At the request of a reader who found it difficult to read the light on dark lettering, I have altered the colors to make things more legible. Please let me know what you think.
Meanwhile this is a good chance to start fresh with a new set of comments.
Any theories as to whose DNA was found on JB? BPD exonerated the Ramsey's in 2008.
ReplyDeleteThe DNA found on JBR was touch DNA and completely unrelated to the homicide of JBR.
DeleteBPD never exonerated anyone. That was solely the work of then-DA Mary Lacy, an unwavering IDI proponent since the murder in 1996.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite possible that DNA was secondary transfer. There's speculation some samples may be attributable to factory workers in whatever Third World country manufactured the underwear. At any rate, none has ever been matched.
CC
The color looks great!
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, much easier to read. The colour used to give me a headache. Leave the dark background colour schemes to the occult sites.
DeleteThe colors are nice but I'm having trouble with contrast. Any chance you could make the gray background a little lighter for us old foiks?
ReplyDeleteOK. I changed all the backgrounds to white. Hope that helps.
DeleteAnd now of course I see a grey background for the previous comment. Someone should sit on folks who designed this software until they make it easier to customize. It seems that as soon as I change one thing I need to change everything else.
DeleteThis is REALLY getting frustrating. The prompts they provide aren't very helpful and I now have no idea how to change this grey background to white. I'll keep trying, though, trust me.
DeleteOK, finally I managed to "get the grey out," as the saying goes. I really hope this is the end of it.
DeleteDoc,it looks great now, and I can read it easily now without the eye strain. Thanks so much and sorry for all the hassle!
DeleteAgreed. Much easier on the eyes. Thanks for taking the time to change it.
Deletebb
very nice, easy to read, thanks.
DeleteHey guys, let's talk about the new "development" in the Jonbenet Ramsey case.
ReplyDeletehttp://firsttoknow.com/has-jonbenet-ramsey-killer-been-identified/
Nothing but tabloid nonsense perpetuating the intruder theory. It's John Mark Karr all over again. Spin team Ramsey is still in effect!
Thanks for the link, Zack. Yes, this is nothing new. Helgoth's DNA was not a match and neither were his HiTec boots, apparently. There's a long long list of "likely" suspects and in each case, if you focus on certain things and disregard others you can convince yourself that this person MUST be the one who did it. Problem is: NO intruder theory makes any sense at all. Neither Helgoth nor anyone else would have done all the things an intruder would have needed to do. And certainly no intruder would have prompted John to concoct the obvious lie about breaking into the house the previous summer.
DeleteMy version of the Helgoth theory can be found here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-five.html
DocG,
DeleteWe both know this isn't a DNA case so why mention the fact that his DNA doesn't match? The found DNA in this case is unrelated to the jbr homicide. Why mention the Hi-tech boots? Kolar mentioned the boots were most likely from a worker in the basement preceding the weeks before the murder and one or the investigators actually had a similar boot. Just curious why you bring these facts up when they're not important pieces of information. Especially when your theory denounces both.
You brought up Helgoth - old news - and invited comment, Zack. Doc obliged with a discussion of two of the only pieces of evidence that might possibly support a Helgoth or other intruder theory: the DNA and the bootprint. Do you have a point?
ReplyDeleteCC
Thanks, CC. But permit me to clarify. I agree that the DNA evidence in itself means little, as it could be from an innocent source. Nevertheless, in the eyes of team Ramsey and their supporters, it is seen as absolutely positively belonging to "the intruder." Let's not forget that it was on the basis of this DNA that "the Ramseys" were exonerated by DA Lacy, a decision picked up on by literally all the mainstream media, which has continually been echoing the same meme to this day. From this viewpoint, anyone whose DNA does not match can't possibly be "the intruder" because if the DNA evidence is irrelevant then it would no longer be possible to argue that it exonerates anyone from the family.
DeleteAside from that bit of irony, my point was that there was no evidence whatsoever to link Helgoth to this case. If his DNA had been a match, then yes that would have been significant. If his boots had been a match, then there would at least be some basis for suspecting him. But that was not the case. Ultimately, there is nothing about Helgoth as a possible suspect that could explain why he would want to write his ransom note while in the house, why he would not have taken his kidnap victim out of the house, or why he would have wanted to hide her away in a remote basement room, or why he would have wanted to wait a full 24 hours before calling the Ramseys to instruct them on delivery of the ransom. That goes, of course, for any possible intruder.
Absolutely. Thanks for clarifying. I'll admit I had a few drinks last night and hope I didn't come off as argumentative. Big fan of the blog and the discussions about this case here.
DeleteHi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteI'm the one that requested the change from the light on dark lettering, thank you so much DocG, SO much easier to read now! :) I just recently discovered this blog, once I am caught up on reading everything there are some things I would like to discuss. Should I post here, or post in the specific relevant blog sections?
Cari
Always comment on the most recent post, Cari. Otherwise your comment most likely won't be seen by anyone but me.
DeleteThis week's InTouch magazine has a cover story that reads, "JonBenet Ramsey - America's Biggest Murder Mystery Finally Solved!". The murderer, the story says, is someone named Michael Helgoth. Never heard of him.
ReplyDeleteCarol check out my post in this thread about the same thing. To put it short it's tabloid nonsense. DocG also provided a blog entry link about this suspect.
DeleteThanks, Zack.
DeleteIf John indeed acted alone in the killing of Jonbenet, why would he have placed her in that basement room instead of the trunk of his car in order to get rid of the body during the "ransom" drop off? The whole ransom note was a ploy to convince Patsy not to call the authorities, which she did anyway, but he did not plan on that happening. How and when did he plan on getting the body out of the house? Seems the logical plan would be to place her in the trunk of his car before anyone awoke that morning.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent question. It's possible he did put her there, initially -- and then moved her into the basement after Pasty's call. It's also possible that he wanted to wait till the last minute to get her into the trunk, since the odor from her decomposing body might give him away.
DeleteWe'll never know for sure, obviously but it makes more sense to me that he kept her hidden in the basement the whole time just in case his plan backfired. Keeping her in the trunk is riskier than keeping her out of view. If Patsy acted the way John anticipated he could have moved jbr once he was alone in the house.
DeleteGood points. Still hard to imagine John not slowing things down with Patsy, going over the note with her and emphasizing NOT to call the authorities, etc. Then arranging for her and Burke to go somewhere safe like a friend's house, while he takes care of the situation. If it was crucial that Patsy not call the police, it seems John would bend over backwards to insure that it not be done. "Honey, whatever else we do, we can't have the police show up here, or they will kill Jonbenet!"
DeleteI think that would have been John's intention. But it looks as though Patsy may have reacted much more quickly than he'd anticipated. I think he was assuming he'd have a chance to take her though the note systematically, emphasizing all the threats he'd carefully placed there. But apparently she panicked and called 911 before he could carry out that part of his plan.
DeleteI agree with Zack. Makes more sense to put her in the closet. What if something went wrong and the body was discovered in the trunk of the car? It's a cinch the "kidnappers" didn't put her in the trunk of the car.
DeleteI also agree with Anonymous. John would have tried mightily to prevent that call. If he couldn't, because she acted too quickly, that strongly suggests Patsy already had suspicions about John from the very start. There is really no reason to have let Patsy find the note. He could just as easily have been the one to find it. It's just as believable/unbelievable either way. But even if he "finds" the RN first there is no guarantee she won't call the police. However there's a better chance that he could control the situation and slow things down.
I have often wondered if John at some point moved the body- and if it was in the car ,that seems like a place it may have been. I think the autopsy relates to blood pooling on one side.
ReplyDeleteHow did John manage in a premeditated murder to inflect a wound to the head without bracking the skin and blood flying all over ? Not nessisary a rule but a blow like that should have caused blood to come out the nose and ears. unless the headblow was not 1st--robert
Robert, this has been discussed a good bit on this blog. You can go back and read what Doc wrote, early on, about the blow from a rubber-ended maglite, along with medical opinions provided for circumstances in which there would be little to no blood. As to the premeditated aspect of this case: even if John planned this just days or hours in advance, it it still premeditated. Just not planned well enough to cover every contingency or outcome (such as Patsy panicking and calling the police against his wishes). I believe John is free now because he's lucky, and because of male-bias police work that allowed John to be ruled out. As a female, I find it hard to understand why John was ruled out and not Patsy. I get it that the handwriting analysis was more "conclusive" for John, but Patsy's handwriting was ruled as "unlikely" that she wrote the note, so they should have ruled her out too. Men don't want to accept that their gender can be successful by society standards and still abuse children. Yet many men blindly accept that any female would haul off and whack a child to death. I'm not a feminist by any stretch, but I do think bias is a large part of why this case went so amuck.
DeleteI don't think it has to do with male bias. It was over reliance on handwriting expertise. With JR ruled out, and no credible evidence of an intruder, PDI is all that's left.
DeleteAny background on the AG secretary ( Diane Hollis) other than AcandyRose-- That can put what she said to rest?-- robert
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_29562767/new-ramsey-mystery-casting-jonbenet-crew-casts-dead
ReplyDeleteCheck out --Sam Carter ex Boulder Policeman who shoot Big Boy elk-- This may be have somthing in common with what the film crew are interested in .robert
ReplyDeleteI've been doing a lot of reading lately - looking for parallels that support the theory of John Ramsey planning the murder. Most of us have seen the BPD crime scene video that was shot in the Ramsey basement. Some of you probably noticed the movie posters. One of them, "Death On The Nile" by Agatha Christie, is hanging on the wall. Just below it is a framed sketch of a train. This made me think of another Agatha Christie classic, "Murder On The Orient Express", since the story or in this case, film, is set on a train. I also thought about the "Train Room" in the basement with the infamous train track that Kolar is fascinated with. Both mysteries incorporate Hercule Poirot as the private detective who solves the cases.
ReplyDeleteI downloaded the MOTOE ebook to look for information that may have aided John in planning the murder. What I discovered left my jaw hanging to the floor. Here are some excerpts from MOTOE that I think are too incredible to be coincidences:
“ 'The window of M. Ratchett’s compartment was found wide open, leading one to suppose that the murderer escaped that way. But in my opinion that open window is a blind. Anyone departing that way would have left distinct traces in the snow. There were none.' "
" 'You would not observe,' said Poirot pleasantly. 'It requires the eye of one used to such things. This letter was not written by one person, M. MacQueen. Two or more persons wrote it—each writing a letter of a word at a time. Also, the letters are printed. That makes the task of identifying the handwriting much more difficult.' "
" 'You are right,' he announced. 'Nobody left the carriage this way. Possibly the open window was intended to suggest the fact, but, if so, the snow has defeated the murderer’s object.'
"He examined the frame of the window carefully. Taking a small case from his pocket he blew a little powder over it. 'No fingerprints at all,' he said. 'That means it has been wiped. Well, if there had been fingerprints it would have told us very little. They would have been those of M. Ratchett or his valet or the conductor. Criminals do not make mistakes of that kind nowadays.' "
"With a little exclamation he bent and picked up something from the floor. It was a small square of cambric, very dainty. 'Our friend the chef de train was right. There is a woman concerned in this.'
