something up on here is not presenting it as evidence ....FYI many things people bring up for discussion etc ...many things you brought up I asked others if they were true . Perception issues......
I have read your case against John ...if the only evidence that can be presented is that John lied about the window and Patsy called 911 so John must have done it is the only evidence then it would be laughed out of court. While those are good theories and we would all love to see John jailed and indicted theories/hypothesis are NOT evidence nor would they count as such.
You misunderstand. New evidence is required for an appeal, but not for a simple indictment. Just because the indictment is long overdue does not mean new evidence is required to arrest John Ramsey -- only probable cause, as always. What do you think, CC, am I correct?
Sorry, Doc. My previous answer was directed more toward Anonymous. Yup, you're right.
As a general FYI, other grounds for appeal are trial court error, ineffective assistance of counsel (always a favorite), and jury misconduct, no new evidence required. Appeals seldom result in reversals - the usual remedy is a re-trial. But you knew that. CC
Probable cause is the standard for arrest, reasonable doubt what must be overcome to issue an indictment. The GJ thought a case could/should be made, and they presumably saw more than we've been made privy to. Hunter chose not to do so. I'm more of a cowboy; I'd like to think I'd have taken a shot. But now? Not so much. CC
Nothin to lose now ...mines well take a shot. A shot now where Team Ramsey probably can not be afforded. My guess is you have a better chance of getting someone talking than you ever had before. I am saying that not only is that not new evidence but that it is never was evidence. Behavioral clues (at best) are not evidence. I do believe that LE following the behavioral clues was another reason the case got thrown into a tailspin.....besides the ransom note. Not interrogating them seperately day 1 is what really blew this case.
No, there is plenty of evidence. While the evidence is circumstantial, many criminals have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But first, before any sort of indictment is possible, there are two important things that must be cleared up: 1. it must be demonstrated that John should never have been ruled out as writer of the note -- that could be done by interviewing the "experts" who came to that decision and forcing them to explain it; and 2. finding DNA experts to testify that the DNA evidence in itself, in the absence of a match, proves nothing.
It would also be necessary to demonstrate that not only is there no intruder evidence, but no intruder theory makes sense. I believe that's been done, not only by me, but also Thomas, Kolar, Wecht and many others.
Once these three elements are established, then John's defense would not have a leg to stand on. If he then attempted to point the finger at Patsy, that would totally destroy his credibility. I don't think he or his lawyers would even dare to take such a tack as it would be fatal.
But in the event they try to make such a case, then Patsy's 911 call and John's obviously phony story about the broken window would come into play. Another important piece of evidence, which I'm sure was neglected in the grand jury hearings is the legal document we've all seen as a sample of John's handwriting. This came to light not through the police investigation but via an unknown private party who released it to one of the tabloids. I doubt it was ever part of the investigation -- but it could be used as evidence that John could have written the ransom note, and that the assumption Patsy wrote it is bogus.
Everything would depend on how the prosecution planned its case and how thoroughly they re-investigated on the basis of John no longer being ruled out, which as I see it, makes all the difference. I don't hold out much hope for such a development as it would take an extraordinary DA to conduct such an investigation. But imo it IS possible and I think a very effective case could be made on such a basis, yet.
Hi Doc. I just wanted to commend you for taking up so much of your own personal time to share your theory. I think we are all torn up inside over this case and it helps to discuss it among peers. You have been very gracious to us all. Thank you so much!
Also, I'm just curious, do you converse with Hercule outside of this blog? You two seem to know each other on a deeper level. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't agree with his theory but I must admit that he has made some excellent points that really makes me think. Imo, you are both brilliant (although your bedside manner easily trumps his). I tried to combine your best points with Hercule's best points. The result was that Burke wrote the ransom note. To me it looks like someone else wrote "SBTC, Victory!" The handwriting is much different from the previous passages. I wonder if John or Patsy may have added that as part of the staging? Although, it is possible that the entire note wasn't written on the same day. From my own experience, depending on how I feel, my handwriting often fluctuates. I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks! - Shelly
Thanks for the kind words, Shelly. And no, I haven't ever had any contact with Hercule, outside the comments we've all seen on this blog.
You make an interesting point regarding the rather distinctive ending, especially on the word "Victory," which does look somewhat different from the rest of the note. I've never been sure what to make of that, but it's interesting and might mean something, who knows?
How does combining a PDI with JDI somehow add up to BDI? And you seriously think a 10 year old could have written a note like that or known about his father's bonus amount? McM
I don't agree wit Shelly at all. There's nothing brilliant about taking someone else's theory (ST) and adding on amateur psychology with NO sources just speculation and opinion, then insulting everybody who demands sources or disagrees with him. He was especially obnoxious about prior sexual abuse with no sources for all the experts he says didn't see any, and the bit about hymens was really insensitive and uninformed, just like the whole pageant mom thing. Patsy freaking out over a potty accident is just bizarre. Imo he hasn't had one idea he could back up with anything. To compare him to Doc is ridiculous.
I never followed the Simpson case with any degree of thoroughness, so I don't have a strong opinion, one way or the other. However, a good friend got very involved in the case and wrote an excellent analysis, in which he made a compelling case for OJ's innocence. Unfortunately I can't find his analysis online anymore and he was so upset by my take on the Ramsey case that we haven't spoken in years.
What stands out for me about this case, as it did for my friend, and also for Dr. Wecht, is the blood evidence. There was just not enough blood found either in OJ's vehicle or his house to tie him directly to the murder. It was a very bloody scene and the killer would have to have been drenched in blood. Yet only a very small amount was found in OJ's van and in his house only some on a pair of socks, that could easily have been planted. (by guess who)
According to Wecht, OJ is either innocent or had an accomplice. I tend toward the accomplice theory.
And by the way, I recently read a new book by OJ's former agent, Mile Gilbert, who claims OJ "confessed" to him. What he means by that is not a full confession, unfortunately, but an admission that he was in fact at the murder scene, with the implication that he at least knew what happened. Very convincing, I must say.
I find a few aspects of your theory hard to accept. Rather than rehash several that have been done to death I'll confine myself to one issue. It's been covered before, but not overdone.
It has to do with the window. If John is lying about the window, Patsy must also be lying about the window. Your explanation for why she would do that is gaslighting. I see no point in arguing about whether this was possible because nearly anything is possible. I think you'll agree that there was no guarantee that it would work.
John commits himself to the story once he sweeps up the glass. You've debated with others about the time that he might have swept the glass but I think you'll agree that it had to be in the morning, before FW went down there looking for JB. Whether that was 8 am or 10 am doesn't matter so much as the fact that it was in the morning, and that sweeping up the glass committed him to some version of a prior break story to explain the missing glass.
So, when did John begin to work on Patsy to gaslight her? I don't really see that he'd have had the opportunity on the 26th. She was upstairs surrounded by friends the whole day, at least after the 911 call. This means he committed himself before he had any idea whether or not Patsy could be gaslighted. For all he knew she may have been in that room with the window the day before. His attempt to gaslight could easily have backfired. She may simply have refuted it, and what's more, might have realized that since he's trying to co-opt her into lying about the window he must be the murderer.
It's the timing that gives me pause. He's irrevocably committed to some variation of a story about the window being already broken before he has any real idea whether or not Patsy can be manipulated into believing it.
I think given the choice of unconvincing staging or telling a story that his wife might, at least potentially, refute outright, he'd have gone with the poor staging. It at least looked a little bit like an intruder entry point with the glass on the floor.
It's not so important that Patsy corroborate his story as it is that she should not refute it. On the morning of the 26th he couldn't have known how she'd react to the suggestion that it had been broken during the summer months. Why then would he commit to a story that didn't allow failure (to gaslight Patsy) as an option?
To me it seems more probable that they had either agreed to this story ahead of time, or Patsy was involved in such a way that she'd have no choice but to go along with it.
I've already admitted that Patsy's window story is the weakest link in my inferential chain. I'd have had no problem accepting Patsy's involvement on that basis if it weren't for other aspects of the case that point so strongly to her innocence.
When I ask myself which is more likely, a decision on the part of both to call the police first thing in the morning, as part of some totally improbable "failed kidnapping" plan that makes no sense, or John manipulating an innocent Patsy into lying to back up his nutty window story, I feel forced to reject the former and accept the latter. Admittedly it's hard to see how he could have gaslighted her, but it's harder to see the two of them calling the police as part of a kidnap staging that made no sense and provided the police with evidence that could have implicated at least one of them. And there are many other reasons to conclude Patsy must be innocent, as I've already gone over several times.
Gaslighting may seem far fetched, but it's a fact. Men do gaslight their wives, children, etc. into accepting a false memory as truth.
We also have to consider why Patsy would have included Linda in her story if she were deliberately lying. To me, that sort of mistake is more consistent with a false memory than a conscious lie.
To give you an idea of how easy it is to implant a false memory, consider all the many instances of false confession. Here we have a false memory implanted after only a few hours, while John would have had months to work on Patsy. Amanda Knox actually placed herself at the murder scene along with her boss, a patently false story that was easily disproven (since her boss had an alibi) after the Italian police worked on her for a few hours. She finally just told them what they wanted to hear. And believed it -- at least for a while. She knew very well it didn't happen that way. But they persuaded her that it did.
It's not that gaslighting seems unlikely or far fetched. It's the timing. Gaslighting isn't guaranteed to work, yet John paints himself in a corner by committing to a prior break in story at a time when he has no idea whether gaslighting will work or not. Why would he paint himself into a corner like that? Once he swept up the glass gaslighting had to work or else his goose was cooked.
Comparing what Knox went through to the kind of thing you think JR did is beneath you. Unless you think JR questioned PR for hours and hours under hot lights in a foreign language while wearing a police uniform.
There is no use debating whether or not gaslighting is likely or unlikely. It's purely speculative and not in any way based on facts. You've convinced yourself of it, and that is fine. I'm unconvinced, which is not the same thing as rejecting it.
My point is that John creates the necessity of successful gaslighting on the morning of the 26th, at a time when he has no idea whether or not there is any chance of it working. Had Patsy been in that room on the 25th, or the 24th, or the 23rd, (and I don't see that JR knew whether she had/had not been) she may have known the window wasn't broken during the summer.
If he needs Patsy to not refute his story he needs to know whether Patsy knows the condition of the window or not. I don't see any evidence he knows this info on the morning of the 26th. If she doesn't he can try gaslighting. If she is uncertain, he can try gaslighting. If she is certain the window wasn't already broken (because she'd observed it recently) then an attempt at gaslighting would be fatal for JR.
IOWs the gaslighting theory makes more sense if he starts with Patsy and once he's sure he's got her believing it, he cleans up the glass. But of course he cleans up the glass the morning of the 26th. It's only after that, when there is a substantial chance of it all going pear-shaped that he begins to work on Patsy. Cleaning up the glass first indicates Patsy is already on board with the story, or else she is in a predicament where she has to go along with the story.
To me it's clear that John was improvising that morning. I see no reason to assume his actions and statements were part of some long-term plan. Once he realized the police were not going to buy the break-in he'd staged, then he'd have realized his staging was about to backfire. He had no choice but to clean up the glass and claim he'd broken in earlier. If he hadn't the staging would have been obvious and he'd have been arrested that day.
This is probably one of the principal reasons John refused to allow the police to interrogate Patsy. If they had immediately been separated, then she would not have supported his story, and his deception would have been obvious. Unless they were in it together, of course, in which case their stories would have been in lock step.
And yes, John could not have been sure he'd be able to brainwash Patsy into going along with his story at some future point. As I say, he was improvising. Nevertheless, thanks to all the medications she'd been taking it would not have been difficult for him to eventually convince her that her memory was unreliable and that she had in fact cleaned up glass at some point the previous summer. What he didn't anticipate was her inclusion of Linda in the memory.
Of course, all this went totally over the heads of the investigation team, who were also being manipulated very adroitly by John.
To me the window clean-up is the "weakest link in [your] inferential chain". Why bother? The window remains broken in any case - surely leaving the glass would only have added to the intruder story, while cleaning it up avails him nothing but complications, as Anonymous suggested. CC
Not sure what you are implying, CC. Most of the missing glass was not found and the absence of that glass has to be accounted for. Unless you are willing to believe John's patently absurd story.
If he'd left the glass on the floor then his staging would have been obvious and he'd have immediately been arrested. With no sign that anyone had even lifted that window grate and no sign that anyone had entered or left via that window then staging would have been the only explanation.
I'm saying one's first instinct, when Plan A went south with the 911 call, would likelier be to further stage rather than unstage. Why grind up and flush glass rather than stand on a chair and use a broom handle or somesuch to push the grate askew? I know, you've assured us JR was no criminal mastermind, but neither was he a fool. CC
Maybe you should ask John, CC. I have no idea what was going through his head at the time. All we have is the evidence that was found and reported.
My best guess is that, first of all, it may not have been that easy on such short notice to find a stick long enough to displace the grate. Second of all, he would have had to crawl through that space himself to create the proper effect. Which would have left his clothing in a mess with the police either on their way or already in the house. For whatever reason, he decided to clean up the glass and ultimately get rid of it. Unless you want to believe his story, which I don't think you really want to do, no?
A golf club would have done nicely, and there were several at hand, as well as rags with which to stir the dirt, dust and packing peanuts.
In fact, I do lean more towards believing his story than your overly complicated theory. It accounts for everything and obviates the need for gaslighting, which is far too ornate for my taste.
Don't misunderstand. I believe JDI, but because of the prior sexual abuse, not because of your rather rococo theory. CC
CC, you may think your take on this makes more sense, but it is based on unwarranted assumptions. We don't know whether a golf club would have been handy at the time. Nor can we be sure the police had not already been outside, noticing the spider web on the grate. Their comments may have been what triggered John to un-stage in the first place. We don't know if a rag was handy either. Above all, we know nothing about John's state of mind at the time. He would certainly have been in a panic and thus possibly not thinking very clearly.
What we DO know is:
He was unable to recall hardly any of the details of his window story, not how he lost his keys, not even whether or not he took a cab home from the airport. He was unable to explain why he didn't break in via a ground floor window. He was unable to explain why he didn't phone his neighbor from the airport so he could borrow his key. His story about removing his "business suit" to climb in half naked is absurd on its face. He couldn't recall how he climbed in, frontwise or rearwise. He was unable to explain how he could locate the exact right window pane to break while wedged into that tight space in total darkness.
