Honey, I Killed the Kid
You WHAT????
I didn’t mean it. It
was, like, an accident. You know?
Uh, which kid?
Our little girl, JonBenet.
You killed JONBENET?
Oh my God, JonBenet? What
happened, how did you do that?
Well, you know how sometimes she wets the bed -- and I get
SO upset? Well that’s what
happened. She gets up in the middle of
the night, soaking and smelly. And her
bed’s a mess, all wet and sticky. I
yelled at her and she started screaming.
Guess I just lost it. That
maglite was just sitting there so I picked it up – and sort of, you know,
bashed her over the head with it. I
didn’t mean it, really I didn’t.
Well, I guess we can kiss our privileged lifestyle
goodbye. Just imagine the scandal. And such a sweet child, too. She will be missed that’s for sure.
Couldn’t we just call 911 and report it as an accident? I could say she slipped on some soap and hit
her head on the sink
Are you kidding?
Who’d believe that? Everyone
knows we don’t use soap, we use Dove.
No, I’ve got a better idea. Put
on your red sweater, go down to the basement and get me one of your
paintbrushes.
Why would I want to do that?
Don’t interrupt!!!!
I’m thinking! Just go down there
and do as I say.
(A few minutes later)
OK, here’s the paintbrush.
What are you going to do with THAT?
Make a garrote. I
learned all about it in the Philippines.
They’re really neat – and I learned all about knots in the navy, so I
can put this one together in no time.
Are you out of your mind?
Why would you want to do that?
And why my paintbrush, why not just find a piece of stick from
somewhere, or a pencil?
Don’t you see? If
you’d murdered her, we could try to make it look like an accident. But it WAS an accident. You can’t make an accident look like an
accident. And hence, we gotta make it
look like murder. Some nut case climbs
in the basement window and attacks our beloved daughter with a garrote. It’s perfect, they’d never believe loving
parents could attack their own child with a garrote. And we have to use your paintbrush so no one
will think I did it.
I see. But just to be
safe shouldn’t we write a phony ransom note also? I studied journalism in college, you know,
so I think I could come up with a real doozy, I’ve got lots and lots of really
good ideas. Please, could I?
Well, all right, but use your own note pad, OK? And your pen. I don’t want anyone to think I wrote it.
No one will ever think YOU wrote it, dear. My, use that good old southern common sense
of yours, John. But just to be sure,
I’ll include some of my own favorite expressions and lots and lots of
exclamation points, you know how I LOVE exclamation points. Now when you’re done with the garrote just
go back to bed and relax. You’ll need
to be well rested in the morning, when we call the police. I’ll stay up all night writing the note. Won’t even stop to change my clothes.
This is pointless. There are many different PDI scenarios that make sense but this is absurd. I think Hercule did a good job discussing the PDI possibilities. Hercule bases his beliefs on the Steve Thomas theory but IMO does a better job of explaining all aspects of the case that Steve either failed to mention or didn't expound on.
ReplyDeleteIt's been about a month so Hercule should be showing up again soon, that's his pattern, he gets beat down and goes away for a while. Or maybe he's on a work release program! Either way its about that time again.
Delete"There are many different PDI scenarios that make sense but this is absurd."
DeleteYes, it's absurd, intentionally so. But behind that absurdity is a lesson for anyone foolish enough to buy into any Patsy dunnit scenario. What they all have in common is:
The absurd notion that one spouse would want to cover for the other if that other killed a beloved child, either deliberately or by accident.
The absurd notion that concerns about preserving their privileged lifestyle would have prevented them from calling 911 immediately after the "accident."
The absurd notion that an accident, which could easily have been reported as such, would need to be covered up by staging a sexual assault, complete with vaginal penetration and garotte strangulation.
The absurd notion that anyone covering up a murder would want to stage BOTH an assault by a crazed sexual predator AND a kidnapping.
The absurd notion that Patsy would be capable of composing and penning a 2 1/2 page ransom note, with every i dotted and t crossed, with a clear beginning, middle and ending, consistent spacing between words, close adherence to the left margin, etc., after brutally assaulting, penetrating and strangling her beloved daughter, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase "pull yourself together, girl."
The absurd notion that the inclusion of the phrase "good southern common sense" somehow gives Patsy away -- as though she'd have been foolish enough to include such a phrase in a document intended to point away from her involvement.
The absurd notion that being seen in the same outfit the following day means that Patsy must have been up all night, not bothering to change, when obviously, if she'd been up all night, her clothing would have been filthy and in complete disarray and she would certainly have showered and changed before calling the police.
The absurd notion that Patsy would have wanted to report a kidnapping to the police if she knew the body of her victim was lying in the basement, waiting to be found.
The absurd notion that Patsy would have wanted to give the police a phony ransom note that might well have been used as evidence against her.
The absurd notion that Patsy called in friends to "contaminate the crime scene," when she and John would have been in complete control of that crime scene from the start and could easily have done all the necessary "contamination" themselves.
I could go on and on.
I understand Thomas' book fine, Hercules didn't add anything but psychology. Maybe Thomas didn't expound on the psychology because he knew it was all bs and could never be proved.
DeleteAnd the number one absurd notion being that the truth of JBs death would imcriminate both of them.
DeleteJohn for the sex acts, Patsy for the murder.
What a waste of time that GJ-- getting it only half right-- robert
"The absurd notion that one spouse would want to cover for the other if that other killed a beloved child, either deliberately or by accident."
DeleteI'm sorry but calling this absurd doesn't make it so. I can see John helping Patsy to cover up. Patsy going to jail doesn't bring Jonbenet back to life. Pasty going to jail leaves Burke motherless and, given John's preoccupation with business, parentless, for all practical purposes. It's in BR's best interest to stage a kidnapping and blame the murder on intruders.
Right on-- glad to see somone agree that calling it absurd does not make it so. robert
Deleteagreed
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteExcept he bases it all on Patsy being a whacked out nut job and there is no evidence of that at all. None. Zero. Zip.
ReplyDeleteDoc, your satire is hilarious! And, hopefully, it will cause some the PDI theorists out there to realize just how absurd it is to think Patsy had any part in this murder.
ReplyDeleteIn this writing, you seem to suggest that JR, in his staging, used specific things and wrote specific things that pointed to Patsy. Do you feel he wanted to make it look like Patsy did it in the event the intruder theory didn't hold up (which it didn't) or is this just part of the satire --- the part explaining all those things that point to Patsy?
bb
Thanks, bb. Glad to see that someone out there gets it. I think it's hilarious too, but not everyone shares my sense of humor.
DeleteAnd no, I don't think John would have deliberately implicated Patsy. That would have weakened his intruder staging. He used Patsy's things simply because they weren't his things. The satire is directed at those naive enough to believe Patsy must be involved simply because items belonging to her were used.
I agree. As you said his plan was to get the body out of the house. He wasn't trying to use patsy stuff just too implicate her. I think he didn't want to use anything that linked him. If patsy hadn't called 911 I'm sure john would have destroyed more evidence including the garrote made with patsy's art supplies. He wrote the note to give himself lots of private time to deal with the kidnappers. The satire really shows how ridiculous PDI is. -SM
DeleteI have a new theory. I do definitely believe Patsy wrote the ransom note. The indentations, the letters, style, etc. all point to her. I also believe she wrote it while JonBenet was still alive as a real ransom note and part of a kidnapping plot, but not intending for her daughter to be murdered. In the Ramsey household, John was the breadwinner and controlled the money, while Patsy was the often ignored and much left alone wife who felt she too had earned and was entitled to John's bonus of $118,000. I think she planned and staged a kidnapping in order to get her hands on the money. She hired two men from L.A. to be the kidnappers. In Googling images of this case, a picture came up of two very creepy and scary looking individuals. They actually looked like the type of persons who could commit these horrible crimes. These two individuals, it turns out, were actually two low life prostitutes who were "coincidentally" flown from L.A. to Boulder, CO and arrived on the night JonBenet was killed. They were also given a large sum of money upon their arrival. These two men, by their own admission, had been abused by wealthy men as teenagers and had a seething hatred towards the wealthy and the establishment. One of them died four years later of a heroin overdose. The other, Michael Cross Burke, went on to produce a show, "Michael Jackson was Innocent… and I didn’t kill JonBenet Ramsey, but I was there the night she died." I think it's very possible these two were in the Ramsey home that night and, although he may not have been the one who killed JonBenet, it's very possible it was his friend who actually killed her when they were supposed to be "watching over her" as stated in the ransom note. I think his hormones, along with being high on drugs, overtook him in a sadistic rape and murder rage that Patsy didn't see coming. She went to bed that night thinking JonBenet was being "watched over" by these "two gentlemen" and that she'd see both her money and her daughter in the morning.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm Georgio Tsoukalos and I think it was aliens. Makes as much sense as Patsy went crazy over poop or male hookers from LA.
DeleteAny sources to support this theory? It's definitely an interesting one.
DeleteNo drugged up intruder could enter and leave without leaving evidence
ReplyDeleteAt one time I entertained the idea of a publisity stunt by Patsy that went wrong. but I got over it. robert
Someone obviously entered and left without leaving much evidence. He may not have been drugged up. He may just have been plain old evil and sadistic.
ReplyDeleteI ll let someone esle give you an update on that post-- or you can read the 1st part of this forum --robert
DeleteRidiculous .....you know you could make the same satirical nonsense out of John did it by himself and it would make more logical sense. No matter how much evidence you present for Patsys involvement it will not be accepted here ...if you had a videotape of Patsy writing the ransom note Doc would come back with a scenario of Patsy being drugged and brainwashed to write it and then brainwashed to forget it. Surely if Doc is correct and Patsy was NOT involved in any way it would be a huge anonomoly of what evidence we have. She had all of her friends clean the house and then crossed police tape to clean up JBs room after bein told to stay out ....I know if my daughter were kidnapped that is EXACTLY what I would be doing...I mean who wouldnt ? My daughter is kidnapped ...call all my friends and have a cleaning party woo hoo ! Completely normal ...just ask Doc ...
ReplyDeleteYou haven't presented one single fact, not one, just a bunch of statements and opinions you can not even back up where you read it and a lot of what you said is false but when you're called on that you just keep insisting.
DeleteI havent posted a single fact ? Anything I post is fact or I have asked if anyone else has read it if I am not sure. Things like Patsy failing 3 polys and being told to get a new polygrapher to get the results that she needed are not considered facts or evidence here. All of a sudden polygraphs are totally useless garbage "on this blog" bc they do not support the theory thus they do not support the book and thus they do not supportv sales there of. Things like Patsy faking to be crying while peering through her fingers are claimed to not be "facts" on this site yet are sourced in many places and the latter straight from LE on the scene. Yet it is considered undebatable fact that bc Patsy called 911 with the body in the house she cant be involved as some kind of fact....it is laughable. We go as far as to a form of brainwashing to compensate for Patsys lies on this blog. Yet Doc and a few others who support everything he says (like you) make fun and chastise those who point out straight up lies and facts that point directly to her involvement. That spans from cleaning up the crime scene to lying to dna evidence. It is obviously easier to believe that Patsy was drugged and "brainwashed" into lying about intruder entry points than to believe and follow the evidence that she was involved ? Follow the facts not the morass !!! It is easier to believe she just could not recognize her own or her own familys writing than to believe she is lying again...and for good reason ? As soon as any fact involving Patsy is brought up here it is brainwashing , not fact, etc etc ...as soon as I tell you that many many murderers have called 911 with the body in the house (as some of you refuse to admit) the whole theory falls apart . PERIOD !
DeleteI am not even claiming PDI but saying it is more than possibe here . People on this site who claim Patsy can not be involved bc a mother would never do that are are obviously completely clueless. Just that statement voids any common sense and anything else they have to say. I can site many many mothers who have killed their child/and or children. It is not uncommon at all. I saw a woman who burned her baby alive on ID the other day and can reference many many other mothers who have murdered their child.
DeleteMy dictionary says a fact is something that is indisputably true. So no you have not posted one single fact just rumors you can't back up where you read them.
DeleteSo far as I can tell, you've made just two statements supported by any available information: Patsy peeked through her fingers, and sometimes murderers call 911 with a body in the house. Unfortunately, neither is enough from which to draw any conclusion.