" 'And most conveniently she leaves her handkerchief behind!' said Poirot. 'Exactly as it happens in the books and on the films—and to make things even easier for us it is marked with an initial.'
" 'What a stroke of luck for us!' exclaimed the doctor. 'Is it not?' said Poirot."
“ 'If the murderer did not escape through the window, and if this communicating door was bolted on the other side, and if the door into the corridor was not only locked on the inside but chained, how then did the murderer leave the compartment?' "
Gumshoe (more to come)
(Cont.)
ReplyDelete'I mean,' explained Poirot, 'that if the murderer intended us to believe that he had escaped by way of the window he would naturally make it appear that the other two exits were impossible. Like the ‘disappearing person’ in the cabinet—it is a trick. It is our business to find out how the trick is done.' "
" 'Do you remember reading of the Armstrong baby? This is the man who murdered little Daisy Armstrong—Cassetti.'
'I recall it now. A shocking affair—though I cannot remember the details.'
'Colonel Armstrong was an Englishman—a V.C. He was half American, as his mother was a daughter of W. K. Van der Halt, the Wall Street millionaire. He married the daughter of Linda Arden, the most famous tragic American actress of her day. They lived in America and had one child—a girl—whom they idolized. When she was three years old she was kidnapped, and an impossibly high sum demanded as the price of her return. I will not weary you with all the intricacies that followed. I will come to the moment, when, after having paid over the enormous sum of two hundred thousand dollars, the child’s dead body was discovered, it having been dead at least a fortnight. Public indignation rose to fever point. . .' "
“ 'About six months later, this man Cassetti was arrested as the head of the gang who had kidnapped the child. They had used the same methods in the past. If the police seemed likely to get on their trail, they had killed their prisoner, hidden the body, and continued to extract as much money as possible before the crime was discovered.' "
“ 'Now I’m just not going to pretend I was as bright as I might have been. I got it into my head that it was the man from next door—the poor fellow who’s been killed. I told the conductor to look at the door between the compartments, and sure enough it wasn’t bolted. Well, I soon saw to that, I told him to bolt it then and there, and after he’d gone out I got up and put a suitcase against it to make sure.' "
" 'About eleven o’clock my wife retired for the night. The conductor made up my compartment and I also went to bed. I slept soundly until morning.'
'Did you notice the stopping of the train?'
'I was not aware of it till this morning.'
'And your wife?'
The Count smiled. 'My wife always takes a sleeping draught when travelling by train. She took her usual dose of trional.' "
Countess: " 'I heard nothing, Monsieur. You see, I had taken a sleeping draught.' "
" 'Assuredly,' said Poirot. 'Especially in the heat of a quarrel. But this—this is a different kind of crime. I have the little idea, my friend, that this is a crime very carefully planned and staged. It is a far-sighted, long-headed crime. It is not—how shall I express it?—a Latin crime. It is a crime that shows traces of a cool, resourceful, deliberate brain—I think an Anglo-Saxon brain.' "
" 'I doubt if she would have had the strength to inflict that particular left-handed blow,' said Dr. Constantine dubiously. 'That particular wound had been inflicted with considerable force.' "
Gumshoe (more to come)
" 'In case Ratchett had not realized it sooner, this was to make sure that he understood the reason of the threats against his life. That letter, as I have said all along, was not intended to be found.'
ReplyDelete" 'I suggest to you, gentlemen, that that young sister of Mrs. Armstrong’s, little more than a child at the time of the tragedy, was Helena Goldenberg the younger daughter of Linda Arden, and that she married Count Andrenyi when he was an attaché in Washington.' "
" 'The whole thing was a very cleverly-planned jig-saw puzzle, so arranged that every fresh piece of knowledge that came to light made the solution of the whole more difficult. As my friend M. Bouc remarked, the case seemed fantastically impossible! That was exactly the impression intended to be conveyed.' "
I will leave it here for further discussion.
Gumshoe
Interesting, Gumshoe. Along those same lines...I remember when I was considering Burke as the murderer, and knowing his fondness of watching the Discovery channel, I checked out the shows airing in 1996. I looked through all of them leading up to the murder. I was astounded to find a few that had startling similarities to this case. One that really stood out to me was the episode airing on The Southside Strangler. All of his victims were strangled with a ligature type device, and in some cases, a knife along with some rope were left behind at the scene. He also broke into his victims home by gaining entrance through a rear, bottom-level window. In once instance, he painted a red infinite sign on his victims leg. Suzs
ReplyDeleteRe- Gumshoe, Fasinating- That outshines Mrs MacSanta's Hey Jude play by a long shot
ReplyDeleteHow does a person (in this case John) read a book or watch a movie and carry out everything exactly to a tee all the aspects of the crime as laid out the book or film.? One would thing one would have to study and plan things over and over to get it right--robert
John certainly wasn't an experienced criminal. It makes sense that if he planned the murder (and I truly believe he did), then he would have naturally wanted to follow some sort of blueprint. John was a very cerebral type. He would have been painstakingly prepared, like most successful businessman. IMO he did a lot of studying. Obviously the movie quotes are inserted in the ransom note. There was also a chapter in the John Douglas book, "Mindhunter" that addressed a case very similar to JonBenet's eventual outcome.
DeleteGumshoe
What you've written is very interesting, gumshoe, but I see things very differently. If John planned the murder and staging in advance, which I do think possible, I doubt he'd have gone to such lengths to commit the "perfect" crime. He is certainly no criminal mastermind. Nor was it necessary for him to follow a blueprint. He needed to write a phony ransom note, which imo he did, and needed to stage a breakin, which he attempted, but was not able to complete in time. His plan was cleverly contrived, but I don't see any real parallels with any other case, either real or fictional. Of course we have no way of knowing what was going through his mind, so it's possible these various models could have inspired him -- but we lack the evidence to nail any of that down. Nor do we need to in order to see through his little scheme to something approaching the truth.
DeleteThat's understandable and fair. My goal is to provide as much information as possible. Hopefully, we can find answers and make sense of it all.
DeleteGumshoe
In the book, "Mind Hunter" the chapter I referred to features a case and provides the following information:
ReplyDelete"The key to many murders of and by loved ones or family members is staging. Anyone that close to the victim has to do something to draw suspicion away from himself or herself. One of the earliest examples I worked on was the murder of Linda Haney Dover in Cartersville, Georgia, the day after Christmas in 1980. Though she and her husband, Larry, were separated, they remained on reasonably cordial terms. The five-foot-two, 120-pound, twenty-seven-year-old Linda regularly came over to the house they used to share to clean for him. In fact, that’s what she was doing that Friday, December 26. Larry, meanwhile, took their young son out for a day in the park."
"Sheets and pillows are pulled off the bed, dresser drawers are half-open, clothing is strewn around, and red stains that look like blood are on the carpet. Larry instantly calls the police, who rush over and search the house, inside and out. They find Linda’s body wrapped in the comforter from the bedroom, with only her head exposed, in the outside crawl space under the house."
"Based on the crime-scene photos and the information the Cartersville police sent me, I told them the UNSUB would be one of two types. Quite possibly, he would be a young and inexperienced, inadequate loner who lived nearby and essentially stumbled into this crime of opportunity. But the crime had too many staging elements, which made me lean toward the second type: someone who knew the victim well and therefore wanted to divert attention from himself. The only reason a killer would have felt the need to hide the body on the premises was what we classify as a 'personal cause homicide.' The trauma to the face and neck seemed highly personal, too."
"The staging had its own internal logic and rationale. Whoever had brutalized Linda did not want to leave her body out in the open where another family member—particularly her son—might find it. That’s why he took the time to wrap her in the blanket and move her to the crawl space."
"He wanted to make this look like a sex crime—HENCE the raising of the bra and exposure of the genital area—though there was no evidence of rape or sexual assault."
My thoughts: Obviously the date. December 26. Creepy indeed. The murder took place in Cartersville, Georgia - a small town just northwest of Atlanta in 1980. John and Patsy lived in Atlanta during that time and got married in November 1980. Very interesting.
The staging. The house didn't have a basement so the body was hidden in the crawl space and wrapped in a comforter. Douglas seems to inadvertently offer advice by pointing out the mistakes people make when they stage a crime. Both victims had blunt force trauma to the head and staged to look like a sexual assault.
I looked into this case further and found out when Larry Dover had the opportunity to commit the murder. He and his son had just left the residence to DELIVER CHRISTMAS PRESENTS TO NEIGHBORS (sound familiar?) and suddenly made a u-turn back to the house because Larry "forgot" the gifts. He told his son to wait in the car. According to the son, it was a long time before his dad returned to the car.
According to Douglas:
"The problem posed by staged crimes for any of us in the law enforcement field is that you can easily become emotionally involved with the victims and survivors. If someone is in obvious distress, we obviously want to believe him. If he’s a halfway decent actor, if the crime appears legitimate on the surface, there’s a tendency to look no further. Like doctors, we can empathize with the victims, but we’re doing no one any favors if we lose our objectivity."
Isn't that exactly what Douglas did when the Ramseys hired him? Interesting.
Gumshoe
The Agatha Christie parallel was a little out there for me, but you know I agree with you wholeheartedly about Douglas' s Mindhunter. It's been a while, Gumshoe, and you obviously have it hand; can you quote the part in the beginning of the book that discusses how a murder reflects the murderer's personality? I think our perp took careful note, hence the garotte and the paintbrush.
ReplyDeleteCC
Yes, thanks Gumshoe. The references to the case outlined by Douglas are very thought provoking indeed. There are definitely some very interesting parallels, and you'd think Douglas would have noticed and been more skeptical of the Ramsey crime scene.
DeleteYou know, he was hired to assess John, not Patsy. It's interesting that John felt the need to be evaluated by Douglas and also arranged to have the handwriting evaluated by his own "experts" as soon as possible. It's also interesting that John had apparently read one of Douglas's books prior to the murder. He was in a position to learn about his thought process and must have felt confident he could manipulate him.
It's important to understand, also, that Douglas would have been hired by John's attorneys and thus have been subject to attorney-client privilege. If Douglas had decided John was good for it, that information could not have been made public for that reason.
As you may know, I have little respect for profiling as a tool for solving a case -- though it can be useful at the early stages of an investigation when attempting to narrow down a list of suspects. There is no subsitute for the evidence and especially the facts. When the facts point so clearly to one person then it matters not whether his behavior or his background matches some "profile" or other.