Moreover, neither he nor Patsy were able to recall whether the window had ever been repaired. They gave the same response on two different occasions, roughly a year apart -- plenty of time to check. It is moreover impossible to believe they would have left that window unrepaired in all that time, or at least taped a piece of cardboard over the opening. Finally, the one eye witness in this case, Linda Hoffmann Pugh, claimed she knew nothing about any broken window, not only at the time she was working on her book, but from the very beginning, when she was strongly supportive of Patsy. If anyone would have noticed a broken window in that basement it would have been her.
Finally, according to Kolar, the forensics team were unable to determine from examining the glass whether the break was old or new. Now if a layer of dust or grime had been found on the edges that would have been clear evidence that the break was old. So obviously the edges must have been clean. Which tells me it was a fresh break -- regardless of whether or not the window had ever been repaired.
It's one thing to focus in on one or two things that might seem odd or unlikely and quite another to see the case as a whole, in the light of ALL the evidence.
I'm inclined to see it the same way as cc. Your theory is complex and requires 3 fortuitous events to work out in JR's favor.
1. No one notices the glass on the floor before the police are overheard talking about it. This despite the fact that the first officers on scene, as well as FW, are down the basement fairly early on. Especially the police. It's also possible PR would have come down the basement searching for JB in which case she might have seen the glass. 2. JR just happened to hear the police talking about the web and the dirt. Good thing he happened to be standing in the right place at the right time and good thing the police decided to talk out loud about critical evidence in front of a prime suspect. 3. JR for some reason decided to leave two simple elements of staging for later. I know I know, he ran out of time. But these things only take a few minutes and there was always a chance that Patsy would come down the basement. She may or may not have noticed the web and the undisturbed dirt. But why take a chance ?
It's as though you start with a theory then conjecture a chain of events the "must" have happened in order to make the theory work.
I have watched, at least 15 more hours of evidence. Curious why I cannot find any details about water pipes or duct work on the ceilings of the basement? It appears to me that she was being strangled and she started to scream that's when JR bashed her head to get her quiet? I think he used the flashlight as there would have been damage if it had been a blunt object like said items. Something curious, in the pic downstairs bathroom is this, the tank is off of the toilet. A rag, of some sort is on the left side of the toilet on the floor, and there doesn't seem to be any water. Also I notice a window on that same wall behind the toilet. I see a baseball bat outside, that is noted to be out the basement bathroom window to the left as it is viewed from the pic taken from inside. Is it possible that JR tried to stand on the toilet, to put the bat outside the window, and broke the tank? It would explain why the toilet is dismantled. It may also explain why the neighbor heard a metal clanging noise, if the tank fell? Even if he did not use the bat to strike her, he might remove anything that might be considered the murder weapon from the scene or perhaps to add more confusion as to what the murder weapon actually was. So, in my minds eye, he is strangling her...it seems she might be hoisted up over a pipe or duct work? if the rope around her neck is long enough because of the way the rope appears to have rolled up her neck and because of the depth. I can't imagine someone, even JR being able to hold up weight long enough to cause strangulation without being exhausted. I can't find exact length of the rope anywhere from neck to paintbrush anywhere? If he hoisted her up in a hanging position, it might explain why the knot had to be so perfect as not to slip off of the brush? It appears that he made handle to keep from burning his hands on the rope?? I feel like the rope end, inside the knot, around the brush, that isn't frayed is the end or the beginning of the rope. It would explain why it is not frayed, perhaps? In one of the pictures, it looked like a blue pencil, with an eraser is in the art carrier, where the paintbrush is said to have been pulled from. That blue pencil appears to be broken on the end away from the eraser...the end that is down towards the inside of the supply carrier. Could someone have broken the blue pencil to test it's strength before the paintbrush was pulled? Everything seems to be so calculated. He took the time, I feel, to go back upstairs and get clean underwear that just happened to be a pair that was too big. He probably had the flashlight with him because he planned on taking her in the room with no windows?? The testimony I saw from Arndt seems to be heartfelt and I think she shows much more compassion for the deceased child than the child's own family members. She said that she and John had an unspoken eye contact, at one point when they were both near JonBenet's body. She knew then. She knew he killed her and I feel she was removed from the case because she could not be swayed or coerced about the death of a child. It seem's that everyone around the case, that was truly trying to get answers was dismissed. I hope that my ideas and feelings will help someone discover new evidence that will incriminate the only person left who truly knows what happened in that basement. I would think if he hung her over something that there might be wear on the top side of the pipes or duct work or electrical wires that might be pinched, if he did hoist her up over something. I am still praying and still researching. I am sorry for my comment of uncertainty about whoever is over this site. : I only work for Jesus
ReplyDeleteLooks to me as though you are deeply embedded in what I've called "the morass." All these issues have been discussed at great length in the various forums over many years. I don't see any point in rehashing it all over again, especially since we have no way of knowing most of the answers to such questions. I can tell you one thing, however. The photo you saw of the toilet represents its condition after the investigators were through with it. I believe they dismantled the thing in order to see if anything of interest had been flushed. The window you mentioned was carefully examined and there was no sign it had been opened.
DeleteI just started reviewing information, which I explained. It should be nice to have someone with a fresh outlook on things. I never once investigated any of the information prior to 3 or 4 days ago. You don't have to be so smug because :I only work for Jesus.
DeleteP.S. I just read your "Case Solved" and I agree with all of that except that Patsy didn't write the note. She wrote it. JR forced her to write it. He threatened her life and the life of Burke if she didn't help him cover up. His urgency to kill JoBenet probably came from the fact that there was a hang up 911 call and the cops showed up prior to Patsy making a 911 call...I think they were having a party? If the cops showed up to your house or my house saying a called had been placed, wouldn't we investigate who called? I also think someone may have put Jonbenet in that suitcase considering the evidence. Either JB couldn't lift the suitcase or the suitcase wouldn't fit through the window perhaps?? He had every intention of killing her though. It was the only way he could be certain she wouldn't tell anyone about the abuse and maybe next time the 911 call she made wouldn't be a hang up? : I only work for Jesus
ReplyDeleteDoc wasn't being smug; he was being kind. A fresh outlook would be welcome if it was predicated on facts. Yours is not, to-wit:
ReplyDeleteJBR was not hanged but strangled with a garotte. She was likely struck on the head prior to being garotted, as her brain had swelled and hemhorraged. Linda Arndt was not dismissed, but sued and then quit the department after being criticized for her handling of the crime scene. Fleet White mistakenly made the 911 call during the Rs party. There was no evidence JBR had ever been in that suitcase, which was determined to be too small to contain her body.
CC
doc g,have you already answered to this review on amazon here on the blog ?
ReplyDelete"I only needed to read as far as Doc G's presentation of "the facts" to know that whatever conclusion he has come to about who killed JonBenet must inevitably be wrong. Doc G clearly has a poor understanding of the DNA evidence since presents as "fact" a description of it that is simply "NOT fact". He states that the DNA found on JonBenet's panties was "touch DNA" and therefore nothing to do with the murder. In calling the DNA "touch DNA" Doc G is clinging to a fantasy the DNA was deposited in a much smaller amount than it actually was, either during the manufacturing process or as secondary transfer from some other item. He cannot in all seriousness think he can get away with presenting the DNA as "touch DNA" can he? He has been told over and over by people who know better than him that this is NOT a fact. The DNA was NOT "touch DNA".
The unknown male DNA found at the crime scene which has never been matched was primary deposit DNA and was contained in saliva deposited on the child's body the night of the murder in a much larger amount than Doc G asserts. DNA deposited in a body fluid can NEVER be called 'touch DNA" and the DNA deposited was in a much larger amount of saliva than could have been deposited by way of a hypothetical sneeze by some factory worker. To deny this Doc G is only displaying his ignorance of not only hygiene practices in Chinese workplaces but also of DNA and DNA testing. The fact is that the crime scene DNA could only have been deposited by some male (yet to be identified) who must have had contact with the child the night of the murder. This is a fact that Doc G is in denial about and it's existence totally negates his conclusions about the case and makes complete rubbish of his theory."
qq
It's considered bad form for an author to respond to negative criticism in an Amazon review, so I've avoided doing that. I have no problem responding here, however. And anyone here who feels inclined to respond to any of the reviews on that site is welcome to do so, and with my blessing.
DeleteThe reviewer is seriously misinformed, not only about the case but about my book, which is completely misrepresented.
"He states that the DNA found on JonBenet's panties was "touch DNA" and therefore nothing to do with the murder."
A complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. As my book makes clear, two DNA samples were found at different times. The first was in a bloodstain found in JBR's panties and mixed with JBR's DNA. Some speculated that it could have been from a sneeze from someone at the panty plant, but no one can say for sure. Then, some years later, touch DNA that matched the earlier (incomplete) sample was found on her pullups. And because the samples matched, the DA concluded that it had to be from her attacker.
The problem is that the methods used to detect touch DNA are so sensitive that it's easy to find DNA transferred from an innocent source that has nothing to do with the case. My problem with the new DNA evidence was not so much that it was touch DNA as that it could easily have gotten onto JBR's hands from some innocent source (such as petting a dog that someone else had petted, for example) and spread to both her pullups and her panties when she put them on, via indirect transfer.
I'm certainly not the only one to have serious reservations regarding that DNA evidence. So did James Kolar for example. I discuss the technical aspects of this issue in an extensive appendix, which the reviewer obviously didn't bother to read or else was incapable of understanding.
The reference to the "much larger amount of saliva" is totally wrong. No saliva was found at all, only some incomplete bits of a DNA molecule mixed with JBR's DNA. The author of this review is the one who's in denial.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI am wondering if this case is connected to two little girls who were murdered in Utah. Terry Lee Black was arrested for murdering a 6 yr old girl in West Jordan, Utah in 2012 https://www.ksl.com/?sid=21194209 Police also suspect that he is responsible for murdering another child, Rosie Talapia. (not sure if that is spelled correctly) This was also similar. These two children were pulled from their bedrooms and killed. I watch a lot of TV, especially Investigation Discovery and while watching the Barbara Walters report today it hit me, "I wonder if the same guy killed Jon Bonet Ramsey too?" If it is the same monster then compare his DNA and this case can be closed.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote above, Rosie Talapia. The correct name is Rosie Tapia. It is in the link I provided.
DeleteM Robertson
There were actually six unidentified DNA. samples found on JBR and her clothes. The best thumbnail analysis I've found is on Reddit, "Excerpts from James Kolar on DNA", or somesuch. It gives types, amounts, number of genetic markers, etc, quotes Greg Lafarge, the tech who performed the tests, and is fairly understandable.
ReplyDeleteCC
I hate to be that guy, but I'm posting my comment from the previous thread since it didn't get answered. I would really appreciate an answer :-p.
ReplyDeleteI 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? If it's so microscopic I don't see how it would be strong enough to transfer at all. I 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. I mean, without this stroke of luck the Ramsey's would most likely still be under scrutiny.
-Zachary
You are confusing two different samples. The earlier one had no identifiable cell and was represented by not even one DNA molecule, only bits and pieces found mixed with JBR's DNA in some blood. It was obviously a very weak and most likely very old sample or more of it would have been found. The later one came from a skin cell, which is what touch DNA means. But again, this would have been an extremely small sample because otherwise other examples of the same skin cells with the same DNA would have been found during the initial search. Methods of identifying "touch DNA" have become so refined that even the slightest bit can now be recovered. The problem is that we have no way of knowing how old that sample could be. Nor can we easily assess its significance, because indirect transfer is so likely.
DeleteJohn's "stroke of luck," as you say, was getting Mary Lacy as the DA, someone easily intimidated by his very aggressive lawyer, Lin Wood. Also, of course, his getting "ruled out" as writer of the note, a huge mistake.
Add something to this-- If John premeditated killing JB , He would not have gone for one last encounter, one would think. No need for a cleanup as some evidence suggests . robert
ReplyDeleteIf there was sexual abuse, how heavily was this investigated?
DeleteIf John Ramsey did kill JBR I don't believe it was planned. Call me nuts I believe the theory that Burke did it and John covered it for him. I agree with DocG Patsy was a basket case she didn't know what happened ~ maybe John told her later on but not at the beginning. LG
ReplyDeleteThere appears to be no history that I am aware of where a parent would strangle their child in such a way. It is more common for children/teenagers to harm other children in such a manner. Also deranged adults. I've seen conflicting stories on all the events of that day - I do believe there was a cover up by the family but I also think it is not out of the realm of possibility that because the house had an usual layout, is it possible that someone hid in the house around that time waiting for the opportunity and had taken the pineapple out to eat (again conflicting reports on the pineapple that we knew was in her stomach). Is it possible this person could have been a teen friend of Burke's? Maybe this friend was also sexually abusing Jonbenet? The ransom note also seems to be written kind of like someone trying to appear to be adult. It seems that Jon benet did attempt to cry or scream and that is why she was hit over the head. The perpetrator my have already had the garotte on her but had not fully tightened it until post mortem? Also, retrieiving the blanket from the dryer may have been just a coincidence in that the perpetrator was looking for something to cover her up in as that person cared for her and was remorseful afterward. All these things could also pertain to the son as well - maybe he let a friend in and he and a friend were involved. All the other appeared "staging" points to the parents but adding the garotte to the "staged scene" just does not make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThere also seems to be a lot of questions about the redressing and the wrong sized underwear being put on JB. To my knowledge no one has actually said where that underwear came from, the brand, was it a pair from the Ramsey household. No matter who killed her the oversized unexplained underwear makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble with the fact that John premeditated the killing, also the fact that it was spontaneous. If it were premeditated why did he pick the night before a trip to kill her? Seems like a bad night since they had to be up early and he wouldn't have had the optimal time opposed to maybe another day. If it was a spontaneous occurrence it seems unlikely that he would have been able to pen the note. The level of trial and error would be very time consuming. I side with it being spontaneous but I'm conflicted.
ReplyDeleteI can see it as spontaneous if J had been drinking wine that evening. However, there is this interesting exchange in the year 2000 interviews, when he was asked whether he knew about incidents at school in which JonBenét would have to retrieve panties from the extra panty box at school:
ReplyDeleteQ. Our information that we developed
3 from the grand, well -- after the grand
4 jury, actually, were you unaware of any
5 incident where JonBenet had any accidents at
6 school where she would have to go into the
7 extra panty box that most grammar schools
8 keep for young kids? Do you have a memory
9 of an incident that is contrary to that?