DeletePolygraphs are not "all of a sudden totally useless garbage". They've been so in Colorado since 1983. They are inadmissible in every state in the Union except New Mexico, and here's how it works there: The prosecution does polygraph testing, gets one set of results; the defense does its own testing and gets another, effectively rendering both totally useless garbage. And inconclusive is not the same as failure, it's just inconclusive - no determination could be reached.
You seem to think any stray thought or rumor you post is fact. That is not the case.
You say you've been mocked and chastised. That is not the case.
You continue to insist anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist for Doc's theory, shilling for his book and incapable of independent, rational thought. That is not the case.
You've gone from tiresome to tedious, Anonymous.
CC
Wait ...let me guess ..John manipulated her to destroy the crimescene and evidence and then he gaslit her in order to get her to not remember that she did it ...just like with the basement window and 911 call right ??? Any facts and all evidence is ignored here and called not true in favor of calling wild "speculation" fact.
ReplyDeleteWhere are you getting your information about Patsy crossing the tape to clean JBs bedroom? Never seen that.
ReplyDeleteI saw it years ago and in more than 1 place. I am looking for it right now ..I may have read it in 1 of the books ? Either way I will find it and post
ReplyDelete"The prosecution does polygraph testing, gets one set of results; the defense does its own testing and gets another, effectively rendering both totally useless garbage."
ReplyDeleteLet us not confuse the true objective of a polygraph examination. CC is correct about the polygraph being inadmissible in court, but should it's usefulness be compared to "garbage"? I think not.
A polygraph can be an extremely effective tool early in an investigation as a means of quickly sorting through a long list of possible suspects. Does it outrightly eliminate anyone? Certainly not - but a polygraph can speed up the focus of an investigation when the first few days are of the upmost importance.
Lastly, the interrogation of a subject that follows the administration of a polygraph examination has often led to a confession. As you can see, polygraphs can be strategically useful in solving a crime before it is taken to court. Therein lies the significance of a polygraph; the utilization.
Hercule
For a change, I agree with Hercule. A polygraph isn't really a "lie detector," but it can be a very useful investigative tool. Results that come across as deceptive or inconclusive can aid interrogators by enabling them to focus in on weaknesses or confusions in the suspect's version of what happened.
DeleteI understand the impulse to believe polygraphs can be helpful to LE, but there are problems. The physiological changes they measure can be caused by any strong emotion - grief, fear, anger - the machine makes no distinctions. Different examiners get different results - there is no scientific standard, hence their inadmissibility in court. Anyone with internet access can spend thirty minutes on a website run by a former FBI examiner and learn to "beat the box".
DeleteCC
"as soon as I tell you that many many murderers have called 911 with the body in the house (as some of you refuse to admit) the whole theory falls apart . PERIOD !"
ReplyDeleteThis statement tells me you've completely failed to understand the point I've been making regarding that call. Not surprising that you can't understand anything else, either.
Sure, lots of murderers have called 911 to report their own crime. But no one in the history of crime has ever done so under these particular circumstances. If Patsy is in fact guilty, then she is not simply reporting a crime, she is reporting a kidnapping that she herself has staged by writing a phony "ransom note." In her own hand. Only the "kidnap" victim hasn't actually been kidnapped. Her body is still lying in the basement. Which Patsy, if she were in fact guilty, would certainly have been aware of.
The police arrive, and the Ramseys then hand over the phony ransom note, which will be exposed as phony as soon as the body is discovered. And if Darnay Hoffman's "experts" are correct, Patsy hasn't even made much of an effort to disguise her hand, so even the rankest amateur, such as yourself, can tell at a glance who wrote it.
What this amounts to is the guilty party calling the police on herself, knowing full well that her deception will soon be revealed. If you can find a precedent for THAT in the history of crime, I'd love to hear about.
1st time for everything-- I can't say Patsy knew full well a deception would be revealed . That would be a frame of mind at the time .
DeleteWhat actually happened is that Patsy called 911. A RN was handed to the police, and it was written either by Patsy or John. The body was in the basement. The police didn't believe the kidnapping (after 7 hours).
DeleteIn your view this could only have come about due to an unexpected act on Patsy's part. Some people have considered that this may have been the plan. If it was the plan, it seems to have worked. If it was an unexpected interruption of a plan, it seems to have worked.
It did not work. In fact it backfired -- on John, thanks to Patsy's decision to call the police. Nothing worked. But John either managed to deceive the "experts" or just got lucky. By ruling him out as writer of the note, they made it impossible for the DA to pursue an indictment. It's as simple as that. And had nothing to do with any "plan" to stage a "kidnapping gone wrong." Very few people have ever accepted that this was a kidnapping gone wrong, and for good reason.
DeleteAnon has a point, whether polygraphs are garbage or not, the fbi required the R's to use their examiners, they then went on to use an examiner and a points administrator from Louisiana with the lowest credibility they could find, even Diane Hollis passed from the most reputable examiner, there is more than a couple of lies patsy told for whatever reasons as much as john, and I still think her statement regarding seeing that heart on jbrs hand on boxing day morning is a red flag, I believe from the statement le did too
ReplyDeleteDiane Hollis - If she is the person that answered phone calls in Mr Ramsey's office she needs to be re interviewed again and not by Boulder Police Department. The cards were stacked against many people in this tragedy
DeleteI don't understand, eve, give me a hand here. Are you saying Patsy saw the red ink other than when she bent over the body when John brought it upstairs?
ReplyDeleteCC
Cc in her statement to le which I posted a while ago, when asked how she knew about it, patsy said because I saw it the next morning, they repeated the question to which she gave the same answer. After a break, when brought up again, she then says, she must have read about it somewhere.
ReplyDeletecc, i posted here some time ago about this. It was during Patsy's 98 interview with LE. Patsy was asked about if she knew of the red ink on JBR'S hand, she replied yes. They then continue with different questioning and eventually ask how do you know there was a heart on her hand. Patsy replies, "because it was on there in the morning that's why". And you remember it from the next morning?" "uh-hum", she goes on to agree she saw it the next morning but doesn't remember it from the previous evening, as she has earlier stated that she put JBR to bed and didn't check for any marks.
ReplyDeleteI find it strange that her answer to the above would not be, she saw it in the afternoon or she saw it when John found her and brought her upstairs.
The questioning goes on about drawings etc, then ends. When the interview starts the following day, the first thing Patsy wants to clarify, is that she is having trouble remembering whether she has read somewhere about the heart, or it could be that she has recently been reading an autopsy report. Yet during the previous days interview it is reiterated to her three times, that she saw the heart the next morning to which she agreed.
Well, that settles it. Patsy confessed. End of story. Guess I was wrong after all.
DeleteOf course not Doc,just saying that we can interpret both Patsy and Johns statements/actions/lies in equal ways. I have no theory.
DeleteBecause at a certain point everyone fixated on Patsy, then anything she ever said that was ambiguous or the result of confusion has been seen as a lie of some sort -- or as in this case, a confession. John's lies, on the other hand, are not so easily explained. That's the difference.
DeleteTo me, Patsy's "heart on the hand" story is more evidence supporting her innocence. Obviously she got confused and recalled the discovery of the body as occurring in the morning instead of the afternoon. It's also evidence of the effects of her medication on her memory.
DeleteIf she'd been involved in the murder and knew all about the "heart" on JonBenet's hand, she would never have made such an ambiguous statement, but would simply have denied all knowledge of it.
Or... Le got her talking freely so she forgot herself, this is how they catch criminals out isn't it?,don't think she could deny knowledge of it 2yrs later in said interview
ReplyDeleteI'm posting this at the request of the author, who was unable to post it directly from her phone:
ReplyDeleteIf someone already thought of this, sorry for the repeating meme (for you Dr. Who fans) but perhaps the window break occurred during the events that transpired leading up to Jon Benet's murder. A scuffle that had someone smashing into it, an object being thrown or swung, with the result being that incriminating evidence that John did not want discovered was left on those broken peices strewn on the floor. So, he needs to discard them AND come up with a believable story about the window being broken for Patsy to buy. Since it's possible he really did lock himself out during the summer and Patsy knew about it, he embellishes and plans to build on this as the reason that window is broken at all. Putting the suitcase under the window and having to immediately find a way to discard those peices (which he may have planned to do when getting rid of the body) so police wouldn't find them, occurred to him after the 9/11 call was made. He may not have been considering selling that window as an entry point at all prior to the abrupt call to the police.
I personally think John was counting on Patsy's distress being enough of a distraction, upon discovery of her daughters "kidnapping" that would make her more vulnerable than usual, more malleable for him to convince her of the break that was always there. Then when she becomes the prime suspect in Jon Benet's murder, John became Patsy's key witness in proving her innocence. Think of her mindset; her daughter was murdered in her own home and police wanted to hang her for it. My God, can you imagine the vulnerability of her psyche during all of this? She knows the police are trying to nail both of them with any little inconsistency so why wouldn't she go along with John's version of the window story, especially at this point? She didn't believe he did it. And she needed him on her side. I also believe her need to go along with John's story was greater than her concern for whether Linda could, would, might/might not corroborate the story. Linda's character was painted in a less than flattering light anyway and they were hoping police would view her word as unreliable. Suzs
Suzs, Well said. This theory is plausible to me. We can prove it of course, but it is very plausible. One thing - the window is up high. so if it was accidentally broken, I would think it due to something being thrown.
ReplyDeletemeant to type "can't prove it."
DeleteThere are a great many scenarios and variations on scenarios that could be considered, it makes the head spin. All this is what I call the "morass." Sorry to keep repeating that, but if we try to imagine every possible nuance in this case we'll drive ourselves nuts and make no real progress anyhow, since there is no way to actually test any of this.
DeleteThe FACT is that the window was broken. And unless John's fanciful story is true (it isn't), then the most likely interpretation of that scene by far is the staging of an intruder breakin. You could conjure up all sorts of alternate scenarios, such as maybe a bird getting caught under the grate and trying to peck its way out, etc., etc., etc.
The key to understanding that scene is John's absurd story about breaking in earlier. I'd love to put him on the stand and question him very intensely on that story, because I think it would be ridiculously easy to make a fool of him. Of course, if it came to a trial, there is no way he'd agree to testify.
I stumbled upon this site and glad to see someone out there is strongly defending Patsy. Someone did a heck of a job making it look like she had something to do with the murder. That itself is a big hint. The person who wrote the note was very familiar with things known only to the family, or to someone with free access to snoop through the house.
DeleteIt will not come to a trial. The best opportunity was squandered by Alex Hunter in 1999 when he chose not to indict on the GJ's findings. It's very, very unusual, almost unheard of, for a DA to empanel a GJ and then not follow its recommendations. Here's what any other prosecutor in any other jurisdiction would have done:
ReplyDeleteCharge both Rs, separately, with child abuse leading to murder and accessory to murder, per the GJ. This does not preclude adding murder charges down the road. This would have caused PR to begin to think of herself as an individual rather than "the Ramseys", and preparing a separate defense might well cause her to question JR's actions and assertions. It opens the door and an exhumation order that could have proved prior sexual abuse, which likely would have appalled PR, and caused her to turn on her husband.
There was apparently insufficient evidence for the GJ to charge murder. There was insufficient evidence for Hunter to indict for murder. Despite Doc's continued insistence, his theory is not evidence, and his fantasy of a trial is just that.
CC
If Hunter had attempted what CC suggests, he would have failed. Because the real culprit, John Ramsey, was protected by the totally unwarranted, but nevertheless universally accepted, decision to rule him out as writer of the note. Any attempt by Patsy to defend herself by pointing to John would thereby have backfired, and her lawyers would certainty have realized that. Thus there is no way she would have cooperated.
DeleteI prefer to think of my "theory" as more of an analysis than a theory, but I suppose it's mostly a matter of semantics. CC is correct in asserting that putting John on trial solely on that basis would fail. But that's not what I've advocated. If you read me carefully you'll see that what I've actually advocated is using my analysis as the basis for a deeper investigation into certain details that for one reason or another were never fully considered.