CC, I'm not sure if this excerpt is what you were referring to but Douglas wrote quite a bit about behavior and personality throughout the book. This part was toward the beginning:
Delete"In the case of every horrible crime since the beginning of civilization, there is always that searing, fundamental question: what kind of person could have done such a thing? The type of profiling and crime-scene analysis we do at the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit attempts to answer that question. Behavior reflects personality. It isn’t always easy, and it’s never pleasant, putting yourself in these guys’ shoes—or inside their minds. But that’s what my people and I have to do. We have to try to feel what it was like for each one. Everything we see at a crime scene tells us something about the unknown subject—or UNSUB, in police jargon—who committed the crime. By studying as many crimes as we could, and through talking to the experts—the perpetrators themselves—we have learned to interpret those clues in much the same way a doctor evaluates various symptoms to diagnose a particular disease or condition. And just as a doctor can begin forming a diagnosis after recognizing several aspects of a disease presentation he or she has seen before, we can make various conclusions when we see patterns start to emerge."
He goes on to say:
"Sometimes, the only way to catch them is to learn how to think like they do. Lest anyone think I will be giving away any closely guarded investigative secrets that could provide a “how-to” to would-be offenders, let me reassure you on that point right now. What I will be relating is how we developed the behavioral approach to criminal-personality profiling, crime analysis, and prosecutorial strategy, but I couldn’t make this a how-to course even if I wanted to."
Looks like Douglas was trying to cover his bases knowing full well that the information in his book could be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Gumshoe
"Behavior reflects personality". That was the phrase that struck me, as the staging was so obviously an attempt to bely the cool, executive JR persona. Thanks, Gumshoe.
DeleteCC
Yes sir. Anytime.
DeleteGumshoe
Let's pretend things went differently and Patsy listened to the kidnappers, didn't call 911, left with Burke, and John did what he intended to do. Stage the scene fully, remove jbr from the house and dump her body. What are the odds that John would have gotten away with it? I'm going with slim. Accounting for his time, especially when it comes to retrieving his money and dumping the body are far too risky. Involving any witnesses when John was in contact with the outside world has its disadvantages. It really is ironic that Patsy calling the cops is really what saved him.
ReplyDeleteI must say I've always been impressed with the plan I managed to deduce from the "ransom" note and John's incompleted staging. If that was in fact his plan, and I'm convinced that something along those lines was what he must have had in mind, he might very well have gotten away with it. Even if witnesses saw him or his car in the vicinity of where the body would eventually have been found, he would have claimed he'd been delivering the ransom.
DeleteNo question, the authorities would have suspected him, but if he'd been thorough there would have been NO evidence linking him to the crime, thus no basis for prosecution. Patsy's paintbrush handle would have been discarded, the original of the note would most likely have been destroyed (after being shown to some friends serving as witnesses to its contents), the window staging would have been completed, and some valuables from the house would have been removed and discarded, as one might expect from a kidnapper interested in money.
Of course every detail had to be attended to with utmost care, so there would definitely have been a risk. A single slip-up could have given him away for sure.
So in a sense you're right that, in hindsight, Patsy's call might in fact have saved him -- by confusing the investigators to the point that no coherent case could be made regardless of all the clues pointing to an inside job. But what really save him, as I see it, was the totally unwarranted decision to rule him out as writer of the note, which I to this day fail to understand. I think he just got lucky.
Diane Hollis-- AcandyRose read all about it, and then dicuss here-- Her name comes up on the page before this one also. robert
ReplyDeleteThe folklore on the Ramsey case is literally endless. One strange story after another -- and taken on its own each one of these stories sounds credible. But obviously they can't all be true. And on closer inspection none make much sense.
DeleteIn this case we hear of a scenario that's been very popular almost from day one: John and Patsy are fighting, JonBenet gets in the way, Patsy takes a swing at John and hits JonBenet instead. Many people like this because otherwise it's so hard to explain why one would want to cover for the other if that other killed his or her child.
The problem:
1. this was not a glancing blow, but a direct hit on the top of JonBenet's head, almost certainly a blow from above. It's been described as sufficient to fell a 300 pound football player. It's doubtful that Patsy had the strength to deliver such a blow, and it's impossible to imagine how it could have been intended for someone else.
2. If in fact Patsy had learned that John had been molesting JonBenet, as the caller claimed, then it's very hard to understand why she'd have remained with him -- and defended him so vigorously throughout the years. If John's molestation had led to JonBenet's death, she would never have forgiven him, even if she were the one responsible for the blow that killed her.
3. The head blow could easily have been reported as an accident, stemming, say, from a fall in the bathtub. If the autopsy had revealed sexual molestation, that would have pointed to John and under the circumstances Patsy would have had no reason to help him cover that up.
4. The idea that Patsy could pull herself together to write a 2 1/2 page "ransom note" immediately after such an emotionally traumatizing experience is literally unimaginable.
There is a long history of people with borderline mental issues fabricating stories about high profile cases, and even falsely confessing to murder, basically to get attention. I don't doubt Hollis's story, but imo the person who called her was more than a tad unhinged.
That's the kind of discussion I like-- There is plety of exsamples of people inserting themselfs into this crime, that caller may be one of them, I 'd like to zero in on who that was.
ReplyDeleteIts been pointed out that the RN pages was free of any tear droplets one would expect from a person who should have been in a state of emotional breakdown .
I am just so sirprised this story which I've never heard before was started less than a month after the crime, some say the caller was Pam Pugh ,Patsy's sister, some say it was John's personal secretary-- I say it may have been both. robert
Also in regards to the condition of the ransom note:
DeleteIf this murder were planned as Gumshoe and CC suggest, I would expect the ransom note paper to show signs of wear and tear, or at the very least some curling at the bottom third of each page.
Gumshoe has provided some interesting reading that I'm sure Hollywood would appreciate. Doc is wise to ignore this information, especially the part about the dates. December 26. This info subscribes to the IDI. Bill McReynolds's daughter kidnapped and subjected to watching another girl being sexually assaulted in 1974. Larry Dover murdering his estranged wife on December 26, 1980. Allowing that the date is not coincidental would be also conceding that JonBenet was murdered by an intruder intent on framing the Ramseys. Why else would one choose that specific date unless this UNSUB was trying to impress or challenge John Douglas. I'm assuming Gumshoe, you are still a JDI? Your information conflicts your theory.
Hercule
That's just goofy, Herc, top to bottom. No reason why paper would curl hours after being torn from the pad, no reason it would be subjected to wear and tear.
DeleteI'm not "Hollywood", but I appreciate what Gumshoe contributes. S/he thinks broadly, outside the box, offers those thoughts for consideration, draws no conclusions, enlivens discussion.
The dates are meaningless. Let me remind you that you're the guy who, not long ago erroneously claimed PR called Boeuf 3 times on 12/7, which also happened to be JR's birthday, inviting us to "let the speculation begin". It didn't.
Of course Gumshoe is still JDI, as are all rational, right-thinking people in possession of the facts.
CC
The RN was probably safely in a manilla folder in John's briefcase until he needed it.
ReplyDelete"Let me remind you that you're the guy who, not long ago erroneously claimed PR called Boeuf 3 times on 12/7, which also happened to be JR's birthday, inviting us to 'let the speculation begin'. It didn't."
ReplyDeleteApparently, the sarcasm was lost in translation. As for the date, 12/7, that was taken from the transcript. Whether it is accurate or not was not my point. The point I attempted to make (tongue in cheek) was that many people on this blog are looking for a reason to find John guilty without any concrete evidence. They read something that could be construed as suspicious and convince themselves that John must be the murderer despite other facts that clearly point to Patsy Ramsey's involvement.
Hercule
Actually Hercules, I don't believe that many people on this blog are looking to make the facts fit their theory. Rather, this entire blog was dedicated to looking at just the facts, then make reasonable inferences and examine both to see what conclusions can be made. Interestingly, you are one who has made the case that Patsy did it based on a theory you have about pageant mothers, Patsy's personality as you believe it to be, and other non-factual ideas. You've added some interesting discussion occasionally, but I have long gotten bored with you putting forward the psycho babble stuff that is construed as fact.
Delete"I'm assuming Gumshoe, you are still a JDI? Your information conflicts your theory."
ReplyDeleteYes, I am still a JDI. That being said, that conclusion isn't etched in stone. My goal is to find all the information I can that is related to this case. It's obvious we don't have all that information. No one does, except for the killer. From the information that I do have, John Ramsey is the logical culprit. That's based on information that's readily available to the public and the investigating I've done on my own. I will continue to seek more information until this case is officially resolved.
Gumshoe
Doc, I'm curious about your opinion on this subject:
ReplyDeleteWhen Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo interrogated John and Patsy separately on April 30, 1997, why do you think Patsy lied about not knowing the identity of Gloria Williams (John's mistress from his first marriage)? She obviously knew who this woman was. Not only did Patsy have an encounter with Gloria (while trying to shield John from her advances) but Patsy's mother and sisters knew about her also. John was very open about his affair with Gloria Williams during his interrogation. That tells me that the Ramseys had no clue that the police knew about the affair. I think Patsy wanted to protect her husband and played it safe by denying that she had any knowledge of it. John, however, was forthcoming about the affair, realizing that if he lied, the police would easily find out the truth.
I find it odd neither Lucinda, Nedra, Pam, nor Polly thought to tell John or Patsy that they revealed to police knowledge of the affair so they could be prepared for that inquiry.
Also, it tells me that Patsy wasn't a very good liar. She didn't have the foresight to realize that it was best to be honest about that subject since it was something that the police could easily disprove. This instance reminded me about her story of Linda helping her clean up window glass in the basement. Any thoughts?
Gumshoe
I thought patsy knew of her... i thought john said she was just a crazy ex girlfriend but she was actually the women he cheated on with .
ReplyDeleteAm I mistaken or did Patsy say in one of her statements something like, "we didn't mean for this happen . . . "
ReplyDeleteCan someone tell me if this is fact? If it is, why do you suppose she said that?
bb
Yes she is reported to have said that, in a private conversation. Some have tried to turn it into a confession of guilt, but to me that's absurd. I think it's pretty clear she was referring to the pageant scene, implying that JonBenet's participation may have attracted the wrong kind of attention and led to her death.
DeleteThere's something peculiar about John's window story angle. I obviously don't believe it, but how could he be so sure it would work? I'm not even talking about potentially gas lighting Burke or Patsy or misleading authorities. Wasn't he worried that someone might have been in that basement during the time it was "broken?" A family friend, basement workers, etc. Seems like a huge risk to take to me. Why didn't authorities take the maids account seriously that she never cleaned up any glass? Everything concerning the window is so weird.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is why the investigators didn't examine the glass shard found and the broken glass still attached in the window frame to determine when it had actually been broken. Surely, with the sophisticated forensic science available to them, they would have been able to conclude that the window had just been broken ---- not broken months before. Were they really that inept?
ReplyDeletebb
Good question. According to Kolar, in a recent online interview, the forensics people did examine the glass, but were unable to determine whether the break was old or not. As discussed in the revised version of my book, what this tells me is that the edges must have been clean, because any layer of dirt or dust would have been a clear indication of an old break. I think the investigators just got confused, because they could not understand why John would want to tell such a story if he'd been staging a breakin and also because his story gibed with their finding that no one had broken in via that window on the night of the crime. Why would anyone want to UNstage their previous staging? Why indeed!!!