10 A. At school?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. No.
IDK what anyone else thinks about this, but the investigators may have learned that when J picked up JonBenét from school, he was told she was having urinary or fecal incontinence, and this may be evidence of him lying in the interview. CC’s idea of premeditation is not really farfetched if J was beginning to sweat being found out.
hmmm - interesting
Deletethis answers my above question about where the odd size underwear possibly came from.
DeleteWhere did you get that JR picked JBR up from school? Not in any parental description of him I've ever seen.
DeleteNo, these size 12-14 panties were brand new panties, from a gift package which Patsy said she bought for her niece. They were Bloomingdales Days of the Week panties. They were in the basement and likely J changed her panties because of forensic evidence. This package disappeared from the home, not found even after a search by detectives. It’s possible they managed to remove the package or hide it somewhere somehow.
ReplyDeleteYou say John likely changed her panties because of forenic evidence.--Assuming this means semen ,I am asking the question , Would John take one last sex encounter if he was prepearing to murder her? robert
DeleteCan you provide a reference for the disappearance of the package of new panties?
DeleteRobert, you make it sound like planning a murder is the same as planning a business meeting. Murdering someone is an extremely emotional and in many ways irrational act. Who can say what John was thinking or whether he'd be fully in control of himself at such a time?
It was initially a rumor. Later confirmed in a newspaper quote by their Atlanta attorney LW who referenced that they had sent the package of the remaining Bloomie panties back to authorities in Boulder. This occurred after Lacey took over the case. 'Supposedly' the package had been found in an unpacked box.
DeleteThanks. I had not heard about that. At least they were accounted for.
DeleteDigital penetration leaves DNA. There was no DNA found in her vagina postmortem, so it's likely there was no molestation that night other than with the paintbrush, which imo was intended to cause enough damage to mask prior assaults.
ReplyDeleteCC
As I've said many times, the injuries were not consistent with penetration by a paintbrush handle. The coroner's report stated digital penetration, meaning the insertion of a finger. If the finger were covered with a glove there would have been no DNA. If the finger had been in contact with the paintbrush handle, then fragments of that handle could easily have been transferred to the vagina via the finger. Even if no glove had been used, retrieving touch DNA from such a location would not be a slam dunk by any means. It's not the same as retrieving DNA from sperm.
DeleteThis from the man who argued a few posts ago about the hyper-sensitivity of touch DNA testing?
DeleteIn fact, the process is exactly the same - vaginal swabbing.
You're only partially correct. Some injuries were possibly consistent with the paintbrush, hence the blood. Some were believed to be the result of chronic, digital abuse, hence the damaged and healed hymen, a vagina twice normal size for a six year old.
CC
It's highly sensitive in that even a very slight trace can be detected. But not in the sense that it's a sure thing and that every single trace will invariably be detected.
DeleteI don't recall seeing any reference to a paint brush handle or anything like that in the autopsy. The injuries, both acute and chronic, were, as I recall, attributed to "digital penetration." A paintbrush handle would have produced much more drastic injury and drawn far more blood.
An assumption, as you've no idea with how much force it was wielded. The autopsy did not speculate, but there were fragments from what could have been the paintbrush found in her vagina; no way to be certain.
DeleteMy theory works just as well as yours, and is no more or less conclusive. It does have the advantage of providing motive and providing a simple explanation for the panties.
CC
Agreed.
DeleteI take it that because the Ramsey family were exonerated as suspects that only new evidence would allow the decision to be reversed?
ReplyDeleteThe DA never had the power to exonerate them. Legally there is no such thing. One is exonerated only after being acquitted in a court of law. Please correct me, CC, if I'm wrong. The DA chose, in effect, to remove them from the suspect list. And that was her decision. No future DA has to go along with that.
DeleteNew evidence is required for an appeal, but not in a situation like this. Realistically, however, there will be no indictment unless there is some dramatic development, most likely coming from the media, I'd imagine, rather than law enforcement, which would rather forget the whole thing.
Also, is there a cold case group re-looking at the case at all?
ReplyDeleteThe Rs were cleared by Mary Keenan Lacy when she was DA, and while that may be held up by JR as evidence of innocence it's a non-binding opinion and would not prevent Stan Garnett or whomever succeeds him from bringing charges based on the existing evidence.
ReplyDeleteCC
There were six unknown profiles found on JBR, but how strong were they individually? I know the sample that cleared The Ramsey's was extremely weak, but I'm interested in the strength of the other samples.
ReplyDeleteZack, I googled " Excerpts from James Kolar DNA Evidence" and the Reddit reference I gave a few days ago popped up in second position. It has the info you want.
DeleteCC
Thank you so much.
DeleteHello doc, ive always been reading your blog every after work and it's interesting! Hopefully there would be new details on this case. Poor kid :(
ReplyDeleteI can almost hear mrs ramsey say, "John, if they arrest Burke, we will lose both of them."
ReplyDeleteJohn says, " No time to argue. MAKE A RANSOM NOTE. Burke, go back to bed. We know you did not mean to hit her with the flashlight. Go to sleep. We will take care of this."
And they did. A real murder, pervert, or other would have reoffended, or offered something else to build up to this.
Didn't Doc or CC or both say Burke couldn't be prosecuted if he did do it, so why would they cover-up for him?
DeleteIt wasn't me. Burke might easily have been charged had he done the deed. In fact, the prosecutor could have elected something called direct file, and chosen to try him as an adult.
DeleteCC
John wipped down the body . Who knows why in the case of premeditated murder.
ReplyDeleteI would say Patsy knew why--but didn't know the details of Johns preperations of the body. robert
I think John went to school on the OJ Simpson trial and John Douglas' s "Mindhunter", and wiped her down in an abundance of caution.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, Robert. Like many people I came to this blog with an impression that Patsy had some involvement, but I just can't make it work with the available evidence, embracing either Doc's theory or mine. I'd be happy to be persuaded, but it's going to take cold, hard facts.
CC
What feels strange, for me, is most of the evidense after the blow to the head.
ReplyDeleteThe ransom note, garrat, panties, and dna all point away from the Ramseys, but not to to a specific person.I can almost jear John say, " put 118,000 in the note. That will point to someone I worked with." Almost like when Buggs Bu`y put his hands up, with fingers point both directions and says "he went that way."
Then they take a few hrs to reason this out. Patsy, he says, "The accident killed her. I just ended her misery."
My impression is JDI and it was premeditated. I don't think any parent, even John, could accidentally or suddenly kill their little daughter and then stay composed enough to do all of that staging. And then sit down and write that very detailed and long RN.
ReplyDeletePMS
That possibility has occurred to others as well. And though I'd ruled premeditation out initially, I eventually came to take it seriously as a distinct possibility. For my reasoning, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/07/premeditated.html and the subsequent discussion.
DeleteI believe JR was a very intelligent, controlling businessman and a narcissist. I just cannot accept that he felt the need to kill his daughter out of fear she would tell somebody that he was molesting her. As I have said before on this blog, I feel certain that he had more control over her than others give him credit, and he would have had many ways to keep her quiet. She was only 6 years old. And if he was able to control and manipulate Patsy after the crime, which I believe he was, I feel certain he was also capable of controlling his 6-year old daughter from exposing him.
ReplyDeleteBased on this, I don't believe this was premeditated. I believe he did molest her that night which explains why she was wiped down. I agree with poster Robert above that if this was premeditated, he most likely wouldn't have been in the frame of mind to sexually assault her first. I believe the blow to the head came when she either screamed or ran away, or both. Judging from the location of the head injury, it seems logical that he hit her from behind, perhaps when she was running away (to tell mommy?). Once he hit her, he knew he could not explain to Patsy what had happened and he knew he had to make sure she was dead and then stage the crime to point to an intruder.
Sometimes I think people overthink this case . . . analyzing everything from the oversized panties to the DNA. I have chosen to look at it in a much simpler way and look at what logically makes sense. Who knows why she was redressed in oversized panties, or why the ransom note asks for $118,000 or whether the paintbrush was used to penetrate her? I do believe that there was never an intruder that night and that leaves just 3 people in the house who could have done this. And since I also believe she had been sexually molested, logically, I think it was JR who did it. All the other unanswered mysteries of this case are the product of the coverup he - and he alone -- masterminded.
bb
I just discovered and have been reading this blog all weekend and have found it a very Interesting read. I just do not see how Patsy could not have been in on it and then she still has no clue for 10 yrs ? That is a little more than unbelievable. This is a great theory but kind of fits the facts in as it goes. Logic does not equal facts and no matter which way you go this case has no logic. I find the pineapple to be a very telling on this case because someone was up with JB and not because of the fingerprints on the bowl but whose fingerprints are NOT on the bowl. No one will ever be prosecuted in this case and that is very very sad. C.J.
ReplyDeleteGlad to learn you've been reading here and that you've found it interesting. As for Patsy, what makes you think she'd have been more likely to figure things out than either the police or the DA's office? John had been officially "ruled out" as writer of the note, which placed all the suspicion on her. If she didn't write it, then she'd have had no choice but to assume it must have been written by an intruder. And since John had become her principal supporter, she'd have been foolish indeed to say anything that might make him look bad.
DeleteSeems logical enough to me.
Several things ...for instance just imagine that you live with someone who just killed a family member in your home. Do you think that they would be able to hide that ? The lies and all the behaviors that go with it...They know each other very well as you would know that person very well. Im curious as your take on the pineapple. We know that whoever was up feeding JB pineapple does not want that known bc they would be the last to be with her so that being said we know Patsys prints could be on there for ither reasons but how did John wipe his prints off and leave Patsys and Burkes ?
ReplyDeleteJohn's prints weren't found on the "ransom note" either, though he certainly held it in his hands. According to LE people I've spoken with, it's not unusual to find no prints even when someone has been known to have handled something. Same with DNA.
DeleteIf John have her the pineapple, I would assume John put a napkin around the bowl, he's no dummy.
DeleteI wouldnt have thought that he would think of that ...I just think that when living with someone it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to hide that kind of thing from a spouse (not just in this scenario but any murder). With all the the lies that have to be told and body languages given off on top of other things. If this is what did happen then I have to say that Patsy is a very very clueless and unintelligent woman.
ReplyDeletePasty was a very drugged up and grieving person. Perhaps for the rest of her life.
ReplyDeletePMS
It has been a much discussed topic on this blog -- I would suggest you go back and read some more. After John was ruled out, there was a lot of focus on Patsy, as well as criticism for entering her daughter in pageants, dressed as she was. She had to have been very afraid of becoming the prime and only suspect. If she did not kill JB, and JR was ruled out as the writer of the note, was gaslighting her memory of past events, paying for her lawyer, consoling her, conveniently making sure she had plenty of friends to support her and plying her with sedatives, then of course she is going to buy the intruder theory- hook, line, and sinker.
ReplyDeleteI have read the blogs ...and there is no of course she is going to buy anything ...if this did occur as Doc has proposed it would take a very special kind of stupid for it to fly. As many clues as we have she had at least 3 times as many and the drugs wore off at some point over 10 years so that does not make a bit of difference in this scenario as it would only serve to prolong anyone with a bit of common sense.
DeletePatsy was not known to be stupid. We really don't know what "facts" she digested, but we can intelligently guess at the level of fear she must have felt over being the focus in the media and by the questions she was being asked by police. If you have never believed your husband to be the kind of man who could or would do something like this, it would be hard to allow your mind to think such an unthinkable scenario, especially after JR was ruled out for writing the note. Could she have had some questions over the years after she learned more and had time to put together some observations? I think its possible. But in the end, she never came forward to accuse her husband, so she either never fully convinced herself, or she was afraid of him, or she wanted to protect Burke (or all 3). One thing is for sure, you don't have to be a "special kind of stupid" to be human and act on your feelings, emotions, and fears.
DeletePerhaps not a special kind of stupid, but rather a special, unusual degree of faith and trust. At least, so it seems to me, the consummate cynic.
ReplyDeleteCC
So everyones beliefs are that Patsy believes/believed this: "an intruder breaks in, wakes her daughter up out of bed and takes her downstairs, cuts up and feeds her pineapple,sexually assaults her, hits her over the head and then waits 1-2 hrs to decide to finish her off by garroting her, writes a mile long ransom note (at some time during the night) wipes down the body, redresses her, puts her favorite blanket over her and then cleans and wipes down all evidence of themselves out of the house"? Patsy looking at how long all of this must have taken, how much intimate inside knowledge must be known and how much risk an intruder would be taking roaming around the house for hours if not all night with the rest of the family sleeping right upstairs as absurd. Would it not be logical to assume that she would have no choice but to suspect the only other adult in the house ? Then you throw in that the other adult is having you lie about whose idea it was to call 911 and later about a broken window as well as observing that the person you suspect disappears for an hour while waiting for kidnappers to call only to later be the 1 who discovers your daughters body and then immediately plans a trip out of dodge minutes after discovering her daughters body. She has no choice but to suspect John or know John did it and she would have no choice but to view an intruder just as absurd as we do.
ReplyDeleteC.J.
She clearly wasn't in on it or she'd never have called 911, so what does it matter that she may have eventually grown suspicious? What's your point?
DeleteCC
Because while I had come to believe that John was in on it alone yet I like to keep an open mind. After rethinking things and putting in Patsys position I just do not see it as possible that she did not know. I read in this blog where Doc states that right after JBs body was found and John made that call that he lied and said he had a business meeting he could not miss ...we all know that was a lie because he was going to Charlevoix. That being said then Patsy has to know that is a lie as well.... as far as the 911 call and the body while I am not disagreeing it is logical it is by no means concrete. It would not be the first time a murderer kills someone and calls 911 with the body in the house. It is possible that there was never any plan to dump the body ....
DeleteA LE officer overheard J call his pilot 30 mins. after bringing up the body and told him he couldn't go, that's when J said he had a business meeting. P was in other room with minister and girlfriends and Arndt and never even heard that story or J told her it was to get her to Atlanta to be with her family. J had plan to dump body, alright, it was right there in the RNote.
DeleteC.J., what you write is understandable. But you need to remember that 1. a great many people have convinced themselves there was an intruder, Patsy was certainly not alone; 2. the notion that John could not have written the ransom note was universally accepted by literally everyone investigating the case, so why would Patsy believe differently? 3. there is a well known tendency for people to believe what they want to believe or what it is in their interest to believe, even in the face of very strong evidence to the contrary.
DeleteAs I see it, and regardless of how sensible your argument sounds, the only scenario that consistently makes sense when we consider all the evidence is that John killed his daughter and attempted to cover it up by staging a phony kidnapping -- manipulating an innocent Patsy into supporting his version of what happened. While certain details of the case might suggest Patsy's involvement, closer scrutiny makes it extremely unlikely, based on both the evidence and the psychology of the case.