Namely: challenging the handwriting "experts" to explain the "science" behind their decision to rule John out; looking more closely at the broken window glass to determine whether the edges are clean; re-examining the absurdity of John's story about breaking in via that window on an earlier date; seeing Patsy's version of the 911 call, as recorded in the A&E documentary, as evidence that the call was her idea, not John's; considering the likelihood that the ransom note cannot be taken at face value, but was part of a plan that failed, due to the unexpected 911 call; considering the unlikelihood of Patsy making that call if she'd been involved in staging a kidnapping; reconsidering the DNA evidence in the light of expert testimony regarding the likelihood of indirect transfer.
Once John is ruled IN as possible writer of the note, once his obviously deceptive story about breaking in the previous summer is exposed, once experts are found to testify regarding the flimsiness of the DNA evidence, and once the full implications of Patsy's 911 call, and its effect on John's plan, as clearly outlined in the note, are made clear, THEN and only then would it be possible to proceed to a trial.
My "theory" is not in itself sufficient as the basis for a trial, but it most definitely provides a blueprint for further investigation that could lead to an indictement.
If they can take the killer's DNA and mix it up with some spit, they can send in to Ancestry.com to match up with relatives. If legal, it would be an incredible way to catch a lot of bad guys.
DeleteIntriguing suggestion. First of all, what they found was almost certainly not the killer's DNA, but the DNA of some innocent person that got transferred onto JonBenet's clothing indirectly. It would nevertheless be helpful if a match could be found, yes. And organizations such as Ancestry.com could be of use in that respect for sure. However, as I understand it there would be legal issues involved, since the DNA of ordinary citizens is considered off limits to law enforcement.
DeleteJR was not at all protected by being erroneously ruled out by LE on the basis of the handwriting analysis, that's another of your assumptions. Hunter would have taken note of current case law - notably the trial of Timothy McVeigh in 1995 - which held handwriting analysis inadmissible. And clearly it did not prevent the GJ from finding him culpable of two serious offenses which, if prosecuted, could have led to a further investigation, exhumation, and murder charges.
ReplyDeleteCC
CC, nowhere in anything Hunter ever said or did is there any hint of doubt regarding the decision to rule John out. Unlike virtually every other opinion rendered in this case, the notion that John could not have written the note was never questioned by anyone investigating it, or just about anyone else following it. Sure, he could have used the McVeigh precedent to question that decision, on more or less the same grounds that I've questioned it. But he obviously never did. Nor did he even contemplate such a move, as far as I can tell.
DeleteWe have no way of knowing from the grand jury's indictment what any of them thought about the note. Their indictment reflected their inability to determine who did what as far as first degree murder was concerned. They concluded that both were involved in the murder, obviously, but that tells us nothing about what they might have thought about who wrote the note.
Hunter went so far as to hire his own independent investigator, an unusual move. I'd say he questioned every conjecture made by the BPD.
DeleteCC
As of late, CC has been consistently discussing points that I have questioned about Doc's theory. From the very beginning I have questioned the importance that Doc has placed on John being ruled out as the ransom note writer. Doc, do you honestly believe the reason law enforcement focused more on Patsy was because John was ruled out by a select group of inadmissible handwriting experts? Let us try to give law enforcement a bit more credit for having enough intelligence to realize they would need irrefutable evidence in order to take John Ramsey off their radar.
ReplyDeleteHercule
You misunderstand. I agree with Doc that LE ruled JR out based on the handwriting analysis. My point is that Hunter's office did not.
DeleteLE had no "irrefutable evidence" of anything against anyone .
CC
"Doc, do you honestly believe the reason law enforcement focused more on Patsy was because John was ruled out by a select group of inadmissible handwriting experts?"
DeleteDuring an online interchange several years ago, Darnay Hoffman informed me that, according to what one of Hunter's aides told him, the DA's office was initially going by a theory very similar to mine, i.e., that John was solely responsible for the crime and was manipulating Patsy. According to Hoffman, the case took a dramatically different turn after the handwriting evidence had been studied and John had been ruled out. That forced them to focus on Patsy.
And by the way, the group that ruled him out were for the most part, hired by the DA's office, so it would not have been that easy for them to reject their conclusions as inadmissible. And as I mentioned in my previous comment, there has never been any indication that Hunter or anyone else ever doubted that conclusion.
John was still "on the radar," of course, because he could still have been responsible for the murder. However, in order to make such a charge stick, they would need to prove that Patsy was involved as well, which was much more difficult to do. Darnay tried very hard to convince them she wrote that note, but the LE examiners were unable to support that conclusion.
CC, according to what Darnay Hoffman told me, the DA's office did indeed accept the decision to rule John out. That's what forced them to change their theory and focus on Patsy as writer of the note.
DeleteHoffman repeatedly tried to involve himself in the JBR case, going so far as to sue Hunter in 1997 in an attempt to force him to charge the Rs. Hunter would not have shared his case theory with Hoffman, and if I were you I'd regard anything Hoffman claimed to have been told by some unnamed "aide" with extreme skepticism.
DeleteCC
CC, if you can find any trace of evidence, from any source, that Hunter ever for a moment doubted the decision to rule John out, please post it here.
DeleteDoc, if you can find any real evidence that Hunter ruled anyone out, including John, you please do likewise.
ReplyDeleteCC
A warrant was issued for Patsy's historic exemplars. No such warrant was issued for John's. Patsy was repeatedly asked to provide handwriting samples. John was not. No one connected with the investigation ever suggested that the decision to rule him out might have been erroneous. I've covered this case pretty thoroughly, CC, and I've never seen any hint that anyone involved in the investigation ever doubted that conclusion.
DeleteThose are all acts of LE, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the DA's office, which plainly disagreed with the direction the BPD was taking.
ReplyDeleteCC
Obviously, if the DA had wanted historic exemplars from John he would have requested them. If he'd wanted additional handwriting samples from John, he'd have requested them. And this would duly have been reported in the media, along with all the other details of the case.
DeleteYou seem to be laboring under one of your frequent legal misapprehensions. It is not necessary to involve a prosecutor in a request for a search warrant, and it was still exclusively BPD's investigation at that point.
DeleteCC
There was simply no such request, CC. Not by the prosecutor, not by the BPD. Everything we know about this case tells us no one involved in the investigation ever questioned the decision to rule John out. I'm sorry, but I've forgotten the point you were trying to make.
DeleteNot to worry; it's made.
DeleteCC
Happy to oblige.
DeleteNow we are getting somewhere. Doc, if you would not mind, could you please post your online exchange with Darnay?
ReplyDeleteHercule
It occurred on one of the forums, Hercule. I don't think I ever kept a record of it, but if I find it I'll post it. Until then you'll just have to take my word.
DeleteI do take your word. I would still like to peruse over the details.
DeleteHercule
OK, I found the reference. Actually it's on this blog (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/ruled-out.html):
DeleteWhile the Ramsey investigation was still in its early stages, a lawyer named Darnay Hoffmann got interested in the case, ultimately convincing himself, and trying to convince others, that Patsy must have written the note. He started posting on the forums as "New York Lawyer," and one day he addressed me (i.e., "docG") directly on Jameson's Webbsleuths site, with the following information:
Posted by New York Lawyer, on Mar-21-99 at 07:09 PM (EST):
"New York attorney Darnay Hoffman spoke to Boulder Assitant District Attorney Bill Wise in March of 1997, and your theory was the first one adopted by the Boulder Police Department. They believed, at first, that John had acted completely on his own, hiding the body of JBR with the intention of disposing it after the police had followed the phoney trail of a bogus kidnapping. They felt that Patsy had been completely kept out of the loop by John, until the handwriting evidence came back looking suspiciously like hers. Then they thought that Patsy was covering for a child molesting John. But these theories were eventually abandoned for a Patsy did it alone theory. So at least you can see: Your theory was the original theory of choice until other evidence surfaced."
Yes, John was my first choice as well, however, the chances of anyone other than Patsy being the author of the ransom note is close to astronomical.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Hercule, please read my comment of March 13, above. See also the following blog post, where I compare John's deposition to the writing on the "ransom" note: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html
DeletePlease also examine the video presented here, which purports to demonstrate that Chris Wolf wrote the note: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/big-bad-wolf-or-dangers-of-cherry.html You'll see how easy it is to isolate individual letters that look remarkably similar to those in the note -- not very different from what Cina Wong attempted with Patsy. It's called "cherry picking" and could be used to "prove" that just about anyone wrote it.
Please also study very carefully the many stylistic differences between Patsy's London letter and the ransom note, as illustrated here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-london-letter-revisited.html
As should be evident, Patsy's hand is dramatically different from that of the note.
In other words, the notion that Patsy had to have written the note, based on some extremely dubious reports of obviously incompetent "experts," is a myth. And of course, as you know, the examiners hired by the DA's office found it "unlikely" that she wrote it.
I appreciate the offer to review your old blog posts, Doc, but the relevance you alluded to did not resonate with me the first time.
ReplyDeletePatsy attempted to disguise her handwriting, but could not be ruled out. Under painstaking examination by several experts such as Chet Ubowski and David Liebman, the writing habits of Patsy Ramsey periodically showed up in the ransom note despite her attempts to disguise it. Because the ransom note was so lengthy it provided more opportunities for Patsy's writing habits to be exposed. These types of habits would not be likely noticed by the author, especially when the author is under extreme stress.
Patsy's London letter is insignificant. She adopted many styles of handwriting and was known to write with either hand. For the most part, she disguised her handwriting in the ransom note fairly well under the circumstances. She did not take into account, like most people, that there are many elements of handwriting analysis that go beyond the surface of the page.
Detailed and comprehensive forensic handwriting examinations are often multi-faceted and require the application of a combination of methods and the use of laboratory instruments. Trying to disguise your own handwriting after logging two and one half pages would most likely only be possible if you were an experienced certified document examiner and even then it would be extremely difficult.
Hercule
Let me repeat. The only examiners not influenced by prior bias were unable to conclude that she wrote the note, and in fact reported that it was "unlikely" she wrote it. These were also the only examiners who had access to the original materials and in a position to confirm (as Darnay was not) that the exemplars attributed to Patsy were actually written by her. The examiner from the Secret Service, who was probably the most highly qualified, found "no evidence" that she wrote it.
DeleteSo I'm sorry, Hercule, but your own personal take on this evidence carries no weight whatsoever. ALL we have to go on is that John was ruled out and she was not ruled out. That is far from being evidence that she wrote the note. And as I've argued many times, there is no science that tells us whether or not any suspect should be ruled out on the basis of handwriting.
Those biased in favor Chris Wolf as writer of the note found "evidence" proving he wrote it. Those biased in favor of Pasty as writer of the note found "evidence" proving she wrote it. As I've demonstrated, her writing looks nothing like that on the note. You can argue that this is because she disguised her hand, but that same argument could be applied to John -- or anyone else who came under suspicion.
As far as David Liebman is concerned, I exposed his incompetence in the following post, which I urge to read carefully if you have not already done so: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-6-david.html
DeleteHe, along with his disciple, Cina Wong, mistook a crooked xerox for margin drift. So much for their "expertise."
How about "an expert"pulling Patsys handwriting out of 72 unknown exemplars ? Meaningless and coincidence I suppose ......
ReplyDeleteYou are once again misinformed, no doubt. But if you can provide a reference, I'll be happy to check it out.
DeleteDoc: You're basing your assertion that JR was ruled out by Hunter on handwriting analysis that every attorney in the country knew was inadmissible -and therefore worthless - and a blog post by Darnay Hoffman.
ReplyDeleteDarnay Hoffman is not a credible source. He was an attorney looking for high profile cases to enhance his own image - JBR, then Bernard Goetz and Joel Steinberg. He wrote his "Lindbergh Letter" to Hunter on March 11, 1997, and may in fact have had a conversation with ADA Bill Wise, but Wise would not have shared information with an unknown NY attorney looking to involve himself in the case.
The DA's office was aware of Meyer's autopsy results and his suspicion of prior sexual abuse, the concurrence of Dr. Sirontak, and the further corroboration of McCann, Monteleone, Rau, and the other medical experts in 1997. There is no way they would have ruled out the only adult male in JBR's home the night she was killed.
I'm continually surprised and disappointed by your seeming disavowal of the prior sexual abuse and its importance to this case.