DeleteThey failed to get it because they lacked the imagination to see the crime scene as the result of a staging that went wrong and that John's story was a desperate attempt to produce an alibi, rather than an innocent explanation for a window that should not have been broken in the first place.
Like the new color scheme, easier on the eyes.
ReplyDeleteInformative blog DG.
Sorry to bring up Helgoth again but I just have a few queries about this and in particular around one of Docs posts above.
ReplyDeleteDoc posted:
Ultimately, there is nothing about Helgoth as a possible suspect that could explain why he would want to write his ransom note while in the house, why he would not have taken his kidnap victim out of the house, or why he would have wanted to hide her away in a remote basement room, or why he would have wanted to wait a full 24 hours before calling the Ramseys to instruct them on delivery of the ransom. That goes, of course, for any possible intruder.
None of what Doc says above makes sense to me. If Helgoth and an accomplice (or another intruder all together) did have this planned out, they would have known the Ramseys would be going somewhere on Xmas. They probably even had a rough guess on when they would be home. Do we know what time the Ramseys left the house on Xmas? I think it's possible that Helgoth and his accomplice could have entered the house early in the day, knowing they had plenty of time to write a note and think about how things would pan out. Why not write the note beforehand? If they knew they had time, then it makes sense to bring as little evidence into the house as possible. Any pen or paper they bring in could end up biting them on the ass. So to use stationary in the Ramsey house makes complete sense to me. And heck, maybe they had practiced the letter at home a lot and knew roughly what to write. If they had hours on their side then they wouldn't have to rush it.
In regards to Docs second point about not taking the body out of the house. Maybe that was the initial plan. Maybe they meant to drug JBR but things went wrong and they had to resort to violence which may have changed their state of mind. Maybe they tried to leave but the front door seemed too risky. So they tried the basement and maybe it was just too risky or difficult removing the body without waking someone or a neighbour. So instead they hid the body in the basement and at that point the kidnapping plan was never going to work (hence why there was no phone call) or maybe they hoped the body wouldn't be found. Maybe they still planned to ring but then when the body was found (or police turned up at the house) they decided to call it quits.
I'm not saying Helgoth and an accomplice did it (or another intruder for that matter) but to me its just as much of a chance as saying Jon did it.
Anyway, just my opinion. I'm sure Doc will shoot me down quick smart :)
Zed
I'm sure he will, too, but let me take a crack at it. How did he/they gain access to the house? Why ask for such a paltry sum - if you're risking Federal charges for kidnapping, why not make it worthwhile? You choose to assume he/they knew the Rs would be out of the house, but how would they obtain such information? Why a blow to the head and a 45-minute delay before an elaborate garroting and mock sexual assault?
ReplyDeleteI wanted to believe an IDI for years, but the details of the RN and the above questions stopped me cold.
CC
From what I've read there was a few different ways intruders could have got in. I won't list them right now but I've read some pretty plausible entrance theories.
DeleteThe ransom amount was realistic. Maybe they thought we can't go too high otherwise we may not get anything. Still a lot of money for a person/s who most likely didn't make much.
As for knowing the Ramseys would be out, well it was Xmas. There was a good chance. Maybe they were watching the house. Maybe they had overheard them speaking. Not sure but once they left you would assume it would be for at least a few hours.
As for the way the body was found...who knows. I don't know what was going through the person/s head or their rationale. A lot of reasons why they could have done that though.
Sorry; I just don't see it, particularly the $118K. An even number would make sense, this does not. Why not just a three-line ransom note? The details are too elaborate and well thought out, and serve only John, from the RN to the staged sexual assault to cover up prior abuse.
ReplyDeleteCC
I just don't see it. Why not at least an even dollar amount? Why not just a three-line ransom note? Every line of that note served John's purposes, as did the staged sexual assault to cover up prior abuse.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing is too overblown for an intruder. There was method to this madness, and a singular purpose.
CC
I don't have answers ~ I don't know if/how an intruder could have came into the house ~ but if someone had in advance planned to kidnap JBR~ it would be possible for the intruders to do what we think is not plausible/reasonable ~ if it was an outsider we have no idea how many days weeks months this could have been planned in advance ~ very easily could have stalked watch the family ~ this could have been a well executed plan that ended of course not executed as planned. If it was meant for a kidnapping it would have been planned in advance ~ just as any robbery of a bank etc would be ~why underestimate that this couldn't be possible ~ the fact no evidence of an intruder ~ doesn't that leave thought open it could have been planned in advance? Bottom line we don't know ~does appear it was JR ~ Lisa
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain the prior sexual abuse, and the attack with the paintbrush? Are you suggesting these bumbling kidnappers of yours couldn't write a succinct ransom note, couldn't come up with a better demand than $118K, couldn't figure out how to remove the child - though you suggest it was planned in advance - and then said Oh well, what the hell, we're here, why not just molest the child . . . with a paintbrush?
ReplyDeletePeople believe as they choose, I get that, but it's a hard sell, Lisa.
CC
Thanks for the sensible responses, CC. I'll add a few more points. While there's no way to prove that Helgoth or anyone else could not possibly have had a key and also had some advance knowledge of the Ramsey's plans, there is no way a would-be kidnapper would wait until inside his victim's house to write an elaborate ransom note. And if this were a spur of the moment decision, then the note would have been very brief and to the point, as CC noted. Actually a note would not have been necessary, as an early morning phone call would have done just as well.
DeleteIf anyone can find anywhere in the history of crime an instance where a kidnapper waited until he was inside his victim's house to write his ransom note I'd love to see it. Good luck with that.
And yes, it does make some sense that a "kidnapper" might choose to hide his victim to make it look like she's been kidnapped, and collect his ransom anyhow, but time would be of the essence, because the odor of death would soon be permeating the house. No reason for the kidnapper's call to come "tomorrow," when it just as easily could have come that same day. "Tomorrow" worked for John as it gave him time to complete his staging and deal with all the evidence, including the body -- but it would not have worked for a real kidnapper who would have wanted his money as soon as possible.
There is reason for the word "reasonable" in the phrase "reasonable doubt." There is never any lack of complicated and convoluted scenarios to "explain" just about any event, which is why it's important to consider the difference between reasonable explanations and hail Mary passes tossed out by criminals caught red handed.
Regarding prior sexual abuse it was suggested not proven ~ if it was proven child services would have removed Burke from the home ~ no court records nor any data showing that an investigation regarding the Ramsey's for sexual abuse where Burke was a threat to be in the home. Burke was only questioned once by the police and social services ~ it was an opinion from the autopsy ~ never proven ~
ReplyDeleteAnd the police would have pressured social services to do something since they couldn't get them on murder!
JBR's doctor was questioned he has/had maintained no abuse ~ and if there was ~ what does that have to do w/ the kidnappers? Meaning she couldn't be kidnapped because there was prior abuse? If the kidnapping went wrong the kidnappers cant stage a rape? There were many doctor visits something was up ~ agreed ~ however ~ the doctor has maintained no abuse and it is was a medial issue.
Regarding the $118,000 to me it is just as plausible that if it was an intruder they knew about the bonus ~ John writing the note is plausible too ~ but odd choice he would put the exact amount of his bonus.
The scuttle~but of staging is as much plausible from an outsider as is someone from inside the home.
Revenge is sweet ~ this very well could have been planned by an outsider to frame the family.
Is this thought reasonable? No ~ but plausible
Lisa
ReplyDeleteRe: DOCG COMMENT:
If anyone can find anywhere in the history of crime an instance where a kidnapper waited until he was inside his victim's house to write his ransom note I'd love to see it. Good luck with that.
So your logic is that since it was done nor documented that it can't happen?
That's like Steve Jobs saying lets not make a new invention since it has been done prior.
Or researchers ~ lets not look for a cure for cancer since we have found one yet.
Anything is possible, yes. Which is why juries are encouraged to exercise "reasonable" doubt and not any doubt at all -- because a smart lawyer can always come up with some scenario to get his or her client off the hook. Sure, the kid's dog might have eaten his homework after all. But that's not going to cut much ice with his teacher -- and for good reason.
DeleteI think plausibility is contingent on reason, and any intruder theory founders on the rocks of reason and rationality.
ReplyDeleteI believe unequivocally that there was prior sexual abuse, and covering it up was the motive for murder. Trust me when I tell you that getting eleven medical experts to agree on anything is damned near impossible, and so they did when they viewed photos and slides from the autopsy.
CC
Since there has not been a documented case that a kidnapper waited in a house, we then are to assume that this could never happen or be FBI profiled because it does not seem logical.
ReplyDeleteJBR's pediatrician would/should have reported abuse. If the doctor didn't for whatever reason then when this came to fruition the Medical Board would have been involved as well and the Medical Board did not sanction the doctor.
In any discussion among professionals or simple minded folk as myself we all want to effectively persuade or influence the other to our way of thinking and of course that is a defense attorney and prosecutions goal as well to entrench their side of the logic.
Here is a fact that you will all throw me under the bus for, JBR could very well have explored herself being once a young girl and having 3 daughters this could have happened yes even at 6 years old, but of course this logic will not work for you.
$118,000 was a number an intruder would have chosen. It was realistic and they knew John had this amount due to his bonus. I'm saying they as in "Helgoth and an accomplice" (just to prove you can't rule that out).
DeleteAnd again, doc, writing the note IN THE HOUSE makes perfect sense. Otherwise they have to write it on their own stationary and bring it with them and they realise DNA transfer could be a higher probability. Finding stationary in the house was a much safer option. And the note may have only taken 5Min to write...they had probably practiced at home.
And when they wrote tomorrow, we can't be sure they meant the 26th or 27th. Even if they meant 27th that gave them time to make sure no police got involved and to plan their phone call. Still very plausible.
To me, nothing screams out as John being a better suspect as an intruder. There has been no prior sexual abuse confirmed.
Obviously this person/s was a sick, twisted individual. You say why would they use a Garrote or the paint brush if it was a planned kidnapping? Who knows, maybe they just couldn't help themselves?
"Since there has not been a documented case that a kidnapper waited in a house, we then are to assume that this could never happen or be FBI profiled because it does not seem logical."
DeleteThere is no documentation of a kidnapper who waited until he was in the house to write a ransom note, not to mention a 2 1/2 page note. Nor is there any reason for any kidnapper to want to do that. Nor does it make any sense. Does that make it impossible? No of course not. But it's awfully unlikely.
As is an intruder who left no footprints in the frost on the lawn, or any other sign of his presence other than a dead body and a note, an intruder who placed a suitcase under a window for no reason, who strewed packing peanuts from the window well on the floor for no reason, a kidnapper who failed to kidnap anyone, a kidnapper who left a ransom note behind that could be used as evidence against him while a simple phone call would have done as well, a kidnapper who planned to wait over 24 hours to call John with instructions, a kidnapper who changed his victim into a pair of fresh panties too large for her (and knew where to find them). Etc.