C.J. you have to understand that Doc's theory depends on Patsy not asking herself any questions. You're right of course, there is no way she could avoid having suspicions of John.
DeleteI am sure I have read about the stun gun on this blog but I am going to bring it up again because I recently saw some autopsy photos. I had always thought that Kolar was correct and that a stun gun was not used but after seeing a couple of photos there is definitely a blue line going from 1 mark to the other mark on JB. Could the train tracks possibly do this even if it was electrified ? Would they not have to arc off of another form of metal to cause the blue line on JB ? Also doesnt the pineapple kind of negate the stun gun theory ? At least Lou Smits theory of it becomes irrelevant. After Patsy had found out about the pineapple evidence in JBs stomach you would think that if she knew she did not feed it to JB then she would have to suspect the only other person capable of cutting up a fresh pineapple ? Even she would have to find it absurd that a stranger broke in and fed her pineapple ? Just some thoughts .
ReplyDeletePatsy had cut up the entire pineapple and stored it in a plastic bag. Anyone living in the house could have spooned some into a bowl, including a six-year old.
DeleteStun guns were extensively tested on pigs after Smit floated his theory and left two round burn marks, no blue line of which I'm aware. Doc?
CC
I have never read that about the pineapple being previously cut so thank you CC. I knew about the trial on the pigs and that no stun gun markings lined up and the experts said no to the stun gun. What I did not know and (I dont think Kolar mentioned this is his book? but I may be wrong, it has been awhile) was about the blue line bc I saw it and it is there. I know Kolar said he thought someone used the train tracks as electricity on JB ....however now thinking about that I do not think that is possible because when I was younger I had a similar train track and I could take the tracks apart and the ones still attached to the electricity I could touch either prong without being shocked. However when I dropped scissors on 1 of the prongs sparks then flew. My parents caught me showing my friends this and I got my ass whooped lol. My point though being that I do not believe that you can just take a piece of electricified track off and touch someone with it and electrocute them. I do believe the track has to touch metal
ReplyDelete...
I have not looked to see if I can see a blue line, but I well--and I don'think there could be any shock from the track, maybe a little tingle. My reasoning being that the train track was the item used that made the marks was that John suckered Patsy into believeing that JB was dead (wheather she was or not) and there was no use in calling 911.
DeleteJust a little more on the Train track electricity-- House power is AC current-Train is DC current after plugging it in the power goes into a transformer that converts it to DC current ,the same used by weilders that don't get shocked yet makes a spark-much like what you have posted. robert
Kolar never claimed the train tracks had been plugged in. He simply demonstrated that the spacing of the track ends seemed to fit the spacing of JBR's wounds. I personally doubt both Smit's and Kolar's theories, because there are any number of ways those marks could have gotten onto her body. Just because something seems to fit doesn't mean it was actually used.
DeleteI've never taken Smit's theory seriously enough to even bother to investigate it, because it's meaningless on its face. There is no reason to assume a stun gun was used -- or train tracks for that matter. But we know train tracks were found at the scene, which makes Kolar's theory at least plausible, while there is no basis for Smit's theory whatsoever.
Kolarsaid that he could not say exactly what he believed the train tracks were used for. Thus my thinking what he was inplying was that A) Someone was shocking her to see if she was dead or B) Part of some sick sex game was what I took out of it. Im pretty sure he said or at least implied that he thought they had eectricity running thru them. I may be wrong about the electricity but not him atating he couldnot comment on what he believed the use was for . I think it was in FF so I may have to go back and find thise statements as its been awhile .
DeleteKolar neither states nor implies that the train tracks were electrified or used for a sex game. His entire experiment consisted of jabbing a fellow officer with a piece of track and noting the similarity of the resulting marks to those on JBR.
ReplyDeleteYour "blue line" is probably a vein; a number of similar blue lines can be seen in the autopsy photo of her back, along with mottled discoloration from lividity.
Much ado about nothing.
CC
I checked out those lines also, they are in many other places and deffinetly not related to an arc that would lieve a blue line.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have noted before the large roundish bruse just below the ear on her right side, and the coinsidence of if you put your right hand around your own thoat your thumb will touch in this same area. Or the same as if you was to take your right hand and put it on someone else facing you , your right thumb will be in this area on this person on him right side. robert
I did not see any other lines like that so I will have to go back and look thru the photos but that is definitely not a vein. It goes from the 1 mark on her to the other mark on herand definitely looks consistent with being part of the same injury that causes the 2 marks.
ReplyDeletePermaps someone could rehash items (if any) that Aunt Pam took from the residence . We know she was allowed to go there to pick up clothes for those poor Ramseys who couldn't afford new clothes for the funeral.
ReplyDeleteCrime scene photos show the golf bag and tape dispenser- these are images before the event of Pam's visit I assume. I am just looking for truth in the saying that John asked for his golf equipment and that Pam rounded and took stuff like this--robert
Hi. I've read your blog. I'm unconvinced. I don't wish to have a long protracted discussion so I'll just throw in my 2 cents and be done.
ReplyDeleteFirst I don't agree with your premise that Patsy would never have made that 911 call if she had known the body was in the house. I think the idea of dumping the body certainly crossed his/her/their mind(s) but they may have chickened out. They may have decided to blame the death on the intruders even with the body in the wine cellar. They may have reasoned it would be safer than driving a body around, especially since it would be John taking all the risk.
Second, JR would never have allowed that phone call and would never have allowed a situation in which he could not control the outcome. I realize this has been discussed at great length. IMO, there is simply no reason why he'd allow Patsy to find the note, rather than himself, of if he did allow her to find it, he'd have taken it from her, while holding her arm, and would have read every line emphasizing how dangerous it would be to call the police. No, he could not prevent a phone call if she were determined, but he'd take steps to make sure she wasn't determined to call. I'd note that you say you think Patsy may have been a bit afraid of JR at that moment, then you go to great lengths to convince us Patsy is completely naive as to who killed JonBenet. IMO, either John would have prevented that call or Patsy very well knows who the culprit is.
Third, patsy is telling some lies which she wouldn't do if she were innocent. She lied about the window, and I'm sorry but I don't buy your gaslighting explanation. I could not help noticing that you had a different explanation originally but when someone pointed out that it really didn't make sense you gravitated to gaslighting. No one can really prove gaslighting, it's not fact based, so we just have to ask oursleves whether we think it's likely or not. I don't see it as very likely, especially the way you have explained it.
The panties are a puzzle and I think Patsy may be lying about putting them in the drawer. They weren't there. For your theory to remain true and consistent with Patsy's claim, JR would have had to remove the entire package of panties from the drawer and used one pair to redress JonBenet. However, if his plan was to dump the body, why bother redressing? Why bother with panties at all? The missing pair can be blamed on the intruder, and that's true whether the body is found in the wine cellar, or in the woods. I see no reason for JR to have put panties on her at all. If nothing else, JR always has the end game in mind. He'd know there was no need at all for panties. So if JR didn't need the package of panties, and they weren't in the drawer when police searched, Patsy is lying. I know you think the size 12s were meant to forestall a search for the missing size 6s, but in my opinion the size 6s would have been destroyed immediately after the 911 call, if they in fact had JR's semen on them. This would have been more important than substituting panties.
Alas I do not have a theory of the case to present in place of yours, but I'm unconvinced that you have solved it.
-Tom
Hi Tom. Clearly you've done a lot of reading here, which I appreciate. And you are entitled to your opinion, which I certainly acknowledge. So. We can always agree to disagree.
DeleteHowever:
I've seen many alternative explanations for why Patsy would have called 911 with the body in the house and none of them hold up. If they had thought things over and decided that dumping the body was too risky, then they would certainly not have wanted to hand a pointless and possibly incriminating ransom note over to the police. Nor would they have left the body hidden in that remote basement room.
Once the body is found, then it's clear there was no kidnapping, so the note then backfires, making it look like a staged kidnapping that somehow went wrong. This is certainly how the authorities interpreted it, and one of the main reasons why the great majority following the case still see it as an inside job. If they'd changed their minds about staging a kidnapping, because they though dumping the body was too risky, then they would have forgotten about the note and staged a breakin by a pedophile intruder. And they would certainly have done a better job of staging the window breakin before calling in the cops.
As for the rest, that's mostly what I refer to as the "morass." You can speculate all you like about whether or not John would have been able to prevent Patsy from making that call, or why Patsy answered questions about the oversize panties the way she did, or why she would have lied about the phone call or the broken window glass, but this is all just speculation. The bottom line is the fact that Patsy is the one who called 911, and simple logic, if not simple common sense, tells us that she would not have done that if she was staging a kidnapping. Simple logic tells us also that they would have had no problem cooperating fully with the police from the start if both were in it together. And the most basic understanding of human psychology tells us how unlikely it is that an innocent spouse would be willing to take such a huge risk in covering for the murderer of his/her own beloved child. Sorry, but "family honor" doesn't cut it.
As far as I can see Tom didn't mention "family honor" at all.
DeleteIt's possible that the Rs realized that having a confused "non-linear" crime scene was actually their best defense.
DeleteHad they done the expected, tore up the note, left the body in the open, they'd simply have a hokey story about an intruder. They'd likely have been charged, or at least questioned. As it is, they have a "kidnapping" that "went wrong" with a hidden body, and evidence of sexual assault.
It's because there is no linear story that makes sense that they have escaped justice.
No Tom didn't mention family honor, but Kolar did. And more or less the same motive was suggested by Steve Thomas.
DeleteAs far as creating a "non-linear" crime scene I'm sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. I don't even know what that means. And I've never heard of anyone deliberately staging a failed kidnapping, that strikes me as ridiculous. If that was their intent, then a few scribbled lines would have done the trick, not a detailed 2 1/2 page ransom note filled with very specific instructions and warnings.
It's obvious that the note was intended to be seen as evidence that JBR had been kidnapped. And if her body was still in the house, then she obviously had not been kidnapped. Assuming they are both in on it, then at that moment the note works against them, not for them. The only interpretation that makes sense is that something went wrong with the original plan. And the only thing I can think of that could have gone wrong was Patsy's 911 call. If you can think of something else that could have gone wrong, please share.
A linear story is one that makes sense from start to finish. For example, if JB has been kidnapped, her body should not be in the basement. Or as another example, if she were murdered by a sex killer, there's no reason for her body to be wrapped and hidden or for a RN.
DeleteNon-linear then, obviously, is the opposite; a confused mish-mash of clues that don't tell a sensible story of kidnapping, or sex killing.
All I'm saying is that the Ramseys may have been clever enough to realize that confusion was their best weapon.
Had they left the body out in the open, and naked, would the police be more likely to buy the intruder theory? I don't think so. They'd have been arrested.
So, if they chickened out about driving around with a body in the car and were figuring out a plan B, they may have realized they didn't need to stage things so they "made sense".
A kidnapping gone wrong doesn't really have to make sense. IOWs it doesn't have to follow a linear story line. By it's nature, it wouldn't.
I might better have described a linear story as one that is internally consistent. Having multiple inconsistencies, they create confusion and it's hard for the police to get a handle on the case.
DeleteIf they chickened out they are stuck with a body no matter what the staging. They can try to make the staging tell a nice short linear story, or they can make it tell a non-linear story that sows confusion as to who did what and why.
A kidnapping gone wrong still needs a RN. It doesn't have to be long, but then again there is no reason it needs to be short. If they already had a RN why not use it w/o change? It shows that there was a kidnapping plan, and that sometime after the note was left on the stairs things "went wrong".
I don't see that they'd be in any different circumstances if they had destroyed the original RN and wrote a shorter one to go with the "kidnapping gone wrong".
In the end, if they aren't going to dump the body, they are stuck explaining who killed her. They have to blame it on an intruder.
"All I'm saying is that the Ramseys may have been clever enough to realize that confusion was their best weapon."
DeleteI can't agree. A confused crime scene is a suspicious crime scene. The more confused, the more suspicious. It wasn't the confusion that prevented the Ramseys from being indicted, it was the impossibility of telling who did what, plus the fact that the person most likely to have sexually assaulted the victim was "ruled out" as writer of the note, and there was NO evidence linking Patsy to the crime.
What the confusion would have told competent investigators was that this was a staged kidnapping that went wrong. Obviously a real kidnapper who for some reason was unable to remove his victim from the house would not have left his ransom note lying around for no reason.
"Had they left the body out in the open, and naked, would the police be more likely to buy the intruder theory? I don't think so. They'd have been arrested."
They could not have been arrested because there would have been no evidence linking either of them to the crime. And if they'd completed the window staging, there would have been evidence consistent with an intruder.
By handing over the note, however, they provided the police with exactly the sort of evidence needed to put them on trial. Why on Earth would they have wanted to do that? The only thing that stood in the way of their indictment was the very odd decision to rule John out. If they hadn't ruled him out he'd have been arrested for sure, as all the evidence pointed to him -- with or without Patsy's involvement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmek, see my response to Tom, above. I see only two instances where Patsy obviously lied, and both lies are in support of John's version of what happened. She's been accused of other lies, but as I see it these are most likely the result of simple confusion -- either on her part or the part of the questioners. The bottom line on any of these alleged lies is to ask oneself WHY she would want to lie. I can think of no reason for why she'd want to lie about either JBR's top or the oversize panties.
DeleteI CAN see why she would want to lie about the phone call, because it would obviously weaken their case if they were to get into a dispute over what really happened. Same with the broken window. If she had insisted that window had never been broken until the night of the crime, then their mutual defense would have been blown out of the water. And since he'd been ruled out and she had not, then she would have been far more vulnerable than he, if it came to a dispute between them.
There was apparently no evidence the body had ever been in the trunk of the car, but even if it had I don't see what difference that would make. Once the 911 call had been made, there was no way they could have gotten the body out of the house. The time to do that would have been prior to calling the police, not afterward.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBut it would not explain the 911 call. If you limit yourself to inconclusive details, then you can convince yourself of almost anything. If you concentrate on the facts, clear inferences from those facts, and concentrate as well on the big picture, then as I see it, the identity of the guilty party emerges quite clearly. While some of my arguments might seem overly complex and far-fetched, I can guarantee that any theory based on both Patsy and John conspiring to stage a phony kidnapping will be far more complicated and absurdly far-fetched.
DeleteIn almost any case, there will always be certain aspects that will never be explained -- because life is like that: complicated. Even when no crime has been committed.