CC
There's a rather subtle distinction that needs to be clarified, CC. I'm not claiming Hunter ruled John out as a suspect on the basis of the handwriting findings. I'm claiming that Hunter, like everyone else on the investigation team, simply accepted those findings as definitive and as a result never even considered the possibility that John could have written the note. It's not a question of whether these findings would have been admissible in court, it's a question of Hunter's conviction that someone other than John must have written it. Which would leave either an intruder or Patsy. The rift developed when most on the BPD convinced themselves it had to be Patsy, while Hunter insisted on continuing the search for a possible intruder.
DeleteI've never disavowed the evidence of prior sexual abuse and fully agree that this would certainly be a major factor in establishing probable cause in any case against him. I'm sure Hunter recognized this as well. His problem centered on the identity of the person who wrote that note and he realized that any attempt on his part to prosecute "the Ramseys" would require him to convince a jury that she wrote it. According to PMPT, he'd hoped the document examiners would affirm that she did indeed write it, but was disappointed to learn that they did not. And when an expert from the Secret Service was brought in, and declared there was "no evidence" she wrote it, he felt he had no choice but to continue the search for an intruder.
The evidence of prior abuse is compelling, imo, but Hunter well knew that the defense could produce "experts" to question that claim, so it could not be regarded as proof positive. Another factor to consider is the fact that "the Ramseys" called the police when they did. The defense could argue that they would not have made such a call if they'd been staging a kidnapping. The possibility that Patsy's motive may have been very different from John's never seems to have entered anyone's mind.
As far as Darnay is concerned, I agree that he was biased and thus unreliable, but I see no reason for him to have lied regarding that particular encounter with the assistant DA. But that's a small point as far as I'm concerned. What's important is the conviction of all concerned that John could not have written the note, which had a profound affect on the way the entire investigation was conducted.
CC, I think the evidence of prior sexual abuse is key in this case, too. I think it was enough to indict. It has been mentioned here that possibly Hunter did not go through with the indictment because he could not convince himself that Patsy was involved and thus could not go through with an indictment of both Patsy and John. I believe that Hunter knows that the suspects had been narrowed down to just one person. I think he didn't want to be involved in nailing them as a couple. Whatever, this is the like the OJ case. No one is looking for the "real killer" any more. John's behavior since JB's and Patsy's death is rather telling. He doesn't even seem angry anymore. What kind of parent, who lost their child in this manner, doesn't stay angry and vigilant for the rest of their lives, hoping to find justice? Hercule talks about psychology all the time, but the psychology of a parent who has lost a child to a killer is well known and understood.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the importance of the prior sexual abuse evidence. But there was just too much room for reasonable doubt on that score to make it the center of the prosecution's case. And there was always the question of who wrote the note, which has never been resolved (regardless of Darnay's strenuous efforts to nail Patsy to the wall).
DeleteWhich brings us full circle: Had Hunter indicted on the two charges brought in by the GJ he'd have gotten an exhumation order. Had prior sexual abuse been found in a second autopsy that might have prompted PR to question her husband' s words and deeds, possibly led her to turn on him and provide valuable information.
ReplyDeleteInstead, Hunter - who had little experience with homicide, never met a pre-trial plea bargain he didn't like, and who believed in rehabilitation rather than retribution, let the opportunity slip away.
CC
Good points.
DeleteI don't have a specific theory about this case. I've been reading this blog for about 3 years and I still cannot, without reasonable doubt, concede to John being the killer. Doc, your theory is intelligent, mapped out extremely well, and accounts for almost everything. You managed to impressively simplify the case by separating the facts from the morass of misinformation and misconceptions. Like Lou Smit told Steve Thomas, "The truth is almost always the simplest scenario" or something to that effect.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with this case is establishing a motive. I understand that JonBenet was most likely a victim of prior sexual abuse, but this abuse could have perpetrated by a number of people who knew JonBenet. John Ramsey hardly had ample opportunity; often working or out-of-town on business. The most likely suspect, IMO, would have been someone who babysat for the Ramseys and was a male. One such person would have been John's pilot, Michael Archuleta. He babysat for the Ramseys on several occasions. His wife Pam made some interesting observations in her book, "Patsy Ramsey: What The Pilot's Wife Knew". Here are a few snippets that got my attention:
"JonBenet flirted with Michael, asked him questions, laughed, and winked at him."
"Michael often ended up watching the children so John and Patsy could go out for a night alone or go out with friends. Michael never minded since he adored both children."
"I knew that Michael was always doing things with the Ramsey family when they were at their home in Charlevoix. . . I remember Michael telling me about sailing and boating on the lake. His memories are of all the fun he had and mine are in sharing his."
"It brought me joy to know that Michael was with good people like John and Patsy. I loved to hear him talk about the fun things they did and about the cute tricks the children played on 'Uncle Mike'. . ."
"In 1994, John and Patsy invited me to join Michael and stay with them at their summer home in Charlevoix, Michigan. . . In the back yard, which faced the lake was a fire pit, and that is where the family gathered to have Karaoke nights and have toasted smores. . . It was Michael’s favorite time to watch the children and their friends perform."
"He (Michael) had agreed to watch JonBenet and Burke while John and Patsy went out to dinner with friends. Michael was the pilot who did double duty as both pilot and child watcher. He was good at it, though. They both loved him, played with him, and teased him a lot. . . Michael had tried to get them to watch a movie, but JonBenet became bored, wanted to go up to her room, and play with her dolls. 'Come help me, Mike,' she would say."
(contd)
(contd)
ReplyDelete". . . 'Michael, I won Little Miss Charlevoix and look at my posters, and here is one for you and Pam,' an excited JonBenet said. Her poster was all about winning Little Miss Charlevoix, and at the bottom she had hand written XXX OOO XXX JonBenet. . . and Michael was so proud of that poster."
"JonBenet was always talking to Michael as she had spent so much more time with him than me. She liked him and would often engage him in conversations that sounded funny. She would say, 'Oh, Mike, you are silly.' She would hold her head up and sort of swirl her curls around her face and giggle and smile."
"Michael hugged Patsy and then she turned to me and said, 'This man is the best cook I have ever had in my kitchen. He can whip anything up with the least effort.' I laughed and replied, 'I married him because he could cook and I knew I couldn’t.'
'You really are lucky, Pam, so many men won’t or can’t cook,' Patsy stated. 'Oh, Pam, he also is handy and can fix things that I have no idea how to repair. You had better keep him around.' I said, 'If I could keep him from flying off all the time, I might see some of these talents as I have a honey do list that is getting longer by the month'. . ."
December 6, 1996: "When we were driving along the route for the parade I would occasionally look at the people watching us in the parade. There were so many people just out on a cold December night with their families watching and trying to keep warm. As we got close to the judges booth I saw a man, a well-dressed man, in fact, who looked rather nice, with a very angry look on his face, running towards the car. Our car had gotten a little behind since the parade would often stop and wait for slower vehicles to move forward. It happened so fast, and just before he reached the curb we sped up to catch up with the rest of the participants. When I looked back to see where the man was he had disappeared. He looked familiar to me, and he gave me a strange feeling like I knew who he was. I had no idea what he saw in our vehicle that made him look so angry. I did not expect something like that to happen during a fun time like this, and it caught me off guard."
"Michael left, and I went back to sleep only to have the phone ring at 6:10 AM and John Ramsey said rather frantically, 'I need to talk to Michael.' I told him Michael had already gone to the airport, and was getting the plane ready, and he said, 'They got JonBenet.' I asked him what he meant and he said, 'She has been kidnapped.' He sounded very upset and wanted to get in touch with Michael right away. I told him to call Michael on his cell phone."
"Later around 8:00 AM I got a call from John and Patsy’s friend Fleet White, and he questioned me about Michael and the flight. I said, 'How do I know who you really are because I do not know your voice? What if you are one of the kidnappers and want to get to his other two children?' Fleet became angry and told me who he was, and I said if you are who you say you are then give me your phone number, and I will call you back to verify it is you. He did so, but with resistance."
(contd)
(contd)
ReplyDelete"Michael came home and was terribly upset. That day will always be imbedded in my memory forever. Michael was sobbing that who could take JonBenet and why? He was beside himself. I told him to calm down because maybe she would be found and everything would be fine."
". . . (Michael): 'I cannot believe what just happened. The wind came up very strong, and I felt JonBenet’s spirit come over me, and then the wind died down as suddenly as it came up. Pam, I felt her spirit say good bye,'. . . I wasn’t as close to JonBenet as Michael had been so I knew in my heart that she needed closure with him and not me."
"I know that they could not have murdered their very own daughter when there was so much love. I never saw anything like abuse or anger from either parent. I grew up with an abusive father and John was no where near capable of hurting his daughter. Patsy loved JonBenet with her whole being."
"Michael was a constant target for the press and the radio talk show person Peter Boyle. He was always being accused of hiding the murder weapon or knowing more than he admitted. He had gone before the grand jury himself for a day and never could talk about what he was asked."
"Michael was asked by one reporter what he thought about the leak to the papers that he had been given the murder weapon by John, and that he had taken and hidden it. Michael said no comment, and walked into the house."
"As it turned out Michael’s brother, John, had been hard up for money, and he had sold a story to the Globe saying that Michael had been given the murder weapon, and taken it away for John Ramsey. John, Michael’s brother said he had done this the day JonBenet’s body had been discovered."
"Our marriage had felt the strain of years of media attention, hiding the Ramsey’s, and trying to make sense of things that we could not. We lost something in loving each other, and for a while we sought out others to ease our pain. More loss was going on every day, and I thought I had lost Michael to another woman, but we remained together. The loss was huge, but the overall decision to repair the damage outweighed the alternative."
I just thought I would share this information. I thought it was interesting and quite possible that Pam could have been trying to relay an underlying message concerning her own suspicions about her husband's involvement in the murder without actually saying it.
- Rich
Thanks so much, Rich, for going to all this trouble. I wasn't aware that book existed, and the quotes you've provided are very interesting. It does look like Archuletta was very close to JonBenet, so you're right in that we can't completely rule out the possibility he could have been molesting her. Such questions could certainly be raised by a defense attorney if John were ever put on trail, as evidence for reasonable doubt. Even if he was never a suspect in her murder, there is always the possibility he could have been responsible for the chronic vaginal injuries. To me, John is by far the most likely to have molested her, but the possibility someone else did it would certainly be grounds for a reasonable doubt argument. Interesting!
DeleteExcept there are the same problems with Archuleta as with any IDI theory - the use of the family's pad and pen, the unnecessary length and content of the RN. Surely Pam A would have noticed had her husband been absent Christmas night, or gone to the airport hours early on the morning of the 26th? And wasn't he investigated by BPD along with Fleet White and any other male peripherally involved in JBR's life?
ReplyDeleteCC
Yes, Michael was thoroughly investigated but there was nothing concrete that could be used against him. As far as Pam is concerned, I doubt she would have reported anything about Michael that could have been interpreted by police as suspicious. The impression I got from reading the book is that Michael wasn’t usually at home anyway. I find it interesting that Pam didn't bother mentioning in the book where Michael was that night when she could have easily said he was with her that particular night.
ReplyDelete- Rich
I'm afraid my first reaction is pretty cynical: Someone else cashing in on the JBR case, who actually has nothing of substance to add.
ReplyDeleteCC
That was my reaction also--and appears to be a bit of a wingnut--
DeleteAlso one would think an abused child would not have the radeient glow that was expressed by Pam A. toward Michael A. by JBR if he was the abuser--robert
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've read the book and I didn't get the impression it was for profit. Little to no publicity.
ReplyDeleteThen she was just defending her friend, Patsy - good. I'm always pleased when my worst instincts are wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks, Rich, everything about this case is interesting, and there's no such thing as too much information.
CC
I assumed Rich was simply referring to the possibility Mike could have been the one who was molesting JonBenet. I don't agree, but I do think it's something to be considered. But I have to agree with CC when it comes to the possibility of him being the kidnapper/intruder. As I've repeated many times, NO intruder theory makes sense.
DeleteYes, that's correct, Doc. I'm not implying that Michael Archuleta killed JonBenet nor am I suggesting that he didn't. I have no idea. I'm simply making the point that posters like Hercule have tried to make that if JonBenet was a victim of prior sexual abuse that it could either be unrelated to the murder or not necessarily committed by John Ramsey.