"And when they wrote tomorrow, we can't be sure they meant the 26th or 27th."
Yes we can. Because there was no way John could have raised the ransom money from the bank prior to 8 AM on the 26th. Nor was there time for him to be "rested." Tomorrow meant tomorrow, no question. NOT today, tomorrow. And waiting an extra day made it more likely the police would get involved as the Ramseys might have panicked during that time and called them.
Nothing about any intruder theory is plausible, sorry.
My child's pediatrician never examined her private area. I suppose with itching in that area, this could have occurred, but I also don't think the doctor would examine to the degree that he would have found the abuse. We simply cannot assume he would have for certain found the evidence of abuse.
DeleteJonBenet's pediatrician claimed he never examined the interior of her vagina either. He felt it would be improper and he saw no reason for doing so, which makes perfect sense. But the frequent visits to the pediatrician do suggest that there was a problem and that problem has never been made clear.
DeleteDoc, that is your opinion and that is fair enough. But a lot of people (including me) think the intruder theroy is much more plausible than JDI.
ReplyDeleteDoc wrote:
"There is no documentation of a kidnapper who waited until he was in the house to write a ransom note, not to mention a 2 1/2 page note. Nor is there any reason for any kidnapper to want to do that"
YES THERE IS. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THERE WAS A REASON TO DO THAT, DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T. AS I SAID, I THINK IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE FOR THE KIDNAPPERS TO WRITE IT IN THE HOUSE.
"As is an intruder who left no footprints in the frost on the lawn"
MANY EXPERTS HAVE SAID IT WAS POSSIBLE TO LEAVE AND FOOTPRINTS TO GO UNDETECTED. OR IT JUST WASN'T INVESTIGATED WELL ENOUGH.
"or any other sign of his presence other than a dead body and a note"
DNA COULD WELL HAVE BEEN LEFT..THE INTRUDER JUST HASN'T BEEN FOUND YET. REASON WHY DNA HASN'T MATCHED ANYONE YET.
"an intruder who placed a suitcase under a window for no reason"
HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS FOR NO REASON? YOU WERE NOT THERE THAT NIGHT. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO. THE SUITCASE COULD HAVE BEEN PUT THERE FOR A STEP.
"who strewed packing peanuts from the window well on the floor for no reason"
I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS SO WON'T COMMENT.
"a kidnapper who failed to kidnap anyone"
YES, SOMETHING WENT WRONG. THEY COULDN'T JUST RETURN HER TO BED SO THE BASEMENT WAS THE BEST PLACE TO HIDE HER BODY IN THE HOUSE. HAVE YOU EVER STARTED OUT TO DO SOMETHING BUT THEN FAILED? VERY COMMON.
", a kidnapper who left a ransom note behind that could be used as evidence against him while a simple phone call would have done as well"
DISAGREE. A NOTE EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN DETAIL SO WHEN THE PHONE CALL IS MADE THEY ONLY HAVE TO BE ON THE PHONE QUICKLY AND SWIFTLY.
", a kidnapper who planned to wait over 24 hours to call John with instructions"
POSSIBLY, YES. AND YOUR POINT IS? 24 HOURS ALLOWS THEM TIME TO PLAN BEFORE MAKING THE CALL AND TO ENSURE NO POLICE WERE INVOLVED
"a kidnapper who changed his victim into a pair of fresh panties too large for her (and knew where to find them)"
DID THAT 100% HAPPEN? (LEGITIMATE QUESTION ON MY BEHALF). IF SO, MAYBE THEY WANTED TO HIDE DNA EVIDENCE? DOES SEEM A LITTLE STRANGE THIS ONE I WILL GRANT YOU THAT.
"Nothing about any intruder theory is plausible, sorry."
THAT IS IN YOUR OPINION. SAYING JOHN DID IT BECAUSE HE HAD A BIT OF A WEIRD STORY ABOUT BREAKING A WINDOW (WHICH WHO KNOWS IF IT WAS TRUE OR NOT..EVEN IF IT WASN'T DOESN'T MEAN HE WAS GUILTY) IS EVEN MORE EXTREME IN MY OPINION.
And what about Helgoth suicide and the bullet went from left to right but gun found on his right hand side? And him saying he was about to make 60K (half of 118K). Not saying he had anything to do with it but much more plausible than JDI in my opinion.
At the end of the day we will never know who is correct as this will never be solved.
No. It's been solved. It's not just my opinion, it's a solid conclusion based on the facts of the case and clear inferences drawn from those facts. One can always come up with some sort of explanation for any aspect of any case. And possibly one or two of the points you've made might seem reasonable, at least to a jury. But not all, no, that's beyond unlikely, it's absurd. And if anyone is ever found whose DNA matches the "touch" DNA found on her longjohns, that person will have the perfect defense, based on the complete absurdity of any intruder scenario.
DeleteIf juries accepted the sort of far fetched reasoning you're presenting, based on such a long string of extremely unlikely possibilities, no one would ever be convicted of any crime, because it's always possible to come up with "explanations" of that sort. No would-be kidnapper would be foolish enough to plan on writing such a note after entering the house of his victim. It makes no sense to do that, which is why it's never been done either before or after this crime. No one planning to frame John or Patsy would write such a note in his own hand, that too is absurd. Patently so. And as far as Helgoth is concerned, there is no shred of evidence linking him to this crime, it's just a red herring. Nor is there any evidence linking anyone outside the Ramsey home to that crime, none. After years of intense investigation.
John's story about breaking in via the basement window himself, months earlier is obviously a fabrication. As I've demonstrated on this blog, and in my book, that story can't possibly be true. And the only alternative is the conclusion that the window had been broken on the night of the crime, by someone inside the house. That someone could only have been John Ramsey. If John would be willing to respond to the questions I've raised with reasonable explanations, I'd be happy to listen. But as things now stand, there is more than enough evidence for indictment based on probable cause. During a trial he'll have an opportunity to defend himself and I'll be listening with an open mind. But I see no reason why he should not be put on trial for this crime.
Lol hahaha this is funny. It hasn't been solved. John is not in jail, he's a free man. Sounds like you want to convince everyone so much that your "theory" is correct instead of having healthy debate.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think we've been doing here? Having a friendly chat? No, we've been debating the case. If I weren't willing to debate I wouldn't have opened this blog to comments.
DeletePS. There is zero evidence to put John on trial. Therefore, it won't happen.
ReplyDeleteAnd many experts (actually involved in the case) disagree with you.
Almost all the law enforcement personnel who've expressed an opinion are convinced there was no intruder. While most suspect either Patsy or Burke, hardly any argue for an intruder.
DeleteThe unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of JBR is very significant.
ReplyDeleteIt is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by JBR at the time of her murder.
Your fact is that this is touch DNA by a worker at the pantie plant. How can this be?
If the same DNA is on her panties and then on *another* piece of clothing it wouldn't/couldn't be the worker at the pantie plant.
Or this is DNA from her contact outside of the home, the location of the DNA limits this theory to me.
Meaning if the panties came from a brand new package and never worn prior, this DNA is the same DNA found elsewhere on her clothing and the parents claim she was found in different clothes.
Where are the panties/clothes she was originally wearing? Not found in the house. How did the items get removed?
A- John took them out when he was allegedly missing for an hour?
B- Possible intruder took them when they left?
Remember the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer and sex offender, who committed the rape, murder, and dismemberment of his victims and then stored his victims in his fridge. This had not been noted or documented prior. But it happened ask the victim's families.
Take supermodel Gia Carangi noted as the first documented woman to die of aids in 1986, at the time no other woman had the virus, did the hospital turn her away because they didn't have a documented case prior--- stating we can't help this woman because we don't have it in the history books that a woman can have aids.
Same theory as yours, that this case is so unusual that only the father could have done this because it was never documented that a kidnapper would do the things that were done in this case.
The case is not solved and we are not the judge and jury.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Regards to JBR's doctor, he saw her on a regular basis, the doctor may not have examined her vaginal area, but he has never verbally advised to the police he felt that the child was sullen, withdrawn,fearful or any other symptom that he felt the need to report a sign of any type of abuse.
In 19 years since this tragedy, where is the data/reports that JonBenet's clinician or school administration reported any signs of abuse or concerns of her well being prior to her murder.
Re: signs of prior abuse.
At first, such touching is random, then it becomes more purposeful as children learn that it feels good. Self-pleasure or masturbation is the developmentally normal, though generally unheralded, outcome
Regarding the DNA, if you do a search on this blog you'll find many reasons for doubting the significance of the DNA evidence in this case. If you don't think much of my "opinion," then I'll refer you to James Kolar's book, where he discusses this evidence in some detail. And no, I never cliamed the touch DNA came from someone at a panty factory.
DeleteIf she were attacked by an intruder, he could have taken her panties from the house, yes. But he'd have had no reason to redress her in new ones.
The unique nature of the crime, assuming an intruder, is only part of the problem with any such theory. More significant is the fact that none of it makes sense -- even if we consider a totally insane, drug addled lunatic.
One of the world's top forensic pathologists, Dr. Cyril Wecht, concluded prior abuse based on the coroner's report. Without question. His conclusions were supported by most other pathologists who examined that report. While some other explanation is possible, the likelihood of prior abuse in itself would be a major factor in a probable cause indictment. The ONLY reason John was never indicted is the decision to rule him out as writer of the note. Once he is ruled back in, the whole case takes on a different meaning.
It isn't necessary to accept all Doc's inferences in order to arrive at JDI. I don't. Use his theory as a starting point and do some independent reading.
ReplyDeleteWecht is actually the weakest of the forensic pathologists who believe there was prior abuse - he was hired by a tabloid to voice an opinion. The group I'm referring to were shown tissue samples and slides from the autopsy, include some of the most respected child abuse and forensic pathologists in the country, were unanimous in their opinions, and were actually consulted by the Boulder DA. You can read their opinions by googling "An Angel Betrayed".
Much as I love Doc, I can't seem to turn him into a lawyer, much less a prosecutor. There isn't enough evidence to make a prosecutable case against JR, and there never will be. Hunter could have forced prosecution of the GJ charges and possibly gotten to Murder One that way, but did not, and the opportunity was lost.
To my mind, the only available resolution today is to get enough media attention to re-open an investigation, but because JR has successfully brought seven defamation suits in the past, even that remedy is highly unlikely.
CC
CC, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "prosecutable case." As I see it, there is more than enough probable cause to support an indictment, but most likely not enough evidence (yet) to actually convict, due to reasonable doubt. Is that how you see it? Or do you feel that there's no case for probable cause either?
DeleteI agree that my analysis of this case is probably not sufficient for a conviction. But as I see it, there's enough to trigger further investigation, which would hopefully produce enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt and support a conviction. And yes, I think the media could (and should) focus more attention on this case and demand further investigation.