Doc, well said! -LE
DeleteI agree with the above posters as well . Concessions are made to an almost extreme extent regarding Patsy. What evidence and facts do we have that prove John committed this murder anymore than Patsy did? There is 0 evidence against John doing anything other than staging and that is not even solid. As far as it being fact that bc Patsy made the 911 call so she had no part and John wanting the body out of the house that is pure 100% skepticism. It is played on this site as if because it is logical it is fact. People call 911 with the body in the house all the time .....something that is almost denied on this site. If it were a well planned out hit on JB by a professional than that would make much more sense but that was definitely not the case here. Whoever did do it made plenty of mistakes and were nost likely only saved by the incompetence of the police the day of the murder. Also another lie that I have personally heard and is disputed away to save Patsy on this site is that Burke was not up when 911 was called . I have heard an enhanced version where clearly there is a young male awake and speaking and if it is not Burke than it is another young male .
ReplyDeleteI heard the 911 call years ago and on the 1 I heard it was clear as day and it was Patsy saying Oh jesus oh jesus then a young male says something that I would consider inaudible in the version I heard and then the most audible part is John in a very very loud and very angry voice reply back to this young male We are not speaking to you ! I would like to ask Doc about Patsys deposition and her being shown scrapbooks and pictures from the Ramsey house with writing under them and she is asked whose handwriting it is ? She is clearly lying when asked and shown these ....she cant recall and claims to not know whose it is. These are clear lies and you can tell by her fidgeting and looking at her watch during depo. I dont want to get into the analysis of the handwriting again but they are more than similar. My question is this ....maybe it is her writing maybe it is not but point being who does not know who is writing and titling the kids pictures and scrapbooks in their own home ???? So the question here is not who wrote it but the question is WHY is she lying ?
ReplyDeleteShe had a mother and two sisters who were very involved in her life, particularly while she was being treated for cancer - who's to say they didn't caption some of those photos? Again, the questions in that deposition were being asked by a lawyer suing them for $50M, and one whom the Ramseys knew was out to get them, not by a member of LE out for facts to find the killer of their daughter - I'm sure they were both as intentionally vague as possible. Perhaps Burke's voice was on that enhanced call , but all that proves is that they wanted to protect their son from involvement in an ugly situation, surely a normal parental response.
DeleteCC
Thank you, CC. I agree. And despite a serious effort on my part, listening to that recording over and over and enhancing it with my own software I have never been able to hear anything that sounds like a young boy or John either. I do hear Patsy saying something that sounds like "help me Jesus," but that's all. And even that is a stretch. If anyone has an enhanced copy of that recording where the voices of Burke and John can be identified, I'll be happy to give it another try. All I hear is crosstalk, i.e., noise.
DeleteIt has been years since I have heard it but I can give you my word that on the version I heard there is no chance of reading into it as crosstalk as it is pretty clear what was said and you can even recognize PR and JRs voices. Patsy is saying help me jesus just like you heard ...the young male part was inaudible to me other than you could tell it was a young male and the most crystal clear part of it was John probably because he was so loud and very angry and he says We are not talking to you!I will see what i can do to try and track down this version of the call....it still unfortunately doesnt give us any more clues than what we already knew.
DeleteA normal parental response? Why would it involve Burke, other than having to possibly testify at a trial, to say he was awake? It would be strange if he had not woke up with Patsy and John running around and looking for JBR and looking in on Burke. It must have been noisy. John would have had to play it "for real". The fact is they lied about Burke being awake, and at the time they told the lie they didn't know there would ever be any evidence to the contrary.
DeleteI've never heard the enhanced version, but I cannot beleive Steve Thomas
Tom, AmeK and Anonymous: I recognize your right to be skeptical, but can't help but notice that none of you propound an alternative theory other than, seemingly, your beliefs PDI. Can you do so? I, for one, would be happy to entertain it, provided it accounts for what little evidence and few facts are available with a minimum of baseless speculation.
ReplyDeleteCC
This is Tom. I said very clearly that I have no alternative theory. I don't consider the case to have been solved by anyone espousing any theory. I simply don't think DoctorG has solved it.
Delete-Tom
If by "solved it" you mean explained every single detail then no, I have not solved it. There are many loose ends that haven't been explained, no question. However, if you mean I've put my finger on the killer of JonBenet Ramsey, then yes I do believe I've solved it. The many questions raised by all the different details and testimony and possible suspects and various bits of evidence that might or might not mean something will probably never be answered. As I see it, all this is beside the point. If we take the evidence presented in the first three posts on this blog and combine it with my analysis of John's broken window story, the identity of the guilty party should be clear. As for the rest, we'll probably never know.
DeleteI do not claim to know ...there are many theories I could propose. I just asked a valid question tho that I suppose either A will not be answered or B it will be that John brainwashed her into not being able to recognize anyone in the house handwriting. As far as me speculating feel free to tell me what on bc I am posting only facts ....unfortunately they go against Docs theory and book so it is calledbaseless when in fact it clearly is muchore valid and factual than basing a whole theory on bc someone called 911 with the body in the house they couldnt be involved and making and ignoring all of the facts that do not fit that story .
ReplyDeleteThat's not quite fair. I think every effort has been made by a number of people to answer your questions and refute your points for several weeks now.
DeleteCC
No it is a straight up lie. I do not think calling straight up facts speculation is fair. I did not make up some story out of nowhere I was just repeating and asking what we all already know as factual. Whether or not her sister or mom or whatever family member was captioning them in her house she should surely know who it was and/ or be able to recognize their handwriting. This is common sense not speculation. It is just another avoidance of what is clearly obvious. Of course saying or admitting anything against a theory that you wrote a book about would kinda ruin the book.
DeleteI don't agree that PR necessarily lied in her deposition. I'll tell you what I tell my clients going into a depo: Tell the truth. Don't speculate. Answer only what's asked, don't embellish or volunteer additional information. If you can't remember, don't recall or aren't sure, say so. I'm sure PR got similar advice.
DeleteCC
That being said then why would she lie when asked directly if she recognized whose writing it was ? Why did she not just say Nedra or Pam or John if they wrote it ? You can expect me to buy some things however her not being able to recognize her own or someone in her family's writing in her scrapbook w pictures of her daughter from her own house is quite far fetched. The most logical answer here is that it was her her handwriting ....i mean the most likely scenario is obvi not John and also most likely she had very good reason to lie. We could come up with just as many " alternative reasonings" and then some for anything in this scenario of John did it all as well. I feel this is an obvious lie however it goes against docs book so .....
DeleteI'm going to guess she couldn't be sure whose handwriting it was, and good legal advice dictated she reply accordingly.
DeleteDoc and I disagree on a few issues, and I assure you I have no vested interest in promoting his theory or his book. I simply do not think you've made any valid points.
CC
So not being able to recognize your family's or your own handwriting and lying about it (as I feel common sense points that out) in this case is not a valid point ? Nor is lying about Burke or whoever young male it is. Ill bring up 1 last point ....the practice note or beginning of it was pointed out by Patsys sister to be Patsy's writing . Being as it was to be almost the exact opening to the ransom note wouldnit not make logical sense that she started writing it changed her mind about who to title it too /or needed to change the writing style or is it more logical that it just so happened to be that 2 seperate people began titling a letter in much the same way ? These are all very valid "factual" points as I think many would agree. In the totality you have to write a whole hell of alot off on Patsy. In reality I am not decided in any way but BDI fits the facts best as far as not leaving any holes in the story. He kills JBR and then before the J and P know that a 9 yr old can not be prosecuted they stage everything together. After learning that Burke can not be prosecuted it is too late to turn back because they are both already neck deep in charges and disgrace so keeping with the IDI story is what all 3 agree that they will all take to their graves. Every clue and facet of the story now "fits". Not saying this is what I think but I am saying the puzzle fits and as far as evidence goes I do not see any more evidence against John than I do either P or J yet you and Doc claim to follow only facts and evidence constantly when posters bring up very valid points. What facts and evidence bc I would love to hear it .. all I see are opinions based on the same facts me and many others are using. As soom as we drop the theory of whoever called 911 couldnt have been involved the door opens up to many possibilities. If it were that simple police could solve every in home murder with 2 people involved by just elininating the person who called 911.
DeleteThe entire "practice note" consists of the words: "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. Whether this matches the ransom note is far from clear as this bit has never to my knowledge been made public. I have no idea where you learned that Patsy's sister identified it. Do you have a reference for that?
DeleteAs far as Burke is concerned, I've written extensively on the Burke-did-it theory, pointing out the many holes. If you do some searches here you'll find the relevant posts.
I never said PDI ...I thought this was a blog for people interested in discussing and possibly coming to a valid conclusion but at this point I think it is more just to support Docs theory and if you dont support it even tho it is clearly specualation than dont bother posting .
ReplyDeleteMany people reading here have disputed my theory. This is not a private club, far from it. I've never censored any of them and never will. But I do think I have a right to defend my take on this case and so far I've seen nothing that seriously calls it into question.
DeleteIf Patsy said she didn't recognize the writing it could have been for two reasons: either she was telling the truth and did not recognize it, which is always possible; or she was deliberately being uncooperative, which is understandable. She knew very well that Darnay Hoffmann was trying to nail her to the wall on the basis of little more than these few scribblings, so maybe she didn't want to make it easy for him.
Another possibility is that she did recognize the hand of someone else in the family but was reluctant to identify that person for fear he or she could then become a suspect.
It's important to remember that it was Patsy who offered to take 10 polygraphs if it would help the investigators, while John flatly refused, protesting that the very idea of a polygraph was "insulting."
That said, I do think you've made a valid point in bringing up that part of her testimony. I certainly don't want to dismiss it, as it's something we need to consider for sure. But I don't see it as decisive.
I'll add one more thing. The few words used as captions for those photos mean very little when compared to the many examples of Patsy's writing that the investigators had access to (and Hoffmann did not), both historic exemplars and exemplars written out at their request. Patsy fully cooperated in that part of the investigation, so I don't see what she would have had to gain by lying some time later about those very few captions. The many exemplars she provided were carefully studied by experienced examiners hired by the authorities and they found it "unlikely" that she wrote the note. The incompetence of Darnay's "experts" is fully demonstrated in my blog posts entitled "The Experts See Patsy." Look them up.
DeleteThank you ...I appreciate your replies Doc and CC and I do not mean to be abrasive but I am a debater/ was on debate team so it is just in me to be this way and look at all angles. I am saying that there is no way not only here but in any family home that a mother can not identify the other family members writing ...i say it is impossible not to be able to identify it and I would venture to say LE already knew whose handwriting it was when they gave her the samples . If she has nothing to hide and has no involvement in the death of her daughter then why lie ??? Wouldnt she want to be honest and find out who killed her daughter ?If it is someone elses and she is lying for them than that says that she is covering for someone .....which is possible however who do you see as most likely labeling pictures and scrapbooks not only in the Ramseys household but any ? And yes she volunteered to take polygraph but she really had no choice but to pretend like she wanted to ...she then failed 3 and was told to go elsewhere to get the answers she wanted .
DeleteI am not even debating my thoughts on the handwriting match to the samples. I am saying she was lying ....thus knowledge /involvement .
DeleteOK, first of all there is no evidence Patsy failed a polygraph. And she did have a choice to refuse to take one. When asked by Steve Thomas, Patsy agreed but John refused. So yes, there was a choice.
DeleteWhen Patsy was asked about the photo captions, she had already been through a rigorous process that included many historic exemplars and if in fact she had written those captions, they would have been among the exemplars studied by the authorities. So clearly she would have had no reason to lie about them outright. But she might well have not been willing to cooperate with Chris Wolf's lawyers, and so conveniently "forgot" who penned them. Was that dishonest? If that was her reason, then yes, I suppose it was. Is it evidence of her guilt? Sorry, but I don't think so. If the examiners had been able to match her writing to the writing on the note, THAT would have been evidence of guilt.
Bottom line. We really have no way of knowing whether or not she recognized the writing and lied about it, but we do know that she would have had nothing to gain by lying, since the meaningful comparisons had already been made by law enforcement and she had never been accused of being involved in the murder or coverup in any way.
The GJ findings would only be half right ,with a John did it . -- Many say the GJ finding say that both Patsy and John covered for Burke . I am not sure how they arrive at that when the findings say suspicion of 1st degree murder-- any referance to Burke as being involved ,the wording would have been different . I lean toward the GJ findings being 100% correct. robert
ReplyDeleteSomething I was pondering.....In order to establish a little bit of precedent regarding Patsy being willing to lie for John, read through portions of their interviews conducted by the BPD and Lou Smit from 1998.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to copy and paste out the quotes but if you would like to read these interviews they are here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm
Specifically, John is discussing possible suspects/motives and he talks about the woman he was having an affair with while married to his first wife. He described her as an obsessed stalker who wouldn't leave him alone, even though he had ended the relationship with her. And as he is beginning a relationship with Patsy, this woman shows up at Johns apartment looking for him while Patsy is there visiting. John tells us he told Patsy about this woman's Fatal Attraction so Patsy, "as cool as a cucumber" (Johns exact phrasing) (and while John is hiding behind the door), lies to the woman and calmly makes up a lie about John not being home in order to make the lady leave. John is impressed by this (his words) and tells Lou Smit that it is at that moment he realizes Patsy will be someone significant to him. A Freudian slip in my opinion. Your ability to lie for me is when I knew you were the one, honey. Crickey.
In Patsy's interview/interrogation, this woman is brought up as a possible suspect and is described as the woman John was having an affair with during his first marriage. Patsy's reaction is she had no idea that this relationship was going on during John and Lucinda's marriage. She only knew the version of the story John told her. I mean, if she did know, why lie about that? I think it was a new revelation for her. God knows how John explained that to her afterwards.
This speaks volumes to me about Johns ability to convince Patsy of his version of the "truth." And her willingness to buy whatever BS he tells her. He didn't tell her about his infidelity and how it ultimately broke up his marriage, he just told her it was some crazy ex girlfriend, obviously to present himself in the best possible light to this young, and I'm sure a bit intimidated 23 year old that he wanted for his next conquest. And you may think, what's the big deal, this is just a man trying to keep his dirty laundry on the down-low in order to win the heart of the woman he's wooing, but it shows Johns secretiveness and deceptive nature and to me was just a huge insight into part of the dysfunctional psychology of this couple.
Also, in relation to the ransom note, weren't several pages missing from the notepad? Is it feasible that Patsy had written notes on these papers,unrelated to the murder, allowing John to copy her handwriting? Making sure just a few of his letters mimicked Patsy's consistently throughout the note would be enough to throw the scent off of himself and onto her.