ReplyDelete- Rich
Hercule doesn't even think there was abuse and he has pissed off every woman on here with his stupid theories about diaper rash and torn hymens. lb
DeleteI assure you it's not lost on anyone who believes JDI, and believes the prior abuse was the motive, that it's impossible to prove. The available statistics indicate it was an adult male family member. That, combined with the utter improbability of an intruder, lead inevitably to John.
ReplyDeleteCC
I suppose we could put it this way: evidence of prior abuse would be significant in an argument for probable cause. But if John were brought to trial, the possibility of some other interpretation could be effective in an argument for reasonable doubt.
DeleteWell done, Doc!
DeleteCC
Why thank you, CC. Nice to get a positive response for a change, from my favorite online shark -- er, lawyer.
DeleteStick with me, Doc - I'll make a shyster of you yet.
DeleteYou get major plaudits from me for putting together a cogent JDI scenario. If we disagree on the odd detail, c'est la guerre, eh? That's what makes us think, helps us refine our positions, imo.
CC
I got bored, so for the last three days, I kept reading about this murder. I'm the type that searches many angles. & since this is an old case, and I have no one to talk to about it, I thought I'd leave my opinion here -- just because.
ReplyDeleteI think Patsy wrote the ransom note. She has a bachelor's degree in journalism, and so do I. Also, like her, I got on with life and never ended up writing for anyone. But the ransom note is a great example of beginning with the who, what, where, when. When I see writing, I see editing, I see everything. I see great writing, poor writing, and etc. The ransom note reminds me of college writing, albeit at a poor level, but it also reminds me of something taught, which is how paragraphs are supposed to lead into the next and such.
You see, training in writing never really leaves. It's not like math, where you can learn the formula, but if you don't use it, you lose it. Writing in most colleges is designed to sway the reader without putting your thoughts or ideas or opinions in it.
Now if you had training in journalism, you would use some educated words, and you see that in the ransom note. You also see someone trying to manipulate the reader into thinking its a ransom note, when it really is not. For instance, the note ends with Victory!, and as such, the person who wrote it, already determined the outcome. S.B.T.C. means nothing except the first thing that popped into thinking and written. It is the final act to throw anyone off the trail. & that's why when she called 911, she hesitates and says SBTC.
Patsy knew how to write, and she knew how to do it in a way to make it look like someone else. That someone would murder her own daughter and know that skill is too coincidental.
I believe that Jonbenet was a child of incest and Patsy found out. Patsy, a former beauty queen, at least in her own head, could not get around the idea that her family would be conceived in something dirty. It goes against every image she tried to purvey.
I don't know if Patsy called her husband out on it. I don't know if she ever said, I know what you did. But I do think that Patsy wrote that letter, and in her journalism knowledge, will be published in that sick way forevermore. A trained writer is no joke. Something written stands for all time. She knew that, and I don't believe she wrote it that night. I think she only decided to kill her child that night. It was Christmas. I will give my child her Christmas first is sick as sick gets.
If that note was written by a journalism major, then I don't know how that person got their diploma. You don't have to be a journalism major to know bad writing when you read it. This theory of yours is pure fantasy, I'm sorry to say. John was an engineer, so if one thinks the writing was "bad," could you conclude that John wrote the note? Of course not. Firstly, not all engineers are bad writers. Secondly, not all journalism majors are good writers, and certainly not all are good at deceptive writing.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, not all journalism majors are good writers, and certainly not all are good at deceptive writing.
DeleteExactly you fool. She fooled you.
You're calling me a fool? That is very rude. We try not to be rude to each other on this blog, Lynn. I do not support the idea that Patsy wrote the note, so in my book she didn't attempt to fool anyone.
DeleteI got bored, so for the last three days, I kept reading about this murder. I'm the type that searches many angles. & since this is an old case, and I have no one to talk to about it, I thought I'd leave my opinion here -- just because.
ReplyDeleteI think Patsy wrote the ransom note. She has a bachelor's degree in journalism, and so do I. Also, like her, I got on with life and never ended up writing for anyone. But the ransom note is a great example of beginning with the who, what, where, when. When I see writing, I see editing, I see everything. I see great writing, poor writing, and etc. The ransom note reminds me of college writing, albeit at a poor level, but it also reminds me of something taught, which is how paragraphs are supposed to lead into the next and such.
You see, training in writing never really leaves. It's not like math, where you can learn the formula, but if you don't use it, you lose it. Writing in most colleges is designed to sway the reader without putting your thoughts or ideas or opinions in it.
Now if you had training in journalism, you would use some educated words, and you see that in the ransom note. You also see someone trying to manipulate the reader into thinking its a ransom note, when it really is not. For instance, the note ends with Victory!, and as such, the person who wrote it, already determined the outcome. S.B.T.C. means nothing except the first thing that popped into thinking and written. It is the final act to throw anyone off the trail. & that's why when she called 911, she hesitates and says SBTC.
Patsy knew how to write, and she knew how to do it in a way to make it look like someone else. That someone would murder her own daughter and know that skill is too coincidental.
I believe that Jonbenet was a child of incest and Patsy found out. Patsy, a former beauty queen, at least in her own head, could not get around the idea that her family would be conceived in something dirty. It goes against every image she tried to purvey.
I don't know if Patsy called her husband out on it. I don't know if she ever said, I know what you did. But I do think that Patsy wrote that letter, and in her journalism knowledge, will be published in that sick way forevermore. A trained writer is no joke. Something written stands for all time. She knew that, and I don't believe she wrote it that night. I think she only decided to kill her child that night. It was Christmas. I will give my child her Christmas first is sick as sick gets.
Lynn-- you hit on John being the one Patsy found out about incest. My idea was that Patsy came to JBs darkened room with the flashlight and caught John in the act and struck at John with the flashlight and accidently hit JB. John convenced Patsy that she killed JB and would be helt accountable, John farther used the train tract to show Patsy that JB was dead and no use the call 911 -- Now John is guilty and so is Patsy guilty. Thats what I read of the Grand Jury findings --robert
DeleteLynn and Robert: There are all sorts of scenarios that can be proposed and, if you are willing to put common sense aside, then one is just about as believable as the other.
DeleteHowever: we know there could not have been an intruder because no kidnapper would wait to write his ransom note while in the house, nor would a kidnapper fail to make off with his victim, nor would he have had any reason to change her underpants, nor any reason to prop a suitcase under a broken window, etc.; and we know also that John and Pasty could not have been in it together because if they were they would not have wanted to call the police before removing the body, nor would they have had any reason to stall the authorities for months before being interviewed, etc.
Which tells us 1. this must have been an inside job; 2. John must have done this on his own, since Patsy would not have called 911 if she'd been staging a phony kidnapping.
Sorry to be continually repeating myself like this, but I do think it's a good idea to remind everyone of the facts and logic that enable us to cut through the smoke and mirrors.
Its said that Patsy would not have called 911 if she or was in on the staging with John-- I don't see why not ,with John directing the show
DeleteIts said that John and Patsy would not have been in on it together because if they were they would not have WANTED to call police before removing the body. Thats not so iron clad--exsample , John is staging a kiddnapping gone bad. Sounds like plenty reason to stall LE for months before being interviewed to me---robert
There is nothing to be gained by staging a kidnapping gone wrong. As soon as the body was found it looked much more like a staged kidnapping gone wrong. That's how the police saw it, and the great majority of those following the case still see it that way. Obviously it didn't fool you, or you'd be arguing that an intruder must have written it after all. And if you want to insist Patsy wrote it regardless, then please explain why she would have wanted to hand the police evidence against herself in the form of a note she wrote by hand, using a pad from her own house.
DeleteYou say Patsy was heavily sedated with drugs, I ve always assumed that that was after the 911 call and body found--Can one tell from the 911 tape if Patsy is high? Patsys prints are not on the ransom note papers but 5 prints of hers are on the note pad that the pages came from and none of Johns. That goes a little ways in saying John didn't write the note or his prints would be there with Patsys on the pad. robert
DeleteThere's no reason to believe Paty was high when she called 911. She was sedated only after the body was found. John's prints were not found on the note, but we know he handled it. His prints simply did not transfer, which is not at all unusual.
DeleteBut 5 prints of Patsys was - that goes a little ways in saying Patsy wrote it
DeleteThere are plenty of reasons why this could be. John is a smart guy and probably washed his hands enough to ensure his hands weren't greasy or oily.
DeleteThat was Patsy's pad. She used it on a regular basis, so we would expect her prints to show up on it. John could have washed his hands or, more likely, used gloves. In any case, even if his prints had been on it, that would mean nothing since the pad was in the Ramsey home and anyone living there could have touched it or used it for any number of reasons.
Delete"There is nothing to be gained by staging a kidnapping gone wrong. As soon as the body was found it looked much more like a staged kidnapping gone wrong. That's how the police saw it, and the great majority of those following the case still see it that way. Obviously it didn't fool you, or you'd be arguing that an intruder must have written it after all. And if you want to insist Patsy wrote it regardless, then please explain why she would have wanted to hand the police evidence against herself in the form of a note she wrote by hand, using a pad from her own house."
DeleteWell, if they determined that dumping the body was out of the question, then they had to stage some sort of intruder scenario. A kidnapping gone wrong provides some semblance of an intruder. Whatever they staged is going to look staged. A staged sex murder would look staged too. If we agree that the handwriting doesn't look like Patsy's then the whole argument to the effect that she wouldn't hand over evidence written in her own hand goes right out the window. Either it's "obviously" her handwriting (I don't think it's at all obvious) or there is no danger because it doesn't look like her handwriting (IMO it does not look much like her handwriting) The pad from the R house was the only pad available, no matter who wrote it.
IMO the use of the pad from the house tells us this was not premeditated. At least not very far in advance.
Intruder breakins have been staged many times and there has never been any attempt to reinforce the staging with a phony ransom note -- unless of course the body of the victim had already been removed from the house. If they had been in it together, and didn't want to remove the body, then they'd have completed the window staging and also made sure some items were "missing" from the house. This is how it's been done in countless cases of that kind. Concocting a "ransom" note when there has clearly been no kidnapping simply makes no sense.
Delete"Either it's "obviously" her handwriting (I don't think it's at all obvious) or there is no danger because it doesn't look like her handwriting (IMO it does not look much like her handwriting." If you don't think it looks like her handwriting, then why do you suspect her of writing it?
In a sentence here you say -- Concocting a "ransom " note when there has clearly been no kidnipping simply makes no sense-- Am I reading that right? Or could you expand on that so I can clearly understand the jest of that sentence. robert
DeleteNot sure how that's so hard to understand. If you write a phony ransom note you do it to stage a phony kidnapping. If there has obviously been no kidnapping, then there's no point in writing such a note.
Delete"Either it's "obviously" her handwriting (I don't think it's at all obvious) or there is no danger because it doesn't look like her handwriting (IMO it does not look much like her handwriting." - If you don't think it looks like her handwriting, then why do you suspect her of writing it?
DeleteWhere did I say I suspect her of writing it? I said your argument is circular. If it doesn't look like PR's writing then there is certainly no danger in her handing over the RN to the police. I think we both agree that it's disguised writing.
It may or may not have been written by Patsy. It may or may not have been written by John. We can't tell because the writing really doesn't look like a dead ringer for either's writing.
Your argument that Patsy would never hand over a RN in her own writing simply is irrelevant if the writing doesn't look like hers.
My argument is not circular. I was responding to those who claim the similarities between the note and Patsy's writing are "obvious." Well, if the similarities are so "obvious" then why would she have wanted to hand such a note over to the police? And if they are not obvious, then why assume she wrote it in the first place?
DeleteThis wasn't directed at you personally (assuming you are not among those who see "obvious" similarities) but at the great majority of those following the case, who've convinced themselves that Patsy must have written it because the similarities are so "obvious."
In any case, and regardless of any similarities or lack of same, it's impossible for me to believe she would have wanted to take the risk of handing over her hand-printed note to stage a kidnapping that never took place.
She lied about feeding pineapple. Once a liar, always a liar.
ReplyDeleteThe suitcase. It was meant to take the dead body out of there. The mother put it there, she just couldn't or know how to do it.
ReplyDeleteHow to do it is fairly obvious. Put the body in it. But then pushing it through the window, aside from the difficulty, makes it unavailable as a stepping stool. As some have pointed out, the suitcase makes a poor step stool to begin with, and there was a chair nearby. It seems unlikely to me that the suitcase was placed there to stage egress.