I am really curious what Doc considers evidence ? Apparently in his mind his hypothesis that because no one would call 911 with a body in the house is "concrete evidence". If you want to get into what is lawful evidence and what is not then surely the leading candidate there is Patsy Ramsey and not only my opinion but also by most L.E. people involved in this case. Also using the inference that because John was ruled out ...While John was ruled out he was still being looked at just as hard as anyone else by L.E. the media and everyone else...feel free to read all the transcripts ....anyone with any iota of common sense would not agree that bc it might make sense that John was attempting to remove the body with the ramsom note it is hardly anything even close to "evidence"..and when you remove that from the equation then the whole theory falls apart. I personally do not think there was ever any plot to get rid of the body at all and there are some facts to support that such as redressing of the body ..why the hell would he do that if he were planning on dumping it as it would point back to someone in the house ? The note was written as nothing more than as a distraction and way to make L.E. look the other way by narcisstic person/people who thought they were smarter and would disguise his/her writing to throw off L.E. and the plan worked to a T and did exactly what it was meant to do. To think for 1 second that John "the criminal mastermind that doc claims he is" was planning to dispose of the body but lost his chance so instead decides he will be the 1 to "go and find the body makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Docs theory is not impossible but is nothing more than "logical inferences" at best, of which many other logical inferences could be drawn as well and be just as accurate with the facts and evidence that we have and be just as possible. J.B.
Delete"I am really curious what Doc considers evidence ? Apparently in his mind his hypothesis that because no one would call 911 with a body in the house is "concrete evidence"."
DeleteFirst of all, I distinguish between evidence and facts. Almost all the "evidence" in this case is inconclusive and thus not very helpful. Certain facts of the case, on the other hand, are very clear and not subject to dispute. My contention is that, in this case at least, if we concentrate on the facts rather then continually speculate about the evidence, the case can be solved.
My reasoning about the 911 call is not a fact, but a logical deduction. The FACT is that Patsy was the one who made the call, NOT John. Based on this fact, I've deduced that Patsy could not have written the note -- and since other facts tell us there could not have been an intruder, the only other person who could have written it is John.
Why do I feel so sure she could not have written it? Because it makes no sense to stage a kidnapping by writing a phony ransom note and then undermine your own staging by calling the police while the body of your victim is still in the house. If the Ramseys had been put on trial, that would have been the centerpiece of their defense, and on that basis alone they would probably have been exonerated. Of course, such a hypothesis raises many other questions. But if you read carefully in this blog, or my book, you should find most of these questions answered.
And yes, the fact that John was "ruled out" as writer of the note made a huge difference in the way the case was handled. No one ever questioned that decision, which means that everyone assumed John could not have written it. Which left ONLY Patsy -- a huge mistake that completely changed the direction of the case.
As far as the redressing is concerned, I think that must have been done after the police were called, during the period of an hour or so when, as det. Arndt reported, John went missing.
A prosecutable case is one in which there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegations. Trials are an expensive business, and this one would run in the millions. A prosecutor has an obligation to weigh that against the likelihood of conviction, along with the strength of the evidence and a clear-eyed assessment of the defense strategy and his ability to negate it. The odds here, today, are at best even money, and no prosecutor will take those odds.
ReplyDeleteCC
"If she were attacked by an intruder, he could have taken her panties from the house, yes. But he'd have had no reason to redress her in new ones."
ReplyDeleteNeither would John Ramsey. If he were staging a sexual assault, why would he not just leave her body pantyless? According to Gumshoe and CC, John studied and prepared very diligently by reading books like "Mindhunter". To further that point, let us examine this exchange:
9 MIKE KANE: This is really important.
10 That blanket, I mean, was it like there was care
11 taken? It was neatly folded?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I thought so, yeah.
13 MIKE KANE: It wasn't like it was just
14 barely thrown over her?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: No, it looked like somebody
16 was trying to make her comfortable, because it was
17 under her, completely under her head and brought
18 up around her, as if you would wrap a --
19 MIKE KANE: Papoose?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: -- a papoose.
Why would John say it looked like "care had been taken" or that "somebody was trying to make her comfortable" if he had read this excerpt from "Mindhunter":
"A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and 'comfortable,' or to try to shelter the body from the elements."
John, of course, would not want any additional suspicion so why would he stage the body in the manner he described or admit that "care had been taken"?
Hercule
If he was trying to frame Patsy.
DeleteCE
John was always quick to admit the obvious - his affair, responsibility for the broken window - as part of his deflection. Not a stupid man, by any means.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Doc about the panties. I believe there was no genuine sexual assault that night, merely the staged assault with the paintbrush in an attempt to destroy evidence of prior abuse, hence there was no need for redressing; he rolled her clothing down to do his staging, rolled it back up.
CC
I love you too, CC, but on this matter of the paintbrush I'm sorry I just don't get why you are so insistent on that point. It's minor point, but nevertheless. A paintbrush? Really?
DeleteBirefringent material from the paintbrush handle was found in her vagina, yes. But there was no evidence of the extreme damage such a device would have produced if actually used. And I see no reason why anyone, John or anyone else, would want to do that. The coroner's report references "digital penetration," which seems more likely by far. If the attacker had been handling the paintbrush, which was obviously the case, then the coating painted on the brush would very likely have been transferred to his fingers, and thus transferred to her vagina. Is there any other evidence the brush handle was used for this purpose? If so, please share.
As for the oversize panties, we've been over that ad nauseum and I'm reluctant to get into it again. You are free to believe what you like and I could certainly be wrong. But there has to be some logical reason for the oversize panties and I find it very difficult to assume she just put them on herself that night. If she WAS in fact changed by her assailant, then I see no reason for an intruder to do that. Nor would he have known where to look. But if John spilled some of his semen on her original panties, then he'd have to figure out a way to get rid of them without arousing suspicion, so it makes sense to me at least that he could have decided he needed to redress her -- so no one would go looking for the semen stained pair. This is consistent with the thorough wiping down of the body, since I can't think of any other reason for doing that than an attempt to remove semen.
Am I sure it happened that way? No. It's just that this for me is the most reasonable explanation.
You do know why: I prefer simple explanations because they're, well...simple. And so often correct.
DeleteI believe John began premeditating the murder eight days in advance, the day Patsy made those three calls to the pediatrician. I believe sexual gratification that night was the last thing on his mind. I think he was intent on covering up prior abuse and used the paintbrush in that attempt. Digital penetration leaves DNA, and the vaginal swabbing done at autopsy is a very thorough affair; had it occurred, John's DNA would have been found.
I think John was hyper-aware of DNA, learned all about it the previous year during the OJ trial, and wiped the body down in an abundance of caution.
Tomato, tomahto, Doc. We arrive in the same place, just by different means.
CC
The blanket doesn't seem to me particularly important, or puzzling. When he took her downstairs she could have wrapped herself in it - kids do. Or it may have been part of John's Plan A, and the blanket would have been used to obscure the body when he took it from the house the next day. What the blanket further proves, IMO, is the unlikelihood of an intruder.
ReplyDeleteCC
"John was always quick to admit the obvious. . ."
ReplyDeleteI find nothing obvious about the way JonBenet's body was found. John Ramsey could have easily left out his opinion concerning the care that was taken. He certainly would have staged the body in an UNCARING manner if he had planned this murder and made sure that it was seen in that condition.
As I see it, he discovered the body first at approximately 11:00am. The body was probably wrapped like a "papoose" when he initially found it. Naturally, John would have unwrapped her upon discovery - followed by several minutes of grieving. Once John regained some composure, he could have decided to keep quiet until he had more answers or figured out what he should do next. After all, John needed to go back upstairs and rejoin the group. He had already been away too long and his extended absence would surely look suspicious.
I deduce that he left the body either completely unwrapped or partially unwrapped before returning upstairs. When John was interrogated in 1997 and 1998 he mentioned nothing about the position of JonBenet's arms when he found her. It is my assertion that in 1998, John mistakenly described to Lou Smit and Michael Kane how he found the body upon his initial discovery at 11:00 instead of 1:00. It wasn't until their book, "Death of Innocence" in 2000 that JonBenet's arms were described as being over her head. John also stated to Stewart Long that he found JonBenet at 11:00. So it appears that John, on more than one occasion, confused the details of the two discoveries.
If JonBenet was wrapped like a papoose at 11:00am, her arms would have been tucked inside the blanket. At 1:00pm, JonBenet's arms were above her head. Rigor mortis had completely set in throughout her entire body. The limbs are the last to stiffen. The process of complete rigor mortis takes 8 to 12 hours depending on body and muscle mass.
In this case, a 6 year old girl weighing approximately 45 pounds could potentially reach the complete stage of rigor mortis in 8 hours or less. If JonBenet had been completely stiff while wrapped like a papoose, then there is no way that John could have positioned her arms above her head. If we allow that the arms didn't stiffen until noon or close to 1:00, subtract 8 hours - we have an interesting argument for JonBenet's time of death. It's possible that her murder occurred between 4 and 5am. Perhaps the pineapple was eaten as a quick breakfast instead of a late night snack? It would make sense to rise much sooner than 5:30 in order to shower, put on make-up, dress, finish packing, get your two children prepared, take a 30 minute drive to the airport before flying out at 7am.
Hercule
I had recently thought of that as well Hercule. After seeing something recently it sure seemed to me like they were very pressed for time/behind schedule although I did not know how long of a drive they had ...I figured well it must have been 10 mins or less but if it was 30 mins than I do not know how they possibly could have made it in time , that being said I am not sure but I do believe that had it been an early morning snack that you would have to tack on at least a couple of hours for digestion into the small intestine where the pineapple was found.
DeleteThere's some real sleuthing imbedded in your post, Hercule. I'm impressed. Your observations regarding the position of her arms and the possible relation with time of death are very interesting.
DeleteAs for the rest, it's extremely speculative. And again is based on some of Steve Thomas's ideas. In Steve's mind, John had nothing to do with the death of his daughter and eventually figured out that Patsy must have killed her. The theory that he first discovered the body at 11 AM and failed to report it strikes me as extremely unlikely. Though it's certainly possible he was down in that little room at the time, busy getting rid of evidence. The confusion between 11 and 1PM in certain reports is most likely due to a misunderstanding. John would certainly NOT have wanted anyone to know if he'd been down there that morning.
As for their being pressed for time, I don't see that as a problem. They could easily have cancelled their travel plans, claiming that someone was ill.
John will never be indicted in this crime unfortunately, even if I do believe JDI. The original handwriting experts wouldn't go back on their analysis results even with a very creative prosecution strategy. John is known as a litigious guy, and this alone would scare many. Even though it's not a DNA case IMO, the DNA would be substantial to a jury, and it would take more than just a phony window story to indict him.
ReplyDeleteJr could have easily washed the DNA tainted underwear in the washer I could have sworn I read there was clothes in the washer.