One last note on my observation of the codependency I saw in this couple; what sort of decent, loving husband convinces his grief stricken, Valium saturated wife to go on CNN two days after finding their daughter brutally murdered and present a "we are the victims, not the killers" face to the world speech? Suzs
good take on all that
DeleteAll this amounts to about the same thing as a spouse saying that the other spouse isn't home when he/she doesn't want to take a phone call. It isn't quite the same as lying about a window, or panties, or Burke being awake, all of which play into a murder investigation.
DeleteThe culpability and implications are the same despite it only being a libel suit. A libel suit that could have easily landed them in a criminal case. So trying to say that she was dishonest about the handwriting just because she was being sued just does not hold any value. Especially not from 2 people so intent on clearing their names publicly and finding their daughters killer. I dont know if I am alone with my opinion but trying to convince me that a mother can not identify her own or another family members handwriting out of pictures and scrapbooks in her house is beyond ridiculous and clearly a lie. I find this signifigant and I can tell she is lying and you can tell during the depo that Hoffman knows she is lying as well. At this point Wood begins interjecting every 10 seconds and muddying up the depo on purpose. Why an innocent person with nothing to hide who is supposedly looking for their daughters killer would have ANY reason or need for any type of deception at all (libel or criminal) can only lead me to 1 conclusion. As far as her lie detector test they were backed into a corner publicly and PR saying she would take 10 and JR saying he would be insulted means absolutely nothing. Trying to portray herself as ever being any more cooperative with LE than JR in any way is false....she may have tried to portray herself that way but she never did anything not forced upon her. As far as the Poly results go you are wrong Doc ..PR failed 3 polys and was then told by the 1st examiner that she would have to go elsewhere for the results she wanted. Thomas told her right to her face on Larry King that she failed 3 polys and she did not reply and had a look of defeat. They were then referred to Gelb to get the results they desired....Gelb whose credentials include passing people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and who was caught fraudulently falsifying his credentials who then passed them. We keep having to come up with anything we can to exclude Patsy as not having at least knowledge of this murder when as I see it the facts say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff, Suzs. Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteCC
Here's a post by "Anonymous" that doesn't seem to have materialized in these comments for some reason:
ReplyDeleteThe culpability and implications are the same despite it only being a libel suit. A libel suit that could have easily landed them in a criminal case. So trying to say that she was dishonest about the handwriting just because she was being sued just does not hold any value. Especially not from 2 people so intent on clearing their names publicly and finding their daughters killer. I dont know if I am alone with my opinion but trying to convince me that a mother can not identify her own or another family members handwriting out of pictures and scrapbooks in her house is beyond ridiculous and clearly a lie. I find this signifigant and I can tell she is lying and you can tell during the depo that Hoffman knows she is lying as well. At this point Wood begins interjecting every 10 seconds and muddying up the depo on purpose. Why an innocent person with nothing to hide who is supposedly looking for their daughters killer would have ANY reason or need for any type of deception at all (libel or criminal) can only lead me to 1 conclusion. As far as her lie detector test they were backed into a corner publicly and PR saying she would take 10 and JR saying he would be insulted means absolutely nothing. Trying to portray herself as ever being any more cooperative with LE than JR in any way is false....she may have tried to portray herself that way but she never did anything not forced upon her. As far as the Poly results go you are wrong Doc ..PR failed 3 polys and was then told by the 1st examiner that she would have to go elsewhere for the results she wanted. Thomas told her right to her face on Larry King that she failed 3 polys and she did not reply and had a look of defeat. They were then referred to Gelb to get the results they desired....Gelb whose credentials include passing people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and who was caught fraudulently falsifying his credentials who then passed them. We keep having to come up with anything we can to exclude Patsy as not having at least knowledge of this murder when as I see it the facts say otherwise.
Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to help your case, Anonymous. I get it, OK? The fact is that we have no idea why Patsy claimed she could not recognize that handwriting or, even if she lied, why she lied. The judge in the case evaluated all the depositions and other evidence and decided there was no reason to conclude that Patsy wrote the note, as Darnay and his team so strenuously attempted to show.
DeleteIf it were so obvious from her testimony (or any of the other evidence Darnay presented) that she must be involved then the judge would have concluded that. The fact is that Darnay failed to prove his case. I happen to disagree with Carnes regarding the intruder theory, which she accepted, but it's obvious from the transcript that Darnay did a terrible job and failed to make his case effectively.
You are entitled to your opinion on this matter, but yours is not the only one. Continually insisting that we have to alter our entire view of this case simply because Patsy claimed she couldn't recognize the handwriting on captions that were probably many years old is absurd. As I see it, she probably didn't want to make things any easier for the lawyer who was suing her than absolutely necessary, and since no one could prove the handwriting was hers decided to simply deny it. It's possible she was being deliberately devious but it's not evidence of guilt as far as the case itself is concerned.
I'd appreciate it if you could share your references to Patsy's failing to pass an earlier test, as that is something I don't recall reading about.
As far as Gelb is concerned, I completely agree. The test he gave them was certainly questionable.
I saw years ago but I will look for it. I read somewhere also that Patsy had admitted writing the practice RN but for a different innocent reason . Not sure if this is true ? but I will refind it and post.
DeleteI'm new to this site and relatively new to the JBR case, period...I've only looked into it once every few years, but when I do, I get totally wrapped up in it for a few days, trying to make sense of things that just don't make sense.
ReplyDeleteDocG, your JDI theory makes the most sense of any I've ever come across because it makes more puzzle pieces fit than any other.
But that damned ransom note handwriting. I can't let it go mentally. I'm not any kind of expert, but I am an avid reader and a writer, and I'm naturally intuitive regarding the gender of an author. From the first time I read the note years ago, it practically screamed "female writer" to me. It was easy to believe the analyses of people more experienced than I who pointed out the reasons why it came across that way. Still, I also could never get past the true terror in Patsy's voice on the 911 call, which sounded absolutely 100% believable to me. So now I'm on the fence. I'm 90% invested in the JDI theory, but 10% of me is looking for alternatives that allow for Patsy to have written that note and yet still have been the one to call the police.
I know this probably isn't an original idea or question, but I haven't seen a discussion on it yet, so...does anyone think it's possible that Patsy could have been desperate enough to think that her husband and the police would believe that the ransom note was totally serious? That this faction of kidnappers was skilled and omniscient enough to literally be watching their every move and quick enough to follow through on their threats to kill JB within a minute or two of "catching" them calling 911 that morning and then slipping JB's body *back* into the house either before the police got there or even while the house was full of people?
Yeah, we know how stupid that idea is, but did she? Or even realizing what a long shot it was that anyone would buy that, did she feel like it was her only one?
It could explain several odd things. How rushed she was to call 911 despite what the note said (even the most uninformed person knows from TV that time of death can be pinpointed, and the body was deteriorating). The terror in her voice could have been real for multiple reasons. She could have fooled herself into thinking this plan might somehow fly, but faced with the reality of her husband there facing her and realizing he's definitely going to search the house thoroughly no matter what the note says and find the body of their daughter before there's been enough time passed to blame it on the "faction"... that would definitely ruin the plan and leave her alone with a suspicious and out-of-his-mind-with-grief man looking at her and only her and not even a police officer there as a buffer to protect her.
Maybe she didn't think the police would be so fast. Or maybe she thought she made the faction sound technologically savvy and sophisticated enough to be able to monitor the phonecalls, swoop in undetected like ninjas in a movie, and drop JB's body back into the house as consequence for her defying the note's orders, regardless of if the police got there within minutes.
It sounds like the sort of stupid, unlikely plan someone in a desperate spot would come up with on the spur of the moment and then realize later was so unbelievable that mentioning it to the police as a possibility would only make you sound guiltier.
-ant
I'm pleased to learn that my take on this case seems logical to you. But I must say I've always been puzzled over the assumption that the note must have been written by a female. What exactly is there that strikes you as feminine about phrases such as "foreign faction," "any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter," "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies," "you will be scanned for electronic devices," "law enforcement counter-measures and tactics," "constant scrutiny," etc.? Sorry, I just don't get it. While it's true Patsy was known to use the phrase "good southern common sense" when teasing John, I see no reason why she would want to include that phrase in a phony ransom note supposedly written by her daughter's killer.
DeleteThe notion that the kidnappers might overhear her calling the police and as a result kill her daughter might seem logical. But how could they possibly re-enter the house to return the body to that basement room without being noticed? And why would they want to do that? Please! I can't imagine that Patsy would have thought the police would ever buy such an idea.
What you hear in that phone call is genuine. She is obviously in a very real panic. But that's not why I'm convinced of her innocence. It's the call itself that tells us she could not have been involved in staging a kidnapping, because the call had exactly the opposite effect.
No, she couldn't have been dumb enough to think anyone would believe the kidnappers could get the body back in the house during the few minutes between the 911 call and the arrival of the first officers.
DeleteThe call is contrary to her staging a kidnapping but perhaps that's the reason for the call, if you see what I mean. The whole thing works pretty well to set up John.
But why? Why kill her daughter? And who, then, was responsible for the prior sexual abuse?
ReplyDeleteCC
Yes, CC, exactly. Patsy had no motive to kill the daughter she doted on so completely. And if it was an accident, she could easily have reported it as such. The notion that Patsy had anything to do with this crime is the result of a panic that set in as soon as John was "ruled out." If he could not have written the note, and no intruder scenario made any sense, then they had no choice but to find some motive for Patsy committing this crime, no matter how unlikely it might seem. Once we rule John back in then there is no reason whatsoever to suspect Patsy.
DeleteI don't know. Like DocG, I think starting with the RN and the timing of the 911 call is a good idea. I think those things had a mostly rational purpose and goal, and DocG's theory regarding them makes the most sense to me because it accounts for that.
ReplyDeleteMy question is just if anybody has any other similarly rational theories that would allow for Patsy to have both written the RN and made the 911 call when she did. I gave the only somewhat-logical one I could come up with.
-ant
I firmly believe the murder was premeditated. So you think the RN was written by a woman? Well maybe there was a woman, other than Patsy, helping John with all of this. Who helped him write it and penned it. Before the murder day.
ReplyDeleteIf PDI it would have been an accident situation. No way would she then go into action with all that staging, including writing that very long RN. She would be rolling on the floor in shock and horror and grief. She would have needed medical attention.
Absent a motive, I question whether this is a "rational theor[y]" or "somewhat-logical" , but I applaud the effort. I think a lot of us - possibly including Doc - are bothered by some of Patsy's behavior. The problems arise when you try to plug that into a theory of murder that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteCC
I'm not bothered by most of her behavior afterwards. Well, at least, I can understand most of it and don't see guilt in it. The RN remains my biggest source of doubt.
DeleteWhat I'd really love is like an English 111 paper from both of their college careers to peruse at my leisure. Something long. A thesis. Something. Are there any longer historical writings floating around the net for either of them, typed or otherwise?
-ant
Huh. The RN bothers me not at all. Thanks to Doc and Gumshoe there's an explanation that satisfies me. I get a little frisson over the window clean-up with LHP.
ReplyDeleteCC
Yeah, that one made me go "huh", but I didn't get any kind of frisson for a couple of reasons. 1) I don't think she'd be stupid enough to count on LHP for backup of a memory she *knew* was totally made up. I think JR told her she and LHP cleaned it up, and she trusted him. 2) Even had she known it wasn't true - which, again, would make her really stupid for bringing LHP into it - I can understand white lies for your husband if you really believe he's innocent. I might even tell those sorts of white lies for my spouse if I thought he might get framed for a horrendous crime I didn't believe he committed.
DeleteOh, that above reply was me, by the way
Delete-ant
Sounds like you're teetering on that fence. Let me give you a gentle shove: read Gumshoe's analysis of the RN at the end of Part Eight and let that percolate for a while.
ReplyDeleteCC
Will do, and thanks for the suggestion.
Delete-ant
Okay, the Ruthless People similarities were uncanny.
DeleteWhile I'm letting that simmer, one more question still along the lines of PWI (er, Patsy Wrote It but didn't do it)...
1996 was before the FBI's rules were amended, allowing them to take part in a kidnapping/suspected kidnapping investigation before a 24-hour waiting period had lapsed. The 24 hour waiting period was still in effect. It had previously been 7 days but I think was shortened after the Weinberger kidnapping, but I'm not sure many parents knew about that. I am, however, sure that many parents heard about cases like the Lindbergh kidnapping and missing persons cases that turned out badly because the authorities refused to do much of anything until the child had been missing for a day or two or three. And Patsy did supposedly ask someone to call the FBI that day, didn't she?
Does the ransom note not read like it's almost designed to push for faster FBI jurisdiction/involvement?
Even today when the FBI no longer has any waiting period, the misconception that it does or that only missing child cases involving ransom notes or other specific factors is apparently still widespread enough that their webpages regarding kidnappings state multiple times that these are just myths.
I apologize if the questions I'm bringing up are ones that have been discussed ad nauseum for ages already. Thanks for bearing with me :)
-ant
Oops...edit *that it does or that only missing child cases involving ransom notes or other specific factors will get FBI attention
DeleteIt's my understanding that since Lindbergh the FBI can involve itself kidnapping, no waiting period, with or without a ransom note. They may not always choose to do so, but I believe that's still their mandate.
DeleteCC
It looks like unofficially, they could as early as 1983, even though the 24 hour rule wasn't officially dropped until the late 1990s (1998, I think I read?). Still, that doesn't mean that parents know that. I didn't know it. I, too, still thought there was a waiting period. The kind of mom Patsy was, I could see her wanting them there "now". Like right now, no matter what it took. Throw in potential international terrorists, whatever...just get them there. Whatever gave JBR the best chance of being found, especially considering that most parents have heard that if the child isn't found within 24 hours...
DeleteI read (I think in an excerpt from Death of Innocence) that she asked repeatedly when the FBI would get there on the 26th. In some other account, I read that she asked Priscilla White to call the FBI.
This article from 1983 when the FBI unofficially changed the rules...I thought paragraph 3 was interesting: http://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/03/02/FBI-told-to-act-immediately-in-kidnap-cases/5392415429200/
I can think of some reasons why she may not have come clean about it after the fact, too. Linda Arndt said Patsy was "imprisoned by secrets," and I wonder if that could be one of them. Speaking of Arndt, whatever happened to that memoir she was going to write?
-ant
Several things bother me ...When she was on TV and said hold your babies close there is a killer out there was fake as hell. Hopefully a DA with some balls who wants to make a name for himself will just drop a murder 1 on John and get him and Burke talking..