DeleteYou'll need a lot more than 3 days to produce a viable theory. Try 3 years. Read this blog and anything you can find. I think you'll soon see that John and only John could have written the ransom note.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe
Sorry Lynn, everything you wrote supporting your theory that Patsy wrote the RN just reinforces my belief that John wrote it. Funny how that works.
ReplyDeletePMS
I'm sorry, Robert, but that's full of logical holes. JBR contined to breathe after the blow to the head. It was likely Cheyne-Stokes breathing, or agonal breathing, but it was breathing nonetheless; no need for poking with anything to prove life.
ReplyDeleteIf they were in on it together, why not do a better job staging a break in? In your scenario they would have had four months before their first LE interview. Surely they would have spent a few minutes during that time to align their window and pineapple stories?
It just doesn't work.
CC
If this was premeditated murder- and JB was left breathing as you say 45minutes , John wanted to end her life, why not whack her again? robert
DeleteHeres a hole to fill in CC -- John went for one last incounter sexualy ,otherwise there was no need to wipe down the private area- sounds more like he got caught to me .robert
DeleteBecause "whacking her again" does not lend itself to an act by a small foreign faction, but garroting might. Chapter One of Douglas's Mindhunter, one of John's schoolbooks says murders reflect the personality of the murderer. John chose an extreme method that would bely a loving parent.
DeleteHe accosted her with the paintbrush as part of his staging, and, being aware of touch DNA wiped her down in an abundance of caution - a lesson learned from Mindhunter and the OJ Simpson trial.
No holes here, Robert.
CC
I can live with that,as possible wiping down-- It appears John was more into crime books than previously known-robert
Delete"I'm sorry, Robert, but that's full of logical holes. JBR contined to breathe after the blow to the head. It was likely Cheyne-Stokes breathing, or agonal breathing, but it was breathing nonetheless; no need for poking with anything to prove life.
DeleteIf they were in on it together, why not do a better job staging a break in? In your scenario they would have had four months before their first LE interview. Surely they would have spent a few minutes during that time to align their window and pineapple stories?
It just doesn't work.
CC"
Maybe the reason for not staging a better break in is that any attempt at staging would have looked, well, staged. It's better just to claim an intruder came in w/o leaving any evidence of himself behind, nor any evidence of how he got in - hardly a first time occurrence.
I'm struck by how little evidence there is of a break in, yet he/she/they have insisted on an intruder from the very start.
The window story seems well aligned. Patsy even claims to have picked up the big chunks of glass herself.
The pineapple story is in sync, they both claim no knowledge of any pineapple snack.
I interpret Johns running for political office as-- hey look at me, Iam not the kind of guy who would a crime of this nature
DeleteI interpret John going out of his way to court Beth Holloway --as, Hey look at me I am not that kind of guy-- I am front and center with issues like that.
I look at John going to India as a missionary after Patsys death as- Hey look at me, I am one who the public would least expect of being guilty of being a child molester-
And in the capasity of being a Missionary in India wonder what axcess he would have had to sleeping little girls- robert
Why is the pineapple evidence so significant in this case? I get that it contradicts the Ramsey's timeline of when they put JBR to sleep, and she wouldn't accept a snack from an intruder, but couldn't JBR retrieve the snack herself sometime that night before the murder? I never see this explanation anywhere. I guess you could say she wouldn't roam the house at night by herself, but I wouldn't think that's concrete logic. I do agree with DocG that it's more likely that John's lying about the pineapple, since Patsy has nothing to gain from denying knowledge about it. I think people overthink this case wayyyy too much. The oversized panties and pineapple aren't enigmatic pieces of a puzzle. John was improvising a lot that night, and who knows how much time he had to accomplish what he did post murder, so he winged a lot of things in his staging job. It luckily worked out in his favor.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I rely mainly on the known, and universally agree to, facts, and clear logical inference from those facts, to formulate my theory of this case. The pineapple evidence and the oversized panties are facts, but there is no one clear logical inference to be drawn from those facts. While as I see it, John is the most likely one to have fed her pineapple that night, and John most likely changed her panties, that's based on what seems most likely to me, rather than the sort of clear logical inference I've applied elsewhere. Other interpretations are certainly possible, yes.
DeleteMy guess is they/he wanted their version of events be as simple as possible .In the morning they might have told people at their home that JBR was zonked asleep the night before not realizing the significance of the pineapple at the time and they couldn't switch that version .Sorry for my bad English.
DeleteOE
"Why is the pineapple evidence so significant in this case?"
DeleteIt's significant because of the type of matching story that John and Patsy have. The both disavow any knowledge of the pineapple.
If they were both in on it then we'd expect they'd simply explain that JB had a pineapple snack before going to bed. (Or she got up later and was hungry, etc.)
So, they've either agreed to a story (neither knows nothing) that doesn't explain the pineapple, or one adult knows about the snack while the other does not. The adult 'in the know' cannot reveal his/her knowledge so must stick to the "don't know nothin" story, while the ignorant parent genuinely doesn't know anything about the pineapple.
I suppose they could have agreed on the "don't know nothing 'bout no pineapple" story for it's simplicity. It stops all further questions about the pineapple. But I'd guess that if they both knew about the pineapple they'd want to explain it away with a story about her having a pineapple snack.
It's possible that neither really does know anything because the snack could have been prepared by Burke and shared with JB w/o the knowledge of either parent.
IMO the idea they were both in on the coverup and both knew about the pineapple shapes up as the least likely scenario, given the story rooted in mutual ignorance.
After all the JBR reading I've done, I just recently found your blog. It makes my heart beat fast; it just...makes so much sense to me. I'm going to re-read The Death of Innocence. I think it will be a really interesting read now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wanted to point something out that I always thought was odd. In the police interview of PR, she says "I didn't do it, John Ramsey didn't do it..." Who calls their spouse by both names? I'm not saying it's suspicious, but that part always sticks out.
I'm from the south and I know quite a few people who refer to someone using first and last name, especially if trying to be emphatic. My mother often used both names. My neighbor just yesterday referred to her husband this way, making the point that he never does laundry. These people don't sound suspicious to me :)
DeleteI'm from the south also (strangely the same area in GA the R's moved from), and I definitely thought about that particular use. Usually when I hear spouses refer to each other with a full name, it's usually in jest to a familiar person (like your laundry example).
DeleteIt just felt odd to me when she said it in anger, something although I can't put my finger on why or what it would even mean. It always sticks out when I watch it, though.
We're neighbors - I live in an Atlanta suburb. In my view, Patsy was being emphatic that John Ramsey didn't do it! Anyway, I quit spending time analyzing what she said. In my view, the handwriting analysis that DocG did sealed it for me. His theory makes the most sense and his handwriting comparison blew me away. I've found that most people don't want to accept that a father from a well-to-do family could molest his child. There is plenty of evidence that incest occurs in every class of people. I think John's personality and behaviors are more odd than Patsy's and the things he has said throughout the investigation, plus that fact that he is not even looking for the "real killer" are suspicious.
DeleteHave you ever interacted with John? What's he like? It pains me to think that he got away with murder.
DeleteNo, I have never met him, though I saw Patsy and John at a restaurant once -- heard a familiar sounding female voice then turned and saw that it was them. She seemed very friendly and happy, he looked more like a quiet or non-engaging type to me. They were with other people.
DeleteP.S. my remark about being neighbors was in reply to the poster who said she was from the same area as Patsy and John, which means the metro Atlanta area.
DeleteI definitely think John killed his daughter, but I have a question regarding the weak DNA that exonerated the family. It was so microscopic that it didn't contain a full marker profile. The DNA was found on three areas of JBR's body. Doc has said she could have touched the area of the underwear and then touched her body, which I buy. But if the sample is so weak how could it transfer at all? My question seems stupid when I read it myself, but I'm just curious if the sample would be strong enough to transfer to other areas.
ReplyDeleteI always imagined that the perps sweaty hands or damp hands (from washing her body) could act as the perfect medium to capture those random skins cells which could have easily been transferred from the underwear, to the perps hands, and then to the long johns as JB was being redressed. I don't know how it could have been JB transferring the DNA as she was dead or close to it when the new underwear was put on her. Suzs
ReplyDeleteOr actually, even wet gloves could have picked up that touch DNA easily. Suzs
ReplyDeleteCBS Orders True-Crime Anthology Investigating JonBenet Ramsey Murder
ReplyDeletehttp://variety.com/2016/tv/news/cbs-orders-true-crime-anthology-investigating-jonbenet-ramsey-1201748609/
Oh god, another pathetic cash grab of a famous case. It's going to go through with the intruder nonsense. Frustrating, really.
DeleteI often wonder why JR wouldn't make up a lie about Patsy confessing on her death bed. That would clear his name for good, in many minds, and perhaps close this case for many also. Some might say he loved her too much to throw her under the bus like that, but did he really?? After all, he molested their daughter and then killed her, leaving his wife with a huge hole in her heart. Who could do that to someone they really loved?
ReplyDeletebb
To make it credible he'd need a witness.
DeleteI think there would be a huge backlash from Patsy's sisters and father if he accused Patsy. He also would have to answer the question "Why would you do this to Burke?" For all we know, Patsy's sisters have had their own suspicions about John but have kept quiet so as not to ruin Burke's life. Regardless, they would not let John get away with accusing Patsy without wanting to have a lot of questions answered. Doc has those questions ready to fire at him!
DeleteSomething I haven't seen discussed on this blog: Wouldn't Burke know that John's window story was bogus? He did have his trainset in that room after all and would have certainly noticed a broken window. You could make a very compelling argument that if John could manipulate Patsy he could manipulate his 9 year old son, but I do find it an interesting topic for discussion.
ReplyDeleteYes, Burke would certainly have known. Whether he was ever questioned on this matter we have no way of knowing. And he's been strangely silent on this case from the start, not making even the slightest effort to defend either his father or his mother publicly. He testified before the grand jury but what he or anyone else told them has been sealed.
DeleteYes, Burke definitely knows whether or not the window story is true. Patsy would have known as well. John would have had to gaslight both Patsy and Burke. I'll leave it to others to decide how "compelling" that scenario is.
DeleteSo what's your point? Are you saying there was an intruder after all and "the Ramseys" are all innocent? Are you saying John's window story must be true, despite his inability to recall any details, the contradictions in his testimony, the extreme unlikelihood that both he and Patsy could not recall whether the window had been repaired, and Linda's insistence that both are lying?
DeleteOr are you saying that John and Patsy were in it together and managed to intimidate Burke into going along with their story? As I see it, if Burke could be intimidated by both John and Patsy into keeping his mouth shut then I see no reason why he could not have been intimidated by John alone. It would indeed have taken a considerable amount of courage for a ten year old boy to blow the whistle on his father by exposing his lies to the authorities.
We also have to remember that Burke wasn't even in the house when John told Fleet about breaking the window earlier. When John and Patsy were finally questioned about it, months later, their testimony was sealed. The Ramseys insisted that they never discussed the case with Burke, which is probably true. So how would he even have learned about John's story in the first place?
Burke would know about the window due to his knowledge of the house and his at least occasional use of the train room, not from John telling him the window story. Burke not being in the house is irrelevant. BR may or may not have been in the train room the day of the murder, or the day before. Almost w/o doubt he had been in there sometime between coming home from Michigan (presumably before the start of school -so late August/early Sept. at the latest) and Christmas. If the investigators know John and Paty's window stories before they talked to Burke, then they know how to ask Burke questions to see if those stories are true. If Burke backs their stories 100% then obviously John and/or Patsy convinced him to lie, or the break-in story is true.
DeleteIf Burke didn't back their story 100% then we have to ask why. Unfortunately we don't know what he said. If he told investigators that it had not been broken when Patsy and the kids got back from MI in the fall, it might have been one of the reasons the GJ wanted both parents indicted. They were obviously lying and Patsy being gaslighted would only come up as a defense at her trial.