ReplyDeleteThe washer/dryer was on the same floor as JBR's bedroom, right near her bathroom. Patsy would have heard it running. My w/d is two floors away and I can hear it running when the house is quiet. Why would John risk running the washer? It was a lot easier to change her. He just grabbed something in her drawer, and it happened to be panties that originally were not purchased for her and were not her size. Its that simple. I can't think of a reason why an intruder would change her. For me, this is a big red flag for this being an inside job. If Patsy had redressed her, she would have picked undies that fit. -LE
DeleteCouldn't you make an argument that this "intruder" wanted to change her because his semen was on her panties? Maybe he was a convict and didn't want his DNA anywhere.
DeleteIf his semen got on her panties he could easily have taken them with him. No need to change her.
DeleteI cannot think of a reason why John Ramsey would redress her.
ReplyDeleteHercule
If some of his semen fell on the original panties, OR if John was afraid some microscopic traces might have done so, then, once Patsy had called 911, he would have needed to get rid of them. However, he might well have assumed that if she'd been found without panties, the police would have turned the place upside down looking for them. But if she were found with panties on, it wouldn't occur to anyone to look for the original pair, which he could have simply returned to the laundry hamper. Getting rid of a pair of panties isn't as easy as getting rid of some odd pieces of cord or tape, and that might have struck him as the logical solution.
DeleteWhile this notion might seem overly speculative, I can think of no other reason for her to have been redressed in those oversize panties. Patsy would certainly have had no reason to do that, nor would an intruder, who could simply have taken the pair with him.
If John had found JB at 11:00 am, why would he reposition her arms above her head? If he was just going to leave her there without notifying anyone, wouldn't he have left her as he found her?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I don't believe John "found" JB at 11:00. I believe he returned to the basement when Det. Arndt was there. This would have been during the time that she stated he had disappeared for 30-45 minutes. At this point, he knew the gig was up and he wasn't going to be taking the body out of the house. After he killed her the previous night, he may very well have wrapped her papoose style --- a sign that the killer still had feelings for JB and felt the need to make her "comfortable", even in death. When he returned to the basement the next morning, after the police were called and Arndt showed up, he knew he had to stage the body to make it look like a crazed intruder had killed her and that's when he positioned her arms over her head. I will go so far as to say that he may have actually made the garrote and put it on her at that time also. I've always felt that it would be difficult for him to strangle his daughter even after he delivered the blow to her head because she may not have been completely dead at that point. But, later, when he knew she was dead, it would be emotionally easier to put the garrote on her and tighten it around her neck which, as most of us know, was quite tight.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this theory --- and one that I might need Doc's input on --- is whether the marks on her neck from the garrote would still be possible if she was already dead. In other words, would she have sustained that bruising on her neck if the garrote was placed on her postmortem?
I've just always had a hard time believing he could have garroted her while she was alive or just hit over the head. I don't care how much he wanted to silence her ---- that would be a difficult thing to do. The blow to the head, on the other hand, would be quite easy, especially if done from behind which I think it was. But garroting involves looking at her face and touching her, which I think would be hard for him to do right after he delivered the blow to her head.
bb
According to the autopsy she would still have been alive, though comatose, when the "garrote" was applied, so your question is moot. And he probably garroted her from behind.
DeleteI think your theory sounds correct. However can I propose a refinement. What if John Ramsey's original intention was to frame Patsy all alone? So he uses her paintbrush, pad and pen ect and writes the RN in her handwriting style by using some of her letters ect as guides. This can explain why the experts were not definitive about who wrote the RN, but why it kind of looked like Patsy was the writer. Also in this way he doesn't need to dispose of the body (which could be difficult) and this also explains why he may have told her to call 911.
ReplyDeleteI mean his first marriage ended by him cheating and who's to say he wasn't having another affair. Combine this with the theory that Jonbenet was going to tell about his abuse of her. He may of also feared that she already suspected him of abusing Jonbenet. Therefore, he solves two problems in one.
Didn't he say to Linda Arndt when he brought up the body that it was an inside job?
There's no way John was so confident his plan would work that he framed Patsy. He needed Patsy's support, and for her to believe his window break-in lie. He definitely didn't say it was an inside job. He wouldn't be so dense to say this as it would make investigators even more suspicious.
DeleteJohn would have had nothing to gain by framing Patsy. The whole point of the ransom note was to stage a kidnapping and point to an intruder. Which is also why he broke the basement window. If he'd wanted to frame her there were many more convincing ways to do that.
DeleteImo he did not tell her to call 911, that's the story they agreed to tell, but it makes no sense. See the first three posts on this blog for details.
Also I don't think the note looks like Patsy's hand at all. I've offered several comparisons on this blog to demonstrate this. But people managed to convince themselves she wrote it, thanks to John being ruled out. Then the began to see what they expected to see rather than what was really there. John's writing looks a lot more like the note than Patsy's.
Thanks for your reply.
DeleteJohn did have things to gain from framing Patsy. He wanted out of a loveless marriage and wanted to cover up his abuse of his daughter(who sooner or later was going to tell on him).
Also the whole point of a RN may not have been to stage a kidnapping, because he could have done this by typing a RN or cutting out letters and sticking them together (like in the movies)ect. Why write it by hand if not to frame someone. Despite what you say about the handwriting experts ect, its clear that more people think the writing looks more like Pasty than anyone else.
I am not saying that he didn't have a back up plan as you say.
Also if the RN was just for staging a kidnapping why did it have to be so long and rambling and why include some personal that close people only know like the $118,000?
DeleteThe 6 handwriting professionals who examined Patsy's exemplars reported that it was "unlikely" she wrote it -- though they could not rule her out, granted.
DeleteThat doesn't sound to me as though though someone was trying to forge her hand. I've already gone over the reports offered by the "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffmann, and exposed their incompetence.
The note had to be long because it had so many functions: frighten Patsy into not calling the police; set up a scenario that gave John a full 24 hours to complete his staging and dump the body along with all the evidence; provide him with an excuse if he or his car had been spotted near the place where the body was dumped (he was only delivering the ransom); establish that the kidnappers wanted to deal with him, by repeatedly referring to him and his business; constructing a kidnapper with a personal grudge against him, someone probably connected with his business who had learned about his $118,000 bonus.
DocG, I appreciate what you are saying and it is possible. However I just think that it is very unlikely that any wife who found a RN, screamed and ran up to her daughter's room didn't consult with her husband (and he didn't hear her and come running) and ran back down stairs and called 911 on her own accord.
DeleteAnd I appreciate that JR needed a certain length in the RN to establish his staging but I definitely think he didn't need to risk himself with such a long and rambling RN unless he was trying to frame someone. Also he didn't need to construct a kidnapper with a personal grudge against him who knew about the $118,000 bonus. It is just too risky (it greatly limits the suspects) unless he is trying to frame someone.
Finally how do you account for what JR said to Arndt when he brought up Jonbenet about an inside job?
CE
It was easier to take the risk washing them so they blend in with all the clothes and where else would he have gotten rid of them? Why would he take the risk of holding on to evidence or having to leave the house to dispose of them. This could be why he chose the one packaged maybe because they were new and didnt resemble the ones he washed
ReplyDelete"Also I don't think the note looks like Patsy's hand at all."
ReplyDeleteMost of Patsy's handwriting samples do not look like the ransom note. She clearly attempted to disguise it just like anyone else in her position. For the most part, Patsy did a fine job. What she did not take into account, however, were the other factors that give us all distinct handwriting. Most notably: psycholinguistic factors, diction, and syntax. There were more than enough of Patsy's handwriting samples to make it virtually impossible for her to disguise her linguistic habits.
Hercule
And what habits were they? Can you list some of them?
DeleteI think the ransom note was left to explain why she was dead " because patsy called the police" jr probably didnt have a plan how to get the body out and thought it would make more sense that because pasty went against their demands thats why she was killed and left...JR I believe also wrote the note to point fingers else where . It was also written in third person
ReplyDeleteAfter all these years I can't believe I still see people saying this. So you think JR thought the cops were so stupid that they would believe that the "intruder" was still in the house when PR called the cops. I guess you haven't read Foreign Faction. Kolar asks the questions, "where was he hiding?" and why several sweeps of the basement didn't reveal the killer.
DeleteAnd the RN was not written in 3rd person.
"And what habits were they? Can you list some of them?"
ReplyDeleteI would be glad to. Patsy had the habit of inserting words in the ransom note that she herself memorized. On several occasions including high school, college, and the Miss West Virginia pageant, Patsy used her acting talents in these pageants under the category of "dramatic dialogue" by reciting lines from her favorite play, "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie". Some of the content included:
Attache case
A bowl of pineapple eaten with a spoon
And my favorite line from the play - "I can’t remember how you spell possession. . ."
Hercule
This is the best you can do? "Attache" appears in a play she acted in? And there's also a reference to the word "possession"? Do you suppose she mis-spelled it deliberately, to provide us with a clue as to her identity? And I don't recall the word "pineapple" appearing in the note.
DeleteAs we now know, "and hence" is an expression used by John, NOT Patsy. Percentage figures are routinely used by John. John has also used the phrase "proper burial." In my post titled "Johnisms" several other points of similarity are revealed. If you'd like you can attempt to compile a similar list for Patsy. What you've come up with so far is unconvincing, to say the least.
Yes Doc, we all know there was no mention of pineapple in the ransom note, but I thought it was worth mentioning since a bowl of pineapple containing a spoon just happened to be discovered in the Ramsey house the same day JonBenet's body was found.
ReplyDeleteA word like "attache" is not a word that common people use to describe a briefcase. On the other hand, if someone repeatedly rehearsed and continually performed that dialogue then I find it more than reasonable to assume this word could have become part of that person's vocabulary.
As for the "Johnisms" - I could very well pose almost the same question that you posed to me: Do you suppose he used percentages, "and hence", or proper burial deliberately to provide us a clue to his identity?
Hercule
No, I don't think his use of these terms was deliberate at all. I think he must have used them unconsciously, out of habit. And if you can find anything similar in Patsy's usage, that would bolster your argument, yes. Sorry, but "attache" doesn't count unless you can find an instance of her actual use of that term. Neither does "possession," unless you can show us that she misspelled it the same way as the note writer did. The fact that these words were used in a play she acted in has no bearing on the case whatsoever. As should be obvious. Shame on you, Hercule.
DeleteI - and my peers - use attache rather than briefcase, routinely say and write "hence", and speak quantitatively in terms of percentages. I think Doc's point is that these terms are more common to a businessman or other professional than to a housewife.
ReplyDeleteCC
As for the bowl of pineapple with spoon, how would one scoop juicy, drippy fresh pineapple from a plastic bag, or eat it for that matter, but with a spoon?
ReplyDeleteCC
Once again, CC and Doc have chosen to ignore key pieces of information only because it does not fit their theory.
ReplyDeleteHercule
What key piece of evidence do you have in mind, Hercule? The fact that the note writer used words that were used in a play Patsy acted in? Surely you can do better than that.
DeleteI'm not ignoring key pieces of information. I simply, and as usual, fail to see that they bolster your point.