ReplyDelete.there is nothing to lose ar this point as no one will ever be prosecuted so why not ?
Really? See, I saw that as totally sincere. It helped that she was obviously heavily sedated, but the pain in her eyes seemed very real to me.
Delete-ant
She is without doubt sedated....seemed very rehearsed to me but I may be wrong . Another thing I read somewhere was that after the police tape went up Patsy crossed the tape to JBRs room and started cleaning up evidence in JBRs room. I read that long ago yet it is not of the the pieces of evidence I have read or seen often. Does if anyone knows if this is true or not ?
ReplyDeleteant--You asked on a post above -- If anyone has any other similar rational theories that would allow for Patsy to have both writen the RN and made the 911 call Here's one--
ReplyDeletePatsy caught John as she was checking on JB with the flashlight in a sex act. Patsy went ape and accidetally hit and killed little JB. The instinct to call 911 was stimied by John for obvious reasons. John proved to Patsy that JB was dead with the train track and delay calling 911, and further his assersion that Patsy killed JB and could be charged with murder.
You say you understand the writing and voice of a woman- Here is a question for you--What is most likely 1st words from a woman calling 911-- "WE Have a Kidnapping"or " Our dauther is gone"
I left the word "rational " open for attack- robert
Eh, that theory has all the same problems that any of the they-both-were-in-on-it theories carries. There would have been no reason for the rush to call 911. They could have taken their time with the staging.
DeleteI also just don't see them staying together after that. I'm pretty sure Patsy would have left or killed him in his sleep at some point after.
I'd probably say, "I just got up, and my daughter is gone, and there's a ransom note". I don't think I'd say "we" unless my husband was standing right there, and I think I'd fit in "ransom note" or "kidnapping" somewhere near the beginning to make sure it was taken seriously and not treated like any old "my child's missing" call.
And supposedly, the first officer there still said something like, "Don't you think she just ran away?"
-ant
What other problems are with the they-was-both- in -on -it theory?
DeleteThe death was around mid-night plus or minus 1 or 2 hours -- They obviously did take there time to stage until around 6AM-- Someone knew she was dead at around mid-night and obviously didn't rush to call 911 untill around 6 AM
Doesn't that fit with the GJ findings ,That both were in on it? 1st degree murder that John drilled in Patsy , Patsy had lots to lose by turning on John, Maybe afraid to kill John and have two counts of murder on her. She died in her Fathers home in Georgia ,what with that--- robert
From what I have read JR was crushed by his first daughters death that it changed him forever. He seemed like a normal loving father as well and had no history that we know of before or since of abuse sexual or otherwise so insinuating that he had more motive and Patsy had none is all insinuation and skepticism. We have no evidence for motivation by either parent so sayong Patsy had no reason to kill JB is more skepticism. We do not know and probably never will. C.J.
ReplyDeleteFilicide is such a senseless, unconscionable act in 99.9% of cases that I think a solid motive isn't totally required to make a solid theory. Seemingly normal and loving parents do kill their children sometimes.
DeleteAnd seemingly normal, doting fathers molest their children sometimes, too. The molestation is often compartmentalized away from the rest of the parent/child relationship, which frequently appears even more loving and idealistic than a typical one.
But I agree that a probable motive alone isn't enough to make or break a theory.
-ant
DOC , here is a source about Patsys failed polygraphs ,http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. This is hardly an unbiased source. And there is no reference in it to back up the allegation that Patsy and John failed. The first examiner reported only that the tests were "inconclusive." For my take on the polygraphs, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/passing-polygraphs.html
DeleteThis was not my original source as I read it years ago but you can find it in many places. Right on national tv (larry king) Stwce Thomas tells Patsy that she failed 3 polygraphs and Patsy does not reply. I am sure that you have seen it ?
DeleteAnd then she was taken to another 1 I believe she failed as well but we can bot be sure of that. Did you read all the way down that article where it talked about Johns employee at Access Graphics taking a polygraph ? That I had never heard or read before.
DeleteThere are reasons polygraph results are inadmissible in court. All this article does is illustrate them, graphically.
ReplyDeleteCC
I never said that polygraphs were as good as DNA.....they are however pretty accurate. Sure mistakes are made but when retested that is usually corrected and would be extremely rare yet possible someone to fail 3 and the polygraph to be wrong all 3 times. Inconclusive is the same as failed = couldnt pass and showed deception.
DeleteWrong, on all counts.
DeleteCC
Not wrong but feel free to reiterate ...and when you do post the statistics as I already know. Next you will say that polygraphs are correct at 50% rate. As far as PRs lie detector tests I already knew Doc and CC would dismiss as not valid as any type of clue.
DeleteThey're simply not valid at all. One might just as well throw darts or roll the bones. Polygraphs are as much junk science as handwriting analysis.
DeleteIf you want to prove your points, or build an argument based on your suppositions, attributable, verifiable information is coin of the realm.
CC
I have to disagree on lie detectors being junk science ....alot of crimes are solved via lie detector and if I am not mistaken lie detectors are accepted in some courts as evidence. I am surely not saying they are foolproof and sometimes people are falsely convicted on false lie detector results but I think surely they can provide a clue or a useful a piece to a puzzle.
DeleteDisagree all you like, you're still wrong; they're inadmissible and have no value other than as a tool to frighten and intimidate the unwitting who, like you, believe the mythos.
DeleteCC
Sorry Anony. but have to laugh. You post that about how useful lie detector tests are and that same night ID runs a show about a murder in Denver where one guy fails, two people refuse to take it and two more pass and it turns out the two people who pass did it and fooled the machine. Pretty useful alright.
DeleteI do believe I saw that episode , the guy conditions himself and the female accomplice to think of other things and beat the machine. Again I never said it could not be beat and i never said it was 100% science. It is a useful tool to add to pieces of a puzzle. End story
DeleteDoc I have read every blog on this site over the last couple years. Great job and thank you for putting this site together. That does not mean we will agree on every aspect of this case though :) Lol
ReplyDeleteDoc,
ReplyDeleteI have a question. I'll preface it by saying that I definitely believe in your theory and that John worked alone. But there's something in your theory that I can't help but feel is based off of nothing but pure speculation. It deals with John disappearing outside of Det. Ardnt's view for an hour. You claim that he used this time to go to the basement to unstage elements of the crime, and clean up the glass, due to Patsy acting differently than he anticipated. What made you arrive to this conclusion? Because it's safe to say that we have zero idea of what he was doing during this time. I certainly don't believe he was upstairs looking through binoculars for the kidnappers. (though I've read somewhere -- in Kolar's book I believe -- that maybe he was looking at a certain trashcan he may have disposed contents in) But at the same time we don't have enough evidence to properly conclude anything. Just because we don't know what he did during this hour doesn't mean that he was doing what you proposed.
I give you credit for creating a very cohesive and believable timeline for John during the hours after JBR's death, but I feel like there's a certain amount of unfounded storytelling to this aspect of your theory. For all we know he did enough staging the night before to cover his bases and convince Patsy if she ventured into the train room and found "intruder evidence." He's certainly not dumb enough to not prepare for the chance Patsy acted differently than what he anticipated. I've read somewhere in this blog that you said something might have happened to where John didn't finish the staging. Maybe he was startled by activity in the house and stopped. But someone as intelligent and cunning as him doesn't seem like the type to leave such a profound project unfinished. If he has the time to write a ransom note, (let's just assume we're not entertaining the premeditation theory here) break a window, and do everything else he did, he surely could spare a few minutes to clean up glass and make it as believable as he can. Obviously he would have more time if Patsy went through with his plan and left the house, but he surely would stage it efficiently as possible no matter what outcome occurred.
Also, how could John hide the contents in the murder away from investigators? You said he might have smashed the glass enough to flush it down the toilet, but how could he hide the rest of the contents? (What were they anyway? I believe some cord, and duct tape, even though Kolar said duct tape was found on JBR's mouth with a full set of her lips which proves that there was staging involved) That house would be on lock down, and it would be difficult to bypass investigators since the house was officially a crime scene by this point. Is there any documentation of John leaving the house during the morning of initial investigation?
Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Zack. Glad to learn you agree with the basics of my theory, if not all the details. As far as the hour or so John spent on his own, as reported by Arndt, you are right, in that there is no direct evidence that he did any staging. While I cannot therefor prove he did anything suspicious during that time frame, clearly he had the opportunity to do all sorts of things. So when people wonder about the absence of certain pieces of evidence, my answer is that John had the opportunity to dispose of all sorts of things while he was out of Arndt's sight. I can't prove he disposed of anything, but he certainly could have. He was out of everyone's sight for a considerable period of time.
DeleteWe need also to ask ourselves what he was up to during that time? If he wasn't busy staging then what could he have been doing for over an hour? You'd think that the father of a kidnap victim would want to discuss the situation with the only police officer on the scene at the time. Or at least make some phone calls, to the chief of police, the FBI, associates with experience in law enforcement or security. But there is no record he did anything like that and when questioned the best he could do was make some vague references to looking out the window for anything suspicious. For over an hour?
As far as the glass is concerned, he'd have cleaned up the glass very early on, possibly before the police arrived, or if not at that time, then shortly afterward. The question is: when would he have had the chance to dispose of it? Not when the house was filled with police, certainly. So it makes sense to speculate that he could have crushed and flushed the glass during the time he went AWOL on Arndt. I can't prove it. But that was when he would have had the best opportunity to do so.
As far as the cord and tape are concerned, my best guess is that he found them among the Xmas gift detritus and simply used them up when tying and taping JBR.
As far as the window staging is concerned, I think John was unable to complete the staging because he would have to leave the house, open the window grate and crawl through that filthy window, seriously messing up his clothing and making a mess of himself. If he and Patsy were in it together that would not have mattered, because they could easily have laundered those dirty clothes. But as I've argued, Patsy was NOT in it with him, so he would certainly have been concerned about her finding those filthy clothes, covered with grime from the basement window, or wondering why he was using the washer in the middle of the night.
As I see it, therefore, it made sense for him to defer that part of the staging until the next night, when Patsy and Burke would be out of the house, staying with friends "for their own safety" (according to his plan).
Regarding Burke - Any parent here ever have their child hide, wander off, get out of your sight and you panic - what's the first thing you do, ask EVERYONE nearby - did you see so and so. Jon Benet was missing and they don't wake Burke to ask him if he heard/saw his sister, anyone? before they call the police - he was old enough to wake and ask in my opinion - they weren't sheltering him - they were keeping him out of it on purpose.
ReplyDeleteLike most of you I'm sure, no justice has been served for this sweet little girl and it just sticks with you no matter how many years go by you keep hoping their will be something concrete come up that will nail the killer.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they woke hin up and asked him and then sent him back to bed to protect him and then got him out of a house full of cops and an hysterical mom asap. That's exactly what I would do.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading most of this blog I am really curious at what evidence Doc is claiming he has on John or that could be taken to court against John. I see no evidence at all on John that could be presented in a hearing , the closest thing to evidence that I can see would be tryi.g to convince a jury that John lied about and staged the window and it might be tough even convincing a jury of that much. C.J.
ReplyDeleteSee my post titled "The Case Against John Ramsey."
DeleteIf you've read the entire blog, C.J./Anonymous, you know Doc made his case late last year, and you know I disagree - there isn't enough for a prosecutor to indict.
DeleteYou aren't being asked to make a prosecutable case, merely to back up your statements with verifiable facts and sources of information, rather than post outright misrepresentations (like Donald Foster, or the admissibility of polygraphs) or vague allegations (like blue lines, Pam Paugh's handwriting identification, the meaning of train tracks, and many, many more) that you can't back up.
CC
I did not say any/everything I bring up or discuss is evidence or that I have a case against anyone. I brought up for the mere point of siscussion etc ...amlnd just because I dont have a case does not mean someone that someone else does. I misrepresented lie detectors by saying I wouldnt call them junk science and that they are admissable in some courts ??? I misrepresented Donald Foster ??? I brought up the blue line on JB and that is false as well ??? I brought up and questioned avout the train tracks and some other things ..... Apparently CC you have a perception prooblem. Everyone that brings something up on here is not presenting it as evidence ....FYI many things people bring up for discussion etc ...many things you brought up I asked others if they were true . Perception issues......
ReplyDeleteI was trying to help you frame your thoughts in a way that might lead to more fruitful discussion. Won't happen again.
DeleteCC
Thank you ...sorry I took that wrong. Not much more to go over here anymore. All we can do is hope someday soon something happens.
DeleteI have read your case against John ...if the only evidence that can be presented is that John lied about the window and Patsy called 911 so John must have done it is the only evidence then it would be laughed out of court. While those are good theories and we would all love to see John jailed and indicted theories/hypothesis are NOT evidence nor would they count as such.
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstand. New evidence is required for an appeal, but not for a simple indictment. Just because the indictment is long overdue does not mean new evidence is required to arrest John Ramsey -- only probable cause, as always. What do you think, CC, am I correct?
DeleteSorry, Doc. My previous answer was directed more toward Anonymous. Yup, you're right.
DeleteAs a general FYI, other grounds for appeal are trial court error, ineffective assistance of counsel (always a favorite), and jury misconduct, no new evidence required. Appeals seldom result in reversals - the usual remedy is a re-trial. But you knew that.
CC
Probable cause is the standard for arrest, reasonable doubt what must be overcome to issue an indictment. The GJ thought a case could/should be made, and they presumably saw more than we've been made privy to. Hunter chose not to do so. I'm more of a cowboy; I'd like to think I'd have taken a shot. But now? Not so much.
ReplyDeleteCC
Nothin to lose now ...mines well take a shot. A shot now where Team Ramsey probably can not be afforded. My guess is you have a better chance of getting someone talking than you ever had before. I am saying that not only is that not new evidence but that it is never was evidence. Behavioral clues (at best) are not evidence. I do believe that LE following the behavioral clues was another reason the case got thrown into a tailspin.....besides the ransom note. Not interrogating them seperately day 1 is what really blew this case.
ReplyDeleteNo, there is plenty of evidence. While the evidence is circumstantial, many criminals have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But first, before any sort of indictment is possible, there are two important things that must be cleared up: 1. it must be demonstrated that John should never have been ruled out as writer of the note -- that could be done by interviewing the "experts" who came to that decision and forcing them to explain it; and 2. finding DNA experts to testify that the DNA evidence in itself, in the absence of a match, proves nothing.