If Patsy was gaslighted (or otherwise coerced) then we would need to ask why Burke couldn't be pressured to go along with the story. It may be as simple as the fact that he was 9 and the investigators simply elicited the truth from him. It wouldn't have taken much courage for Burke to admit the window wasn't broken when they got back from Charlevoix, especially if JR and PR had not spoken to him about the case. If the "R's" didn't talk to BR about the case there is no place that "courage" comes into it. He wouldn't know he was giving away his father's story by telling the truth. But if John didn't talk to Burke John would be taking one heck of a risk. If the break-in story is a lie what are the chances that John wouldn't try to convince Burke that his (John's) story was what happened? There's no sense gaslighting Patsy then leaving Burke to contradict the whole story.
The point is that if the break-in story is false, then John needs both Patsy and Burke to back his story. We know Patsy does. We don't know what Burke told investigators.
As others have pointed out, if John made up that story the day of the 911 call, then he was telling a lie for which he'd need both PR and BR to back with no certainty at that point that they would not flatly contradict him. And of course if they know he's lying, then they know he's the murderer.
So, I'll ask you, which way did it go? Did John (and Patsy) not talk to Burke about the case? You seem to think this is probably true. Or did John (at least John, if not both he and Patsy) try to convince Burke to back the window story?
And I will repeat. What is your point? If you agree that John's story is a lie, then either he convinced both Patsy and Burke to lie for him OR Burke never learned about that story and was never asked. Either one works for me. It certainly does not tell us that Patsy and John must have been in it together. If Burke could be persuaded to lie on this matter, there's no reason to assume both John AND Patsy manipulated him into lying. John could certainly have done this on his own.
DeleteIf you believe John's story is true, then that's a different matter. In that case I urge you to read once again my analysis of the transcripts, the condition of the window, and the testimony of the housekeeper.
And I will repeat, the point is that if John's story about breaking in during the summer is a lie, then he needs both Patsy and Burke to back that story. It doesn't make sense that he "gaslighted" Patsy then left Burke to possibly blow up the whole story by telling the truth. So did he gaslight Burke too? Did he use one form of manipulation on Patsy and a different form on Burke? He obviously manipulated both, or neither. The idea that he manipulated PR but never discussed the case with BR simply does not make much sense.
DeleteA second point is that JR would have committed himself to the story on the day of the 911 call. But at that time he couldn't know that he'd be able to manipulate both PR and BR successfully. Hell of a risky story to tell.
So, I'm not settled on what happened, I'm just pointing out that if John lied about the window then he'd have to manipulate both Patsy and Burke. One without the other is worse than useless. It shows that he's lying.
Unfortunately we don't know what Burke said to the police. We don't know if he backed their story and the GJ wanted them both indicted on the strength of other evidence, or if he blew up their story.
I should stress the second point. By sweeping the glass John has committed himself to some version of a story about the window having been broken before the night of the murder. This is quite risky as there were many people in the basement the few days prior, not to mention weeks and months prior, who could contradict his story. Additionally, John would have to rely on successfully manipulating both his wife and 9 year old son to back a story that they might very well know is false. Further, even if PR and BR are successfully manipulated into backing the lie, there is nothing to say that others in the house LHP, Mervin, the remodeling crew, guests, couldn't contradict what both PR and BR said. That's why I suggested that readers make their own decision as the the plausibility of such a scenario.
DeleteI get your point, and it's perfectly valid. What I've been trying to do is take in the big picture and try to make sense of it in the light of all the facts.
Delete"So did he gaslight Burke too? Did he use one form of manipulation on Patsy and a different form on Burke? He obviously manipulated both, or neither."
If neither, then he was telling the truth, which I find impossible to believe. The only witness who came forward on this was Linda, who had no motive to lie and also, by the way, was never actually accused by the Ramseys or their lawyers of lying on that particular point. Or by anyone else for that matter.
We have no way of knowing what Burke knew or was told to say. My best guess is that he never learned about John's breakin story and may never have been asked about it. As far as the grand jury is concerned, he may well have been prompted by the lawyers to respond to most questions with the classic "I can't recall," so beloved of defense attorneys everywhere. He would certainly have not been eager to contradict anything his father had said, even assuming he had not been manipulated or gaslighted.
"A second point is that JR would have committed himself to the story on the day of the 911 call. But at that time he couldn't know that he'd be able to manipulate both PR and BR successfully. Hell of a risky story to tell."
Far more risky to not tell such a story. Because without that "explanation," the window staging would have been obvious, and both John and Patsy would have been arrested on the spot. They would then have been questioned separately and John's guilt would have become obvious very soon.
As with so many aspects of this case, John took a chance, manipulated everyone as best he could, and managed to get away with it. I think the police wanted to believe his story because it confirmed their own observations that no one had passed through the window on the night of the crime. As is evident from the transcript they failed to press him on crucial aspects of his story, which tells me they were willing to accept uncritically. And hence -- they may never have bothered to question Burke on this matter at all.
I'll add that Burke always appeared to be more or less OK with what happened to his sister. He certainly never broke down in tears or anything like that. So it's not as though he'd have been particularly eager to poke holes in anything John said, even if he suspected him. He knew very well that his future depended on his father's well being, and if his father was the one who did it, that might have been fine with him. He's been mysteriously silent about the case from day one till now. Some see that as a sign of guilt, but to me it could mean that he suspects his father but is unwilling to do anything that could expose him.
DeleteI find it difficult to believe the cops didn't ask Burke a single question about the window. They needn't have laid out JR's story for him. They just needed to start with a simple question; Are you aware of the broken window in the basement? If BR says no it doesn't prove anything with certainty, but it certainly clues the cops in that the story might be made up. If he says no they ask him about the times/days he was in the room, what he did, etc. We can't know what the answers would be exactly, but they'd either support the story (Oh, yeah, I remember snow blowing through the window etc.) or it would tend to be contrary to a broken window (No, I don't recall anything unusual about the window) As botched up as the investigation was do we really believe that the cops never asked another sole (besides JR/PR/LHP) about the window? There must have been dozens of people who could confirm the break, if in fact it had been broken.
DeleteI've never believed that JR ran out of time to finish the staging. All he had left was to disturb the dirt on the sill, knock down a spider web, and that's it. The grate was hinged so it could have been lowered after the "intruder" made his exit. He didn't even have to do anything with the grate. He may have felt scooping the packing nuts out of the sill disturbed the dirt sufficiently. In the wee hours of the morning with the temperature low the dirt may have been hard anyway. It's also difficult, at least for me, to believe JR managed to dispose of the glass with the police in the house. What John needed badly was evidence of an intruder. With another minute or two's work he'd have had it. The idea that he put it off until the next day just doesn't ring true to me.
If John had been able to manipulate Patsy into lying he could certainly have done the same with Burke. We're talking about a 9, 10 year old kid. We don't know what Burke was asked during the Grand Jury hearings. Maybe they did ask him about the window. And maybe he said he didn't know anything about it, but couldn't be sure. Which could have been true, I suppose. Bottom line: we have no idea what he said at that hearing.
DeleteWhat we do know is that the only eye witness aside from members of the Ramsey family testified that she knew of no broken window and no broken glass, flatly contradicting both John and Patsy's version of what happened. I see no reason for her to have lied about that. Unless you think she did it, which is a whole other matter. Do you?
Yes, if we can swallow one gaslighting victim, we can certainly swallow that there were two. Then we also have to believe JR committed himself to the successful gaslighting of both, at a time when he had no idea what either of them knew about the condition of the window in the hours or days before the murder.
DeleteNo, I don't think LHP did it. It seems to me that LHP isn't denying that there ever was a broken window, just that she didn't know anything about it. Not knowing about it could be because she'd never been in that room the past few months, or it could be that the window hadn't been broken until the night of the murder. Either explanation is consistent with her testimony. IOWs her testimony doesn't so much contradict as it fails to support. Not knowing about it really isn't at odds with JR's story, not in the way an actual denial that the window had been broken for a few months would be.
I find it impossible to believe that the housekeeper who was in the house practically on a daily basis would not, over a period of several months, have noticed a broken window. So when Linda testified that she knew nothing about any broken window I think it safe to conclude that there was no such thing. Also don't forget Patsy's claim that Linda helped her clean up the glass, which, as is clear from Linda's comments on this issue, never happened. Not only did Linda not recall anything of the sort, she accused the Ramseys of lying about the broken window to cover the fact that themselves broke it on the night of the murder to stage a phony intruder scenario.
DeleteNot that I disagree with you DocG just a question. If I understand JBR was dressed in pajama's ~ does that not limit the touch DNA on her clothes to an outsider? Meaning if she was wearing a dress or pants and shirt many could come in contact ~ but pajamas limit her to her home and limited visitors that would be in the home that would have access to touching JBR in areas that the touch DNA was located. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Lisa
ReplyDeleteGood question. What most people don't understand is that the technology they used to identify this "touch DNA" is very advanced and also extremely sensitive, much moreso than what had been available previously. One must therefore ask why such a sensitive method would have been necessary if this was the DNA of her attacker? Why wouldn't such DNA have been found initially? An attacker not wearing gloves would have left fresh DNA all over the crime scene. And someone wearing gloves would have left none.
DeleteIt looks to me as though the DNA in question had been transferred to JonBenet's hands at some point -- perhaps when she had petted a dog, or turned the knob on a water fountain, or touched something that had just been touched by some other person. It could then have been transferred to her long johns when she herself pulled them up. And transferred to her panties when she put them on. In Kolar's book he reveals that no fewer than 6 DNA profiles from unknown sources had been extracted from the crime scene. Had she been attacked by 6 different people? Or was the methodology used to identify those profiles too sensitive to be of much use?
Now if a match to any of this DNA is ever found, it would certainly be important to check that person out. But until a match is found, the DNA evidence per se is all but meaningless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with DocG's theory 98% (I disagree with him that John was doing unstaging during his hour disappearance, he probably staged the window to the point of believability the night before and was merely just disposing of contents of the crime) but there's something new I disagree with. Patsy calling the cops saved him. If his plan went the way he wanted he would have to worry about additional possible forensic evidence implicating him.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all he'd have to hide her body in the trunk. Yeah I'd be in a blanket but there's still a risk something would be left behind. (It would make more sense for him to put her in the backseat and stuff the backseat with plenty of junk to obscure jbr. Risky for sure but he could always explain that any evidence in the backseat was due to driving her around normally. They might overlook it entirely) If he dumped the body in a remote spot he might leave a shoe print in the surrounding area. Or he could drag dirt from the dump zone to his car that would be analyzed as a match and he would be arrested on the spot when those findings came back.
So if John gave these possibilities some thought that might have been a reason to change his mind about dumping the body?
DeleteIf he'd changed his mind, he would not have produced an obviously phony ransom note.
DeleteZack, I agree. Deeper thinking may have forced him to abandon the original plan to dump the body. If we accept that possibility we can't say for sure that there ever was a plan to dump the body. It seems to me inconsistent evidence goes along with Doc's feeling that JR was a master of misdirection. Maybe the misdirection doesn't start with the 911 call? As for the RN being "obviously phony" since it doesn't look like the handwriting of either JR or PR (looking at the whole document) it isn't "obviously phoney". At least not based on handwriting. PR wouldn't hand over a RN in her own writing, but then of course, it's not in her own writing. But perhaps "obviously phoney" refers to something besides handwriting? The fact that there is a ransom note and a body makes the note seem phoney, but then maybe it's part of the misdirection?
DeleteI'm glad to see you are still exploring this case. I, like so many others want to see justice for this horrible, senseless murder of JBR. So of course I am still trying to make sense of it all and you, DocG have just about convinced me that JDI...I have a couple of things cause me serious concern about both the JDI and the IDI theories.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let's clear the air about the other theories; RDI, PDI and BDI. The first two can be ruled out completely, because Patsy Ramsey had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of her child; she thought the world of her child and would have not harmed her in any way and would have tried to save her if she had any knowledge of any harm. All that may just be speculation, but we know as a fact she was asleep the night of the murder. She admitted to taking sleeping medicine so she can be ruled out. Also, she had no motive whatsoever and would not kill her child for something as simple as an accident, she would do just the opposite, she would get her medical attention.
Secondly, Burke was only nine years old and had no motive. This was not the crime of a 9yr old child. JBR was in bed asleep, so he would not have went into her room to molest and then kill her. If he had, he would have just left her there and went back to bed.
This point also into leads me some serious concerns I have regarding the IDI theory. If JR was awake and up, no intruder would risk going into JBR room to kidnap and murder her inside the house. I have tried to develop a credible intruder theory, but it all becomes speculation. For example, that a burglar did it can be excluded if you think about the purpose of B&E theft and JR staying up late. B&E theft is easier than say, murder, kidnapping and ransom. Get in and get out fast with as many valuables as you can without getting caught. If it was a burglar, then someone would have noticed that the house had been ransacked and called the police immediately. Therefore the rest could not have happened.
The kidnapping/ransom theory is the least credible theory of all the iDI theories:she was murdered in the house. Who would leave the dead body in the home and state in the ransom note that they would not return the body for a proper burial. Also, if it had initially started out as a kidnapping for ransom almost all ransom-kidnappings are ever successful and never turn out good. Even the best laid plans go awry when ransom is involved. Kidnapping only is much more successful, let me remind you of the Madelyn McVay case. If it were a pedophile, kidnapping is a better plan as the motive is keeping the child for sexual molestation.
Finally, this leads me to my last IDI theory, which is possible but even more speculative and possible and highly unlikely. Consider this, a jilted lover of JR killing his daughter to destroy his life. I don't know if this option was investigated, but hear me out. JR was already known to be a cheater and if he would not leave his wife, it could be a huge motive to ruin his nice little life. It has been a motive time and time again. Although the spouse is usually the one murdered, that was not the purpose of this murder. The person wanted to destroy Patsy and frame John to destroy his career. Again, this theory is highly speculative but can explain a lot about the crime scene. Getting in the house with a key and not leave any physical evidence, because it must not look like anyone else had done this. However, it's extremely hard not to leave even a small amount of evidence. Many people had access to a house key. The note looks a lot like JR and PR handwriting for a reason, maybe to frame one or both. It was a carefully planned B&E to kill JBR, only to make it look like no intruder was there so the Ramsey's were to blame. The thing that has has me concerned the most about this scenario is that it is completely and utterly unbelievable that the house alarm had not been activated. Even with a key, the alarm has to be deactivated to leave the home. This would completely rule out any intruder. I read that the Ramsey's claimed that they had not activated the security system.
ReplyDeleteJohn is the only person in the home that night who had motive and enough intelligence and insight to create an elaborate cover-up scheme; sexual abuse is a strong motive. Enough about that, it has been covered quite well in this blog.
The only thing that doesn't make sense in any other scenario other than JDI is that John stayed up late. I read somewhere that JBR time of death was between 4 and 5am. JDI theory is somewhat speculative, however, it is the least speculative and can be explained by all the evidence. Where was he when all this activity was taking place? Was he asleep? What time did he go to bed? Did he goto bed? John was the last one awake, had the opportunity to molest her, had time to write the ransom letter, cover his tracks, motive to kill her because of the prior sexual abuse and it didn't matter if the home security alarm was activated or not. Why in the world would anyone pay for a security system and not use it?????
However, the one thing I would like to point out that hasn't been said is the fact that John was still awake after Patsy and Burke went to bed. John would go to bed before both children are safely tucked into their beds. If you make this point, then the JDI theory comes into a much more clearer perspective and at the same time rules out all other theories.
Lastly, the most incriminating evidence of his guilt are his actions after all that has happened. He should be looking high and low for the killer, but he knows where the killer is and doesn't need to look any further.
Anyway, these are my thoughts about the case. I am just thinking out loud hoping to figure it all out.
Thanks, MG. Your thoughts are interesting but a little confusing. It's true that, according to his own version of what happened, John was the last one to go to bed. So it's reasonable to wonder whether he ever went to bed at all. But we have no way of knowing what happened that night. He might have gone to bed and then got up later without Patsy noticing. We don't know.
DeleteWhat we do know is that there is no intruder scenario that makes sense, which means that someone in the family murdered JonBenet. And we know that Patsy would not have called 911 if she'd been staging a kidnapping. As you say, it's not difficult to rule out Burke. Leaving only: John.
And if someone had wanted to frame John for his daughter's murder, they would have at least attempted to forge his hand. But there is no evidence of that, and in fact the handwriting "experts" ruled him out.
DOCG****SEE BELOW
ReplyDeleteDated 5/24/16***** with the exception of Burke, who was nine at the time and had never shown the least sexual interest in either his sister or any girl.
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS YOUR REPLY your words
I admit I am not the sharpest rock in the box, however***
When you wrote **never ** in the above statement it MEANS TO ME** that you are 100% sure it never happened.
WHEN I USE THE WORD NEVER ~ I MEAN NEVER AS IN EVER AS IN 100% NEVER HAPPENED ETC
That is how I take your statement, that it never happened, wasn't done didn't do it.
My whole point was how do you really know that?
This is your domain I respect that ~ but you wrote it own it, don't cover it up.
You do it all the time ~ and we respect you as the host of this domain, but at one point JUST own it not manipulate it.
Yes manipulate my stating**never** but noting you didn't say 100%
Please feel free to say that the word never does not mean 100%, in your view.
I will play nice in the sand box with you as long as you play fair and you are not.
DOCG
ReplyDeleteyour words on 5/24/16****with the exception of Burke, who was nine at the time and had never shown the least sexual interest in either his sister or any girl.
Then your words on 5/26/16
But we have no way of knowing what happened that night. He might have gone to bed and then got up later without Patsy noticing. We don't know.
Question ~ When you disagree with one person about a thought on one thing *** your reply is ***it could never have happened
When you disagree with another person to persuade your thought process your reply is ***we don't know what happened.
??
First of all, if you want to initiate a debate, you need to identify yourself with some sort of moniker, so I can know with whom I'm debating.
DeleteSecondly, it should be obvious from the context that "never" could not possibly mean 100% positive and beyond any doubt, because the only person in the world in a position to know that would be Burke himself. It's true that my use of this word was a bit careless, but I assumed everyone reading here would understand what was intended. For the most part I express myself colloquially on this blog, as do most bloggers. If this were an academic paper I would probably have phrased it more precisely: "and, to my knowledge, had never shown . . ."
As I recall, in all the literature I've read on this case I've found no sign that Burke had a sexual interest in females, a lack of interest which would be typical for a 9 year old boy. And yes, as James Kolar implies, I could be wrong. Yet Kolar himself was, to my recollection, unable to pinpoint any instances of a sexual interest in little girls on Burke's part. The best he could do was demonstrate that such interest was possible.
Hi DOCG ~ I am not debating with you but merely pointing out your discrepancies.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear ~ I am not writing that I feel Burke did anything I am responding to your public blog, on what you wrote: he never had any sexual thoughts of his sister etc.(paraphrasing forgive me)
Here is your latest response: 5/27/16
Secondly, it should be obvious from the context that "never" could not possibly mean 100% positive and beyond any doubt, because the only person in the world in a position to know that would be Burke himself. It's true that my use of this word was a bit careless, but I assumed everyone reading here would understand what was intended. For the most part I express myself colloquially on this blog, as do most bloggers.
My point exactly how could you say never?
You are the author of this public blog ~ you are setting the pace and outlining what you feel transpired and doing a great job establishing collaborative public forum.
Here comes the ~ But ~ if someone disagrees with you then you react~ your intention was to get your point across aggressively.
Yes I am being stubborn holding you accountable ~ for the mere word *never. I took it as not being careless, you are now back peddling saying only Burke himself would know ~ then why say never in the first place? If I had time I could point out many many of your **careless moments* your words not mine :)
We are at a crossroads with the word never ~
Granny
The following comment seems to have disappeared, so I'm reproducing it here:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Timely Rerun":
Hi DOCG ~ I am not debating with you but merely pointing out your discrepancies.
To be clear ~ I am not writing that I feel Burke did anything I am responding to your public blog, on what you wrote: he never had any sexual thoughts of his sister etc.(paraphrasing forgive me)
Here is your latest response: 5/27/16
Secondly, it should be obvious from the context that "never" could not possibly mean 100% positive and beyond any doubt, because the only person in the world in a position to know that would be Burke himself. It's true that my use of this word was a bit careless, but I assumed everyone reading here would understand what was intended. For the most part I express myself colloquially on this blog, as do most bloggers.
My point exactly how could you say never?
You are the author of this public blog ~ you are setting the pace and outlining what you feel transpired and doing a great job establishing collaborative public forum.
Here comes the ~ But ~ if someone disagrees with you then you react~ your intention was to get your point across aggressively.
Yes I am being stubborn holding you accountable ~ for the mere word *never. I took it as not being careless, you are now back peddling saying only Burke himself would know ~ then why say never in the first place? If I had time I could point out many many of your **careless moments* your words not mine :)
We are at a crossroads with the word never ~
Granny
OK, Granny, you've made your point. As I see it, this is what is called nit-picking -- because my meaning should have been obvious from the context. There's an ongoing debate in the literary world as to whether or not it's necessary to qualify each and every assertion with a phrase such as: "as it would seem," or "it appears as though," etc. The general consensus is that habitual use of such phrases is tiresome and ultimately pointless, as the literal meaning is almost always evident from the context.
DeleteIf I say the weather in Canada has been "freezing" lately, my meaning is clear, despite the very real possibility that the temperature in every town in Canada might not literally be below 32% Fahrenheit. Similarly when I say Burke "never" showed an interest in girls, it should be clear that I'm referring to what's been reported, since no one but Burke would know that for sure.
I'm sorry if you feel that I'm somehow being dishonest, but for me this is simply a matter of good prose style. It does get tiresome when someone continually qualifies every other statement, especially when the meaning is clear regardless.
Hi DOCG ~ I'll add that Burke always appeared to be more or less OK with what happened to his sister. He certainly **never broke down in tears or anything like that**. So it's not as though he'd have been particularly eager to poke holes in anything John said, even if he suspected him. He knew very well that his future depended on his father's well being, and if his father was the one who did it, that might have been fine with him. He's been mysteriously silent about the case from day one till now. Some see that as a sign of guilt, but to me it could mean that he suspects his father but is unwilling to do anything that could expose him.
DeleteSound familiar?
Above is a another of your carelessness (your words) using of that word **never** again.
I understand the word never means didn't happen ~ never ever, nada, zilch, nope ~
at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever.
In the above reference how would you know for sure if Burke didn't break down in tears? Or I am I mistaken and you are referring to one particular moment in time where in front of witness' that he didn't break down, if so which instance or you referring to? Date? Time? Year? Who was present?
Please understand my view is that you are the author of this blog any comment that you or any of us make is a theory ~ but when you use the word *never* it is no longer a theory ~ it is stating a fact ~ never means never happened at all. And you agree with that fact but using it as your answer to a question.
If 1000 people read your blog and understand that *never means you are saying what is reported and you have one person (granny/me) reading it differently doesn't make me not understand. I understand ~ just disunited.
My view is even if you are reciting from another person, book, report the word *never* should not be used without explanation that you agree or paraphrasing.
To me even reciting what is being reported such as the actions/emotions of another person should not be repeated/ used in written form as never ~ My proper prose style would be to notate that it was reported and you believe the possibility it didn't happen or that you agree with the source.
Example ~ If a 5th grade class mate of yours (from back in the day don't want you to think I think you are a 5th grader) stated you smelled bad and never saw you take a shower, and that is why you smell because you never showered ~ does that mean you never bathed or showered? Of course not. Now if I posted this on social media ~ that would be ok ~ not reporting false information ~ because my defense is ~
If I say the weather in Canada has been "freezing" lately, my meaning is clear, despite the very real possibility that the temperature in every town in Canada might not literally be below 32% Fahrenheit. Similarly when DOCG said Burke "never" showed an interest in girls, it should be clear that he is referring to what's been reported, since no one but Burke would know that for sure. ~
Please note I am not calling you stinky or smelly I was merely using an analogy and thought it would be most effective referring to you.
You are putting yourself in the exposure seat ~ when you choose to be the author of a blog, book etc. Referring to
your reply below ~
It does get tiresome when someone continually qualifies every other statement, especially when the meaning is clear regardless.
~ No your meaning is not clear to me ~ that is an insult from you ~ So everyone else accepts it and if I/granny do not ~ this is causing you to get *tiredsome* ?
I will leave you alone and not go further with this.
Wishing you the best
Warmest Regards ~
Granny ~
Yes, this is tiresome. Your complaint has been received and duly noted.
Delete