ReplyDeleteCC
Hercule, can you answer my question asking why John would reposition dead JBR's hands over her head?
ReplyDeleteNeither does "possession," unless you can show us that she misspelled it the same way as the note writer did.
ReplyDeleteThe quote in the play is, "I can’t remember how you spell possession. . ."
You're telling me that this specific quote in junction with the scene describing two girls eating pineapple from a bowl with a spoon and the reference of an attache case could not have possibly surfaced from Patsy's subconscious as she wrote the ransom note, yet you find it highly likely that, by the same token, John unintentionally used words and percentages when HE wrote the note? You cannot have it both ways Doc. Shame on YOU.
Hercule
"The fact that the note writer used words that were used in a play Patsy acted in? Surely you can do better than that."
ReplyDeleteNot just words, Doc. Words that Patsy memorized and knew by heart. There are words in the ransom note that were used by the Ramseys, and not just John, that can easily be explained. If they repeatedly read the note and submitted numerous samples of words from the ransom note for comparison then it's understandable that those words became a part of their vocabulary AFTER the murder. On the other hand, there are also words in the note that were used by Patsy BEFORE the murder that require a better explanation.
Hercule
Once again, Herc, you choose to overlook the obvious and incontrovertible fact that Patsy had no need to write a three page ransom note. Rather, three brief lines would have sufficed. That note served only John's purposes.
ReplyDeleteCC
"If John had found JB at 11:00 am, why would he reposition her arms above her head? If he was just going to leave her there without notifying anyone, wouldn't he have left her as he found her?"
ReplyDeleteI would think that upon discovery that a frantic John Ramsey would have been quick to unwrap JonBenet to check vital signs followed by devastated grieving which I would assume had to have included embracing. I think it likely that he did not give much thought to the position of her body. Her arms could have been moved to check for a pulse and simply left in that position.
Hercule
Well, sure. 'Cause that's the first thing one does when checking for a pulse in the wrist or neck. . . position the hands and arms above the head.
DeleteMiss Jean Brodie and arm-positioned pulse checking; you're getting desperate. And even sillier, if that's possible.
CC
Ok, CC, essentially what you and Doc are conceding is that John slipped up and used some of his commonly known words or expressions despite the careful inclusion of Patsy's memorized dialogue, Patsy's notepad, the bowl of pineapple, the pull-ups hanging precariously out of the cupboard, Patsy's paintbrush, items used in the murder purchased with Patsy's credit card, fibers from Patsy's sweater located on the duct tape, garrote, paint tote, and cellar, and of course John's exclamation of the murder being an inside job tells me that you both are unknowingly subscribing to the theory that John attempted to frame Patsy.
ReplyDeleteHercule
And you are, once again, ignoring the prior sexual abuse, Patsy's utter lack of motive, John's clear one, and the obvious intentions of the ransom note.
ReplyDeleteI do not concede to any unwitting subscriptions to a frame up theory. I am, however, convinced that John used his wife and his wife's things to divert suspicion from himself, just as he attempted to blame any and everyone in the ransom note and interviews with police.
CC
John's clear motive? There is no evidence John Ramsey was responsible for any possible prior sexual abuse. If she was sexually abused prior to that night, then it could have been committed by a countless number of people including: Don Paugh, Fleet White, Burke, John Andrew, Mike Archuleta, Pasta Jay, Mervin Pugh, and the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteThere is no motive for a father who had no history of violence or sexual assault, nor did anyone who knew him have anything suspicious to say about him. John was a businessman preoccupied with his successful company. A man of his intelligence would have known how to control a 6 year old from telling on him without resorting to murder, if indeed he was the monster that you portray him to be.
John was raised in a military family and was taught discipline, respect, and values that he proved was effective. John Ramsey embodied the values that his parents bestowed upon him. Are we to believe that all of a sudden, a 53 year old John Ramsey, who never displayed any signs of mental instability, who had already lost a daughter to a car accident, murdered his youngest child?
Patsy, in contrast, was a portrait of mental instability which can be attributed to her upbringing. The impossible demands for perfection that was instilled by Nedra would have a lifelong effect on Patsy's decisions and actions. I am not convinced that Patsy DID NOT plan the murder. I believe that mentally she was in a state that indeed was capable of such evil. We do not want to accept this horrible idea, but it has happened, it continues to happen, and unfortunately will continue to happen by the hands of mentally diseased mothers.
Hercule
"it could have been committed by a countless number of people including: Don Paugh, Fleet White, Burke, John Andrew, Mike Archuleta, Pasta Jay, Mervin Pugh, and the list goes on."
DeleteAs I'm sure you'll agree, Hercule, there was no intruder. And the child was sexually molested THAT night. The combination of chronic sexual molestation in the past AND acute sexual molestation on the night of the murder strongly suggests that the acute molestation was perpetrated by the same person who perpetrated the chronic molestation. So, yes, it seems reasonable to rule out all the other people you mention, 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.
If there was no intruder, then the sexual molestation was, in all likelihood, perpetrated by John. Certainly not by Patsy, that's absurd.
There is absolutely no evidence of any mental instability on Patsy's part; that is entirely your construction.
ReplyDeleteJohn's sterling values incorporated cheating on his first wife, and being a rather ruthless businessman, even to putative friends.
Eleven medical experts found evidence of prior sexual abuse. Patsy called the pediatrician three times within an hour the evening of 12/17 . The child had suffered vaginal complaints for weeks or months; there was a pelvic exam in her future. Dr. Beuf was a mandated reporter, required by law to report the results of any pelvic that indicated abuse. JBR's tattling had no bearing - John was going to be caught, and soon.
John had survived the loss of one daughter, knew he could survive another.
CC
I thought I was one of the few who saw the paintbrush usage as needed to cause an injury, in case the medical group discovered her past abuse. I think the other signs of digital penetration may have been caused by J if he took her with him during that 3 hour visit to clean the plane. There wasn't any sign of a top she wore that day, even though her play pants were on the floor of the bathroom. I believe she wore that red top which Patsy said she wanted JB to wear to the party; and there may have been evidence on it. Speculation I know.
DeleteAlso Thomas saw he treated the death of JonBenet much differently than Beth's death. He was ready to move on within minutes of finding her. The case isn't hard forensic evidence, unless one counts the shirt fibers found in JB's Bloomies. (Forgive me, DocG, but I don't believe the ransom note would convict him.) But for me, it's the sheer consciousness of guilt. He’s the one to make sure there’s a getaway flight. He’s the one to obtain lawyers for everyone in the family who might reveal some information about what kind of man he is. He’s frantically doing last minute staging, a broken window, a suitcase beneath it, pretends that he doesn’t know how much she wet the bed, also pretends ignorance about the school authorities talking to him about JonBenét’s toileting accidents. I’m convinced the reason for burying her so quickly was to hopefully conceal the signs of prior abuse. IDK what about him doesn’t absolutely reek of consciousness of guilt.
Nope, I'm right there with you on the purpose of the paintbrush. Doc doesn't agree, but that's what I believe, too.
DeleteJohn and Patsy both told LE that John's trip to the airport was made solo, and JBR stayed home to play with Christmas gifts.
I think John's consciousness of guilt was profound as well.
CC
Certainly, J may have gone alone to the airport. I was surely speculating. But there was a basis to my wondering about it. The Ramseys give several different versions of whether JonBenét rode her bike on Christmas. J gives at least 2 different versions as to her bike riding on Christmas; Patsy gives 2 different versions regarding the bike riding. Neighbors with little girls stopped by to play with JonBenét but were told she wasn’t well and couldn’t play. They played with Burke instead. J denies that JonBenét was sick and claimed she was outside playing with all the gang. In the year 2000 interviews, Patsy had to be given the answer to the question of who JonBenét played with that day. And the neighbor Barnhill said he only saw Burke outside on his bike. Strange and it makes me suspicious.
DeleteThank you to both you and DocG for respectful and thoughtful replies.
How do we know 100% for certain Burke didn't show interest? You cannot say that for 100%! As a rape victim myself you really should be more careful, the person who attacked me showed no interest until it happened and yes at a very young age. Not saying it was Burke but your statement is your opinion not necessarily fact as what happened to me doesn't give me the green light to assume guilt to all males that walk the earth.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to you and your experience, we're not talking about rape here, but chronic digital penetration, garroting, a 2-1/2 page ransom note, and a fake kidnapping, all of which, taken together, seem beyond the ken of a 9-year old. Rape I could see, but not this.
ReplyDeleteCC
Pardon me - if you are saying a 6 year old or anyone at any age was sexually abused that is rape, even if the tools used are objects or otherwise. The forum is talking about 11 doctors agreed that the victim was sexually abused that is rape. Because DocG does not think it was Burke because Burke never showed interest in his sister or any other girl. He cannot say that we don't know 100%. I am merely saying we don't and we should be careful how things are worded.
ReplyDeleteNo, we don't know 100%. I never said we did. But if that's going to be John's defense when and if finally put on trial, then I'm sorry but that's going to sound VERY lame. "Oh gee I know this sounds bad, but my 9 year old kid is the one who was having sex with my 6 year old daughter, not me." Would YOU believe that line?
DeleteThere's a huge difference between reasonable doubt and any doubt at all. The remote possibility that Burke might have been responsible for those injuries would not be sufficient, imo, to get John off the hook.
The psychological profiles of these parents couldn’t’ be more different. If you really are determined to come to a conclusion as to which parent could be capable of committing this crime, then look at the cumulative behavior patterns of both before, during, and after this fiasco. There is plenty of material out there to study. I have no doubt that if you do that with an open mind, you will see how much more capable John Ramsey was of this crime than his wife.
ReplyDeleteThe big red flag for me is when he is being questioned by police, detectives and news media, John consistently and artfully dodges every single leading question that could potentially incriminate him by either cleverly placing Patsy in the position of “being the one who would take care of that, or know that” or guiding the answer into a different direction that leads away from himself. It’s like watching how Ted Bundy avoided direct responsibility for his actions in responding to Dr. Dobson's questions the day before he was executed in a videotaped interview. I have read several accounts from the detectives working on this case who said that talking to John Ramsey was akin to being mind -fu#@ed. The guy had the ability to manipulate people. Really well. And still does.
Hercules, just a quick observation. Patsy was willing to share with detectives the fact that she recited the Jean Brodie piece at the Ms. America pageant early on in police interviews. If she, in fact, went through the trouble of reenacting this skit as part of the murder scene of her child down to putting a bowl of pineapple on the table with a spoon in it, then surely this isn’t a sign of her subconscious coming through. No way. It would be much more. This would be a very deliberate and conscious effort to reenact the play. Why would she knowingly incriminate herself this way?
The topper for me, the thing that makes me see the piece of work that John Ramsey, the man with the mask really is, is the fact that he won’t shut the hell up about being the victim. How many more books is he going to write about how victimized he has been? Suzs
Yes, indeed, Suzs. Well said.
Delete