DeleteIt would also be necessary to demonstrate that not only is there no intruder evidence, but no intruder theory makes sense. I believe that's been done, not only by me, but also Thomas, Kolar, Wecht and many others.
Once these three elements are established, then John's defense would not have a leg to stand on. If he then attempted to point the finger at Patsy, that would totally destroy his credibility. I don't think he or his lawyers would even dare to take such a tack as it would be fatal.
But in the event they try to make such a case, then Patsy's 911 call and John's obviously phony story about the broken window would come into play. Another important piece of evidence, which I'm sure was neglected in the grand jury hearings is the legal document we've all seen as a sample of John's handwriting. This came to light not through the police investigation but via an unknown private party who released it to one of the tabloids. I doubt it was ever part of the investigation -- but it could be used as evidence that John could have written the ransom note, and that the assumption Patsy wrote it is bogus.
Everything would depend on how the prosecution planned its case and how thoroughly they re-investigated on the basis of John no longer being ruled out, which as I see it, makes all the difference. I don't hold out much hope for such a development as it would take an extraordinary DA to conduct such an investigation. But imo it IS possible and I think a very effective case could be made on such a basis, yet.
Hi Doc. I just wanted to commend you for taking up so much of your own personal time to share your theory. I think we are all torn up inside over this case and it helps to discuss it among peers. You have been very gracious to us all. Thank you so much!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm just curious, do you converse with Hercule outside of this blog? You two seem to know each other on a deeper level. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't agree with his theory but I must admit that he has made some excellent points that really makes me think. Imo, you are both brilliant (although your bedside manner easily trumps his). I tried to combine your best points with Hercule's best points. The result was that Burke wrote the ransom note. To me it looks like someone else wrote "SBTC, Victory!" The handwriting is much different from the previous passages. I wonder if John or Patsy may have added that as part of the staging? Although, it is possible that the entire note wasn't written on the same day. From my own experience, depending on how I feel, my handwriting often fluctuates. I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks! - Shelly
Thanks for the kind words, Shelly. And no, I haven't ever had any contact with Hercule, outside the comments we've all seen on this blog.
DeleteYou make an interesting point regarding the rather distinctive ending, especially on the word "Victory," which does look somewhat different from the rest of the note. I've never been sure what to make of that, but it's interesting and might mean something, who knows?
How does combining a PDI with JDI somehow add up to BDI? And you seriously think a 10 year old could have written a note like that or known about his father's bonus amount? McM
DeleteI don't agree wit Shelly at all. There's nothing brilliant about taking someone else's theory (ST) and adding on amateur psychology with NO sources just speculation and opinion, then insulting everybody who demands sources or disagrees with him. He was especially obnoxious about prior sexual abuse with no sources for all the experts he says didn't see any, and the bit about hymens was really insensitive and uninformed, just like the whole pageant mom thing. Patsy freaking out over a potty accident is just bizarre. Imo he hasn't had one idea he could back up with anything. To compare him to Doc is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the OJ Simpson case?
ReplyDeleteI never followed the Simpson case with any degree of thoroughness, so I don't have a strong opinion, one way or the other. However, a good friend got very involved in the case and wrote an excellent analysis, in which he made a compelling case for OJ's innocence. Unfortunately I can't find his analysis online anymore and he was so upset by my take on the Ramsey case that we haven't spoken in years.
DeleteWhat stands out for me about this case, as it did for my friend, and also for Dr. Wecht, is the blood evidence. There was just not enough blood found either in OJ's vehicle or his house to tie him directly to the murder. It was a very bloody scene and the killer would have to have been drenched in blood. Yet only a very small amount was found in OJ's van and in his house only some on a pair of socks, that could easily have been planted. (by guess who)
According to Wecht, OJ is either innocent or had an accomplice. I tend toward the accomplice theory.
And by the way, I recently read a new book by OJ's former agent, Mile Gilbert, who claims OJ "confessed" to him. What he means by that is not a full confession, unfortunately, but an admission that he was in fact at the murder scene, with the implication that he at least knew what happened. Very convincing, I must say.
I find a few aspects of your theory hard to accept. Rather than rehash several that have been done to death I'll confine myself to one issue. It's been covered before, but not overdone.
ReplyDeleteIt has to do with the window. If John is lying about the window, Patsy must also be lying about the window. Your explanation for why she would do that is gaslighting. I see no point in arguing about whether this was possible because nearly anything is possible. I think you'll agree that there was no guarantee that it would work.
John commits himself to the story once he sweeps up the glass. You've debated with others about the time that he might have swept the glass but I think you'll agree that it had to be in the morning, before FW went down there looking for JB. Whether that was 8 am or 10 am doesn't matter so much as the fact that it was in the morning, and that sweeping up the glass committed him to some version of a prior break story to explain the missing glass.
So, when did John begin to work on Patsy to gaslight her? I don't really see that he'd have had the opportunity on the 26th. She was upstairs surrounded by friends the whole day, at least after the 911 call. This means he committed himself before he had any idea whether or not Patsy could be gaslighted. For all he knew she may have been in that room with the window the day before. His attempt to gaslight could easily have backfired. She may simply have refuted it, and what's more, might have realized that since he's trying to co-opt her into lying about the window he must be the murderer.
It's the timing that gives me pause. He's irrevocably committed to some variation of a story about the window being already broken before he has any real idea whether or not Patsy can be manipulated into believing it.
I think given the choice of unconvincing staging or telling a story that his wife might, at least potentially, refute outright, he'd have gone with the poor staging. It at least looked a little bit like an intruder entry point with the glass on the floor.
It's not so important that Patsy corroborate his story as it is that she should not refute it. On the morning of the 26th he couldn't have known how she'd react to the suggestion that it had been broken during the summer months. Why then would he commit to a story that didn't allow failure (to gaslight Patsy) as an option?
To me it seems more probable that they had either agreed to this story ahead of time, or Patsy was involved in such a way that she'd have no choice but to go along with it.
I've already admitted that Patsy's window story is the weakest link in my inferential chain. I'd have had no problem accepting Patsy's involvement on that basis if it weren't for other aspects of the case that point so strongly to her innocence.
DeleteWhen I ask myself which is more likely, a decision on the part of both to call the police first thing in the morning, as part of some totally improbable "failed kidnapping" plan that makes no sense, or John manipulating an innocent Patsy into lying to back up his nutty window story, I feel forced to reject the former and accept the latter. Admittedly it's hard to see how he could have gaslighted her, but it's harder to see the two of them calling the police as part of a kidnap staging that made no sense and provided the police with evidence that could have implicated at least one of them. And there are many other reasons to conclude Patsy must be innocent, as I've already gone over several times.
Gaslighting may seem far fetched, but it's a fact. Men do gaslight their wives, children, etc. into accepting a false memory as truth.
We also have to consider why Patsy would have included Linda in her story if she were deliberately lying. To me, that sort of mistake is more consistent with a false memory than a conscious lie.
To give you an idea of how easy it is to implant a false memory, consider all the many instances of false confession. Here we have a false memory implanted after only a few hours, while John would have had months to work on Patsy. Amanda Knox actually placed herself at the murder scene along with her boss, a patently false story that was easily disproven (since her boss had an alibi) after the Italian police worked on her for a few hours. She finally just told them what they wanted to hear. And believed it -- at least for a while. She knew very well it didn't happen that way. But they persuaded her that it did.
DeleteIt's not that gaslighting seems unlikely or far fetched. It's the timing. Gaslighting isn't guaranteed to work, yet John paints himself in a corner by committing to a prior break in story at a time when he has no idea whether gaslighting will work or not. Why would he paint himself into a corner like that? Once he swept up the glass gaslighting had to work or else his goose was cooked.
DeleteComparing what Knox went through to the kind of thing you think JR did is beneath you. Unless you think JR questioned PR for hours and hours under hot lights in a foreign language while wearing a police uniform.
There is no use debating whether or not gaslighting is likely or unlikely. It's purely speculative and not in any way based on facts. You've convinced yourself of it, and that is fine. I'm unconvinced, which is not the same thing as rejecting it.
My point is that John creates the necessity of successful gaslighting on the morning of the 26th, at a time when he has no idea whether or not there is any chance of it working. Had Patsy been in that room on the 25th, or the 24th, or the 23rd, (and I don't see that JR knew whether she had/had not been) she may have known the window wasn't broken during the summer.
If he needs Patsy to not refute his story he needs to know whether Patsy knows the condition of the window or not. I don't see any evidence he knows this info on the morning of the 26th. If she doesn't he can try gaslighting. If she is uncertain, he can try gaslighting. If she is certain the window wasn't already broken (because she'd observed it recently) then an attempt at gaslighting would be fatal for JR.
IOWs the gaslighting theory makes more sense if he starts with Patsy and once he's sure he's got her believing it, he cleans up the glass. But of course he cleans up the glass the morning of the 26th. It's only after that, when there is a substantial chance of it all going pear-shaped that he begins to work on Patsy. Cleaning up the glass first indicates Patsy is already on board with the story, or else she is in a predicament where she has to go along with the story.
To me it's clear that John was improvising that morning. I see no reason to assume his actions and statements were part of some long-term plan. Once he realized the police were not going to buy the break-in he'd staged, then he'd have realized his staging was about to backfire. He had no choice but to clean up the glass and claim he'd broken in earlier. If he hadn't the staging would have been obvious and he'd have been arrested that day.
DeleteThis is probably one of the principal reasons John refused to allow the police to interrogate Patsy. If they had immediately been separated, then she would not have supported his story, and his deception would have been obvious. Unless they were in it together, of course, in which case their stories would have been in lock step.
And yes, John could not have been sure he'd be able to brainwash Patsy into going along with his story at some future point. As I say, he was improvising. Nevertheless, thanks to all the medications she'd been taking it would not have been difficult for him to eventually convince her that her memory was unreliable and that she had in fact cleaned up glass at some point the previous summer. What he didn't anticipate was her inclusion of Linda in the memory.
Of course, all this went totally over the heads of the investigation team, who were also being manipulated very adroitly by John.
To me the window clean-up is the "weakest link in [your] inferential chain". Why bother? The window remains broken in any case - surely leaving the glass would only have added to the intruder story, while cleaning it up avails him nothing but complications, as Anonymous suggested.
ReplyDeleteCC
Not sure what you are implying, CC. Most of the missing glass was not found and the absence of that glass has to be accounted for. Unless you are willing to believe John's patently absurd story.
DeleteIf he'd left the glass on the floor then his staging would have been obvious and he'd have immediately been arrested. With no sign that anyone had even lifted that window grate and no sign that anyone had entered or left via that window then staging would have been the only explanation.
I'm saying one's first instinct, when Plan A went south with the 911 call, would likelier be to further stage rather than unstage. Why grind up and flush glass rather than stand on a chair and use a broom handle or somesuch to push the grate askew? I know, you've assured us JR was no criminal mastermind, but neither was he a fool.
ReplyDeleteCC
Maybe you should ask John, CC. I have no idea what was going through his head at the time. All we have is the evidence that was found and reported.
DeleteMy best guess is that, first of all, it may not have been that easy on such short notice to find a stick long enough to displace the grate. Second of all, he would have had to crawl through that space himself to create the proper effect. Which would have left his clothing in a mess with the police either on their way or already in the house. For whatever reason, he decided to clean up the glass and ultimately get rid of it. Unless you want to believe his story, which I don't think you really want to do, no?
A golf club would have done nicely, and there were several at hand, as well as rags with which to stir the dirt, dust and packing peanuts.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I do lean more towards believing his story than your overly complicated theory. It accounts for everything and obviates the need for gaslighting, which is far too ornate for my taste.
Don't misunderstand. I believe JDI, but because of the prior sexual abuse, not because of your rather rococo theory.
CC
CC, you may think your take on this makes more sense, but it is based on unwarranted assumptions. We don't know whether a golf club would have been handy at the time. Nor can we be sure the police had not already been outside, noticing the spider web on the grate. Their comments may have been what triggered John to un-stage in the first place. We don't know if a rag was handy either. Above all, we know nothing about John's state of mind at the time. He would certainly have been in a panic and thus possibly not thinking very clearly.
DeleteWhat we DO know is:
He was unable to recall hardly any of the details of his window story, not how he lost his keys, not even whether or not he took a cab home from the airport. He was unable to explain why he didn't break in via a ground floor window. He was unable to explain why he didn't phone his neighbor from the airport so he could borrow his key. His story about removing his "business suit" to climb in half naked is absurd on its face. He couldn't recall how he climbed in, frontwise or rearwise. He was unable to explain how he could locate the exact right window pane to break while wedged into that tight space in total darkness.
Moreover, neither he nor Patsy were able to recall whether the window had ever been repaired. They gave the same response on two different occasions, roughly a year apart -- plenty of time to check. It is moreover impossible to believe they would have left that window unrepaired in all that time, or at least taped a piece of cardboard over the opening. Finally, the one eye witness in this case, Linda Hoffmann Pugh, claimed she knew nothing about any broken window, not only at the time she was working on her book, but from the very beginning, when she was strongly supportive of Patsy. If anyone would have noticed a broken window in that basement it would have been her.
Finally, according to Kolar, the forensics team were unable to determine from examining the glass whether the break was old or new. Now if a layer of dust or grime had been found on the edges that would have been clear evidence that the break was old. So obviously the edges must have been clean. Which tells me it was a fresh break -- regardless of whether or not the window had ever been repaired.
It's one thing to focus in on one or two things that might seem odd or unlikely and quite another to see the case as a whole, in the light of ALL the evidence.
And by the way, CC, if there is anything that is "rococo," it's John's story, not my analysis of same, which is very simple and straightforward.
DeleteWere John's fingerprints found on any of the contents used in the murder?
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to see it the same way as cc. Your theory is complex and requires 3 fortuitous events to work out in JR's favor.
ReplyDelete1. No one notices the glass on the floor before the police are overheard talking about it. This despite the fact that the first officers on scene, as well as FW, are down the basement fairly early on. Especially the police. It's also possible PR would have come down the basement searching for JB in which case she might have seen the glass. 2. JR just happened to hear the police talking about the web and the dirt. Good thing he happened to be standing in the right place at the right time and good thing the police decided to talk out loud about critical evidence in front of a prime suspect. 3. JR for some reason decided to leave two simple elements of staging for later. I know I know, he ran out of time. But these things only take a few minutes and there was always a chance that Patsy would come down the basement. She may or may not have noticed the web and the undisturbed dirt. But why take a chance ?
It's as though you start with a theory then conjecture a chain of events the "must" have happened in order to make the theory